Jail

Jail (pronounced jeyl)

(1) A prison (in some places used generally of institutions of incarceration, in others tending to be applied to structures used for the detention of those awaiting trial or convicted of minor offenses).

(2) To take into or hold in lawful custody; to imprison; to incarcerate.

(3) In horse racing, the condition created by the requirement that a horse claimed in a claiming race not be run at another track for some period of time (usually 30 days).

(4) In dodgeball (and related games), the area where players who have been struck by the ball are confined.

(5) In computing, as used by certain variants of Linux, an implementation of a sandbox in which can be run an instance of another OS (operating system).

1225–1275: From the Middle English gayole, gaylle, gaille, gayle, gaile, gaiole, jaiole & jaile, from the Old North French gaiole, gayolle & gaole and the Old French jaiole (cage), from the Medieval Latin gabiola, from the Vulgar Latin gaviola, a variant of the Late Latin caveola (small cage, cell), diminutive of the Classical Latin cavea (cavity, coop, cage).  Regionalism in language was one more common (especially in eras when population movement (particularly in rural areas)) was more limited and the two spellings in the Old French variants reflect the independent linguistic evolutions, the spelling “gaole” indicative of a pronunciation in use until the seventeenth century.  It fully displaced the native Middle English quartern (prison, jail, cell), from the Old English cweartern (jail, prison) and partially displaced the native Middle English lok, from the Old English loc (enclosure, pen; jail, prison) (from which English gained “lock”) and the Middle English carcern, from the Old English carcern, from the Latin carcer (prison, jail).  In the Old English, there were many words meaning jail (regionalism also a factor here) including heaþor & heolstorloca (the latter meaning also “jail cell”), clūstorloc, dung (the latter meaning also also “dungeon”), hlinræced, nirwþ, nīedcleofa, hearmloca and nearu.  Jail & jailing are nouns & verbs; enjail, rejail, jailor (or jailer) & jailoress (or jaileress) are nouns, jailed & enjailed are verbs, jailless, jailish, jailable, nonjailable & jaillike are adjectives; the noun plural is jails.

In English, there are seeming anomalies which must baffle those learning the tongue and make them wonder how such a messy and sometimes inconsistent language became something of the world’s lingua franca.  Were it possible to have a committee edit the lexicon and eliminate the pointlessly troublesome, not only might something be done about homophones like “razed” (demolished) and “raised” (built) but the “gaol” (still used in parts of the English-speaking world to mean “jail”) would be retired and “jail” would become universal.  Jail as a noun dates from the thirteenth century and the persistence of “gaol” as the preferred form in the UK is attributed to the continued use in statutes and other official documents although there may also have been some reluctance to adopt “jail” because this had come to be regarded as an Americanism.

Some idiomatic and slang uses

Things to find on the web.

A “jailbreak” literally is “an escape from jail” but it was adopted in the ecosystem created by the computer industry to refer to modification to the hardware or firmware of an electronic device (mobile phones, tablets, gaming consoles etc) to allow the installation and use of software not officially supported or explicitly excluded by the manufacturer.  With the coming of AI (artificial intelligence) LLMs (large language models), jailbreak also became the term for a prompt which in some way bypasses any ethical restrictions imposed by the vendor.  In ice hockey, the jailbreak is a rule applied in some leagues under which a penalty is ended if the short-handed team scores; the goal scored in such circumstances is a jailbreak.  Any prisoner who emerges from jail (whether by a jailbreak or by more regular means) is said to be a “jailbird” and there are more than a dozen formal & informal terms for “jail” including slammer, hoosegow, jailhouse, big house, Uncle Sam’s hotel etc.

2022 Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat Redeye Widebody Jailbreak in Go Mango with satin black accents over black Laguna leather and Alcantara upholstery.  Because of the design of the front splitter, this model was supplied ex-factory with the one-piece yellow "underwire". 

Unexpectedly, during the 2010s, "underwire" entered the lexicon of automotive slang when it was used to describe a plastic part fitted temporarily as a protective piece.  The yellow plastic fitting (pictured above on the leading edge of the Challenger's splitter) was called a "splitter guard" which was unimaginative but the factory didn't envisage them as consumer items and the term was merely explanatory for the information of those preparing cars for sale.  Installed to prevent damage during shipping, it was part of dealer preparation instructions to remove the pieces but leaving them attached became a cult and some cars were even retro-fitted.  An element in that was the "end of an era" vibe and large number of the vehicles in Dodge's "Last Call" runs (of which there were many) were purchased as investments to be stored away for the day when V8s are no longer produced and collectors will be anxious to pay much for the way things used to be done.  How well that will work out remains to be seen but with the "Last Call" runs typically in batches of more than 3000, most of them weren't, in collectable terms, especially rare.  

2023 Dodge Challenger SRT Demon 170 Jailbreak in Panther Pink with satin black accents over black Alcantara and Laguna leather.

In the Demon 170 Jailbreak program, there were 40 exclusive paint colors and this is the sole example in Panther Pink.  The model was rated at 1025 HP and, with a different design of front splitter, was fitted with a two-piece underwire.  The first Supermarine Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes which in 1940 fought the Messerschmitt Bf 109s & Bf 110s in English skies during the Battle of Britain were rated at 1030 HP and while the power characteristics of car and aeroplane were very different, the numbers are indicative of 80-odd years of progress.  

The text: "TO BE REMOVED BY DEALER" was molded into some of the splitter guards but after the things picked up their cult following, dealers began checking first with customers.

Dealers cautioned against the trend, noting the pieces weren't specifically molded to ensure a perfect fit so dirt and moisture were prone to being trapped in the gaps and this could scuff the paint.  They were known also as "damage guards" and "scuff guards" but more imaginative souls dubbed them the "underwire" while serious students of such things suggested a better simile might have been "pastie", while acknowledging Chrysler followed the lead of the underwear manufacturers in having available both single and two-piece "underwires" although this was coincidental and deterministic, dictated by the splitter design.  Women have been known to remove from bras especially intrusive underwires (a "comfort thing") but whether on splitters they were kept or discarded might have seemed an improbable subject for dispute but with cars, men always find a reason to argue about something.  Although probably it would have preferred to discuss horsepower, superchargers and such, Chrysler noted the cultural phenomenon and, while obviously reluctant to upset either faction, did issue a statement to a magazine which had requested comment:

"The splitter guards on Dodge Charger and Challenger have taken on a life of their own. They originally made their debut in the 2015 model year to protect the performance fascias on SRT models during shipment from the manufacturing facility to the dealer, and, yes, they are designed to be removed before delivery.  But today, they have their own Facebook page, and many of our performance enthusiasts have active debates on whether to keep or remove them. Some owners say they are even selling them in the aftermarket.  Obviously, they weren't part of the original design, so we started with yellow guards and shifted to pink, but they are still so popular that we may shift them yet again to black. Wherever we land, this is another example of how our customers are passionate about every part of their Dodge muscle cars."

1970 Dodge Challenger hardtop 440 Six Pack in Panther Pink High Impact (code FM3) over black vinyl (code X9) with houndstooth cloth inserts (code 5).  On the Challenger, Panther Pink (FM3) was offered only in the spring of 1970.

By the twenty-first century, long done were the days in the early 1950s when Chrysler Corporation was run by men with an ethos that cars should be designed so “a gentleman can drive one while wearing his hat” and if that dictated stodgy looking vehicles, so be it.  That changed with the release of the 1955 range and from then on, for better or worse it was all about style but by the early 2000s, the company reached the same conclusion as GM (General Motors) and Ford: automotive aesthetics attained their peak in the late 1960s and what’s been done since hasn’t been as good.  Accordingly, for the release of the third generation (although many don’t count the second because it was a badge-engineered Japanese import) Challenger (2008-2023), Dodge produced a most accomplished re-imagining of the first (1970-1974), a vehicle which was a costly commercial failure although that was due more to external conditions than the thing’s dynamic qualities.  Between 2008-2023 the Challenger was produced in a bewildering number of variants, many with some of the longer multi-part model names and it’s doubtful if any but the most devoted fan-boys could either recall or deconstruct the configuration of them all.

Designer colors and more: Publicity shot for the Porsche Sonderwunsch programme; note the rubber laid down on the concrete.

On intriguing piece of nomenclature was “Jailbreak” which Chrysler’s marketing types picked up from the use in various sub-cultures to circumvent manufacturers’ restrictions on devices like smartphones although this was a case of Dodge “hacking itself” (using “hack” loosely) because the Jailbreak “customization program” was explained as a way in which buyers could bypass the previous limitations on what could be ordered with which, enabling them to “mix ’n’ match”.  The concept is of course familiar in the fiscally rarefied air breathed in placed like the Porsche Sonderwunsch (special request) office but it wasn’t new to Detroit, Cadillac in the happy days of the 1960s, despite in a typical year offering literally over a hundred combinations of interior & exterior combinations also offered buyers the chance to make “special requests”.  There's no record of Cadillac attempting to act as the "good taste police" and presumably if some buyer did ask for an aesthetically dubious combination, duly it was built although the factory did refuse to use light colors on dashboard pads or package shelves because of the risk of reflections in the glass.  The deviations from the production line rationalization which was designed for optimal efficiency of course came at a cost and took additional time but everything was priced at a level to ensure the profitability to which Cadillac had become accustomed.

The jailbreak programme was also available on the Charger.

For Dodge the Jailbreak programme was run on similar lines and while not quite an “anything goes” approach, it was more permissive and for the Challenger’s final two seasons (2022-2023), buyers of SRT Hellcat or SRT Hellcat Redeye models could “fine-tune” things like paint, interior trim, wheels, stripes, badges and other items in a way the factory had not previously permitted.  As icing on the jailbreak cake, the SRT Hellcat Redeye Jailbreak cars received a more potent engine, rated at 807 horsepower, a number which would have seemed a fantasy in the era of the second generation Challenger when the most powerful engine offered probably generated (in comparable terms) around 435-445 HP.

The Royal Navy's Battle Cruisers opening fire in the opening stages of the Battle of Jutland, 31 May 1916, (1919), oil on canvas by Lionel Wyllie (1851–1931).

Fought in 1916 between the UK’s Royal Navy and the Navy of the German Empire (the so-called “Second Reich”), the battle of Jutland in 1916 was the closest the world got to the clash on the high seas of fleets of dreadnoughts, an event the navalists and theorists had for a generation be expecting or hankering.  For a variety of reasons it proved anti-climatic (though at a cost of over 8,000 lives) but while a tactical victory for the Germans (in terms of ships sunk or damaged and causalities), strategically the British succeeded in ensuring for the rest of of World War I (1914-1918) their opponents were confined to a pocket of the Baltic, denied access to the North Sea and thus the Atlantic; this enabled the Royal Navy’s blockade of Germany to be maintained.  Summing up, the New York Times concluded: “The prisoner gave his jailor a bloody nose but at the end of the day was back behind bars in his jail cell.”  Barely noticed except in the halls of the admiralties (where it made a great impression) was the vulnerability of the battlecruiser, a class of ship of which much had been expected although at Jutland they were used in a way the theorists who suggested the configuration had neither intended nor recommended.

The concept of a “black jail” is ancient; it’s a jail where people can, for whatever reason, be imprisoned by some agency of state, often in secret and with no recourse to legal remedies or other procedures.  It can be thought of as a particular example of “being disappeared” and the use of such institutions was the origin of the judicial writ of habeas corpus (from the Latin habeas corpus ad subjiciendum (“You (shall) have the body to be subjected to (examination)”) which in the common law tradition can be translated as “bring them before the court so the lawfulness of their detention may be assessed”.  First seen in England in the twelfth century, the writ to this day remains (in Western nations) one of the core protections afforded to citizens.  In 2002, shortly after it invaded the place as an administrative convenience, the US established such a jail in Afghanistan and apparently it was controlled by the Department of Defence’s (now again the Department of War) intelligence office and staff from Army Special Operations although other agencies were known to have provided “specialized services”.  Existing always on a “neither confirm nor deny” basis, the US Black Jail was an example of the way things get done when it’s required to process irregular combatants in extreme conditions.

It illustrated too the use of language: Among nations party to the relevant conventions, whereas prisoners of war (ie those combatants who meet the definition) are held in “PoW (prisoner of war) Camps” and never lose their military status; others can end up in “jails”.  Of course, it can’t be certain organs of the state in some Western countries aren’t still in secret maintaining “black jails”, possibly without the knowledge of elected governments.  The system of concentration camps created during the Third Reich (1933-1945) began as a way for the state to regularize what had unexpectedly “sprung-up” as a number of “black jails” created informally by party members to imprison their many opponents and enemies.  It was a classic example of the essentially criminal, gangster nature of the Nazi state and while the authorities didn’t object to most of those in the black jails being incarcerated, they wanted it done on an organized, professional basis.  Structurally, the operation of the concentration camps was also a microcosm of the whole Nazi project: Those who could send victims to the camps or have them released had no say of what happened within the camps while those running the places could order neither an individual’s jailing nor their release.

Jail juice comes pre-packaged.

In 2011, the Salt Lake Tribune reported a case of botulism in jail juice fermented in a cell in the Utah State Prison, the source traced to a “bad” potato.  The prisoner responsible for the brew (containing powdered juice mix and several types of fresh and canned fruit) told medical staff he added the “two-week old baked potato” because he thought it would “accelerate fermentation”.

Jail juice is prison slang (originally a US form but now widely used, even beyond the English-speaking world) for the various forms of improvised alcoholic beverages (typically fermented) brewed in correctional facilities.  There are other slang forms of the concoctions including “prison hooch”, “swish”, “prison wine”, “toilet wine” & “loaf brew” (some forms of white bread said to be a good additive in the process once crumbed) but most descriptive was “pruno”.  Dating from the late 1930s, the name was derived from the use of prunes, then in ample supply in many US prison kitchens.  The term pruno became generic, later applied regardless of the fruit used in the fermentation.  A “phone jail” is a place (usually in schools) in which the mobile phones of students are locked away for certain durations (which can be short or the whole school day).  “Jailbait” describes someone (almost always female) who is (1) obviously sexually mature yet (2) was (or appeared to be) under the legal age of consent and was (3) considered attractive or seductive.  The term references the legal concept of statutory rape under which an adult engaging in consensual sexual relations with someone under whatever is the relevant age in that jurisdiction can convicted and jailed.

Lindsay Lohan “Mug Shots” coffee mugs.

In November, 2011, in a hearing held at Los Angeles Superior Court Airport branch, Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to 30 days in jail at Lynwood's Century Regional Detention Facility.  The penalty was imposed after she admitted violating the terms of her probation from a 2007 DUI (driving under the influence) case; she had failed to attend community service appointments at a Los Angeles women's shelter.  However, just 4½ hours into the 30-day sentence, she was handed a “get out of jail free card”, released because of chronic over-crowding in California's jail system.  Sometimes, you get lucky.

At least one “Get out of jail free” card has been included in every version of the Monopoly board game since first it was released in 1935 although most editions have featured two, one from the “Chance” stack, the other from “Community Chest”.  What possession of the card confers is the ability (as the name implies) for a player to move on from the jail square without having to throw three doubles (of the dice) in a role or pay a fine although, in certain circumstances, it can be adventitious for a player not to use the card and “remain in jail”, something which sometimes happens IRL (in real life).  From the board game comes the idiomatic use of “a get-out-of-jail-free card” to refer to “a certain privilege or advantage providing relief from an undesirable situation or immunity from punishment or consequences”.  Historically, states have sometimes offered similar devices although they’ve never been available for those accused of serious offences.

Macy’s department store, Herald Square, Manhattan, New York City.

In George Orwell’s (1903-1950) novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), the Ministry of Love was responsible for the dispensation of fear and suffering and its most dreaded institution was Room 101, located in the basement of their headquarters.  Room 101 was a torture chamber in which the ruling party subjected prisoners to their individual worst nightmares and greatest fears, the purpose being finally to destroy any residual resistance.  Less threatening though equally specific is Room 140 at Macy’s department store Herald Square flagship store in Manhattan, New York City.  One of a few private “jails” in New York, those accused of shoplifting are escorted by security guards to Room 140’s cells where they can be held for hours, the stories told suggesting the detained are asked to sign an admission of guilt and pay sometimes hundreds of dollars in “fines”, sometimes without any conclusive proof of an offence.  That may sound medieval but a majority of US states do have on the books legislation which offer retailers often a wide latitude forcefully to hold and subsequently fine suspects, even if, technically, nothing has been stolen or criminal charges have been dropped.  The US industry’s problem is real because as much as US$15 billion is each year lost to shoplifting and the purpose of the laws is both a tacit admission the state would prefer not to be involved in “low dollar value” matters and a way to enable stores to recoup some losses.  Under New York's long-standing law, retailers may collect a penalty of five times the cost of the stolen merchandise (up to US$500 per item), plus as much as US$1,500 if the “recovered” merchandise isn't in a condition to be sold.  A conviction is not a pre-condition to bring a civil claim.

If ever Macy's comes under new management, hopefully the new operators will have a better sense of the sardonic and rename "Room 140" to "Room 101".

In operation, application has been controversial with claims retailers abuse the law by engaging in “racial profiling”, targeting minorities and holding customers for hours as a form of duress; Macy’s has in the past paid a settlement to the state to settle a number of claims.  Macy’s maintain their corporate policies prohibit coercion when recovering fines, recently issuing a statement: “Our policy of exercising our right to pursue a civil recovery payment is consistent with common practice in the retail industry and within the parameters of the law.”  Many retailers detain suspected shoplifters although few have their own jail cells and Macy’s is unusual in requesting the on-the-spot payment of fines.

Cage

Cage (pronounced keyj)

(1) A boxlike enclosure having wires, bars, or the like, for confining and displaying birds or animals or as a protective barrier for objects or people in vulnerable positions (used in specific instances as battery cage, bird-cage, birdcage, Faraday cage, tiger cage, fish cage etc).

(2) Anything that confines or imprisons; prison and figuratively, something which hinders physical or creative freedom (often as “caged-in”).

(3) The car or enclosed platform of an elevator.

(4) In underground mining, (1) an enclosed platform for raising and lowering people and cars in a mine shaft & (2) the drum on which cable is wound in a hoisting whim.

(5) A general descriptor for any skeleton-like framework.

(6) In baseball (1) a movable backstop for use mainly in batting practice & (2) the catcher's wire mask.

(7) In ice hockey and field hockey, a frame with a net attached to it, forming the goal.

(8) In basketball, the basket (mostly archaic).

(9) In various sports which involve putting a ball or other object into or through a receptacle (net, hole), to score a goal or something equivalent.

(10) In fashion, a loose, sheer or lacy overdress worn with a slip or a close-fitting dress.

(11) In ordnance, a steel framework for supporting guns.

(12) In engineering (1) various forms of retainers, (2) a skeleton ring device which ensures the correct space is maintained between the individual rollers or balls in a rolling bearing & (3) the wirework strainers used to remove solid obstacles in the fluids passing through pumps and pipes

(13) To put (something or someone) into some form of confinement (which need not literally be in a cage).

(14) In underwear design, as cage bra, a design which uses exposed straps as a feature.

(15) In computer hardware, as card cage, the area of a system board where slots are provided for plug-in cards (expansion boards).

(16) In anatomy (including in zoology) as rib-cage, the arrangement of the ribs as a protective enclosure for vital organs.

(17) In athletics, the area from which competitors throw a discus or hammer.

(18) In graph theory, a regular graph that has as few vertices as possible for its girth.

(19) In killer Sudoku puzzles, an irregularly-shaped group of cells that must contain a set of unique digits adding up to a certain total, in addition to the usual constraints of Sudoku.

(20) In aviation, to immobilize an artificial horizon.

1175–1225: From the Middle English cage (and the earlier forms kage & gage), from the Old French cage (prison; retreat, hideout), from the Latin cavea (hollow place, enclosure for animals, coop, hive, stall, dungeon, spectators' seats in a theatre), the construct being cav(us) (hollow) + -ea, the feminine of -eus (the adjectival suffix); a doublet of cadge and related to jail.  The Latin cavea was the source also of the Italian gabbia (basket for fowls, coop).  The noun (box-like receptacle or enclosure, with open spaces, made of wires, reeds etc) typically described the barred-boxes used for confining domesticated birds or wild beasts was the first form and form circa 1300 was used in English to describe "a cage for prisoners, jail, prison, a cell".  The noun bird-cage (also birdcage) was in the late fifteenth century formed to describe a "portable enclosure for birds", as distinct from the static cages which came to be called aviaries.  The idiomatic use as “gilded cage” refers to a place (and, by extension, a situation) which is superficially attractive but nevertheless restrictive (a luxurious trap) and appears to have been coined by the writers of the popular song A Bird in a Gilded Cage (1900).  To “rattle someone's cage” is to upset or anger them, based on the reaction from imprisoned creatures (human & animal) to the noise made by shaking their cages.  The verb (to confine in a cage, to shut up or confine) dates from the 1570s and was derived from the noun.  The synonyms for the verb include crate, enclosure, jail, pen, coop up, corral, fold, mew, pinfold, pound, confine, enclose, envelop, hem, immure, impound, imprison, incarcerate, restrain & close-in.  Cage is a noun, verb and (occasional) adjective, caged & caging are verbs (used with object) and constructions include cage-less, cage-like, re-cage; the noun plural is cages.

Wholly unrelated to cage was the adjective cagey (the frequently used derived terms being cagily & caginess), a US colloquial form meaning “evasive, reticent”, said to date from 1896 (although there had in late sixteenth century English been an earlier cagey which was a synonym of sportive (from sport and meaning “frolicsome”)).  The origin of the US creation (the sense of which has expanded to “wary, careful, shrewd; uncommunicative, unwilling or hesitant to give information”) is unknown and despite the late nineteenth century use having been attested, adoption must have been sufficiently hesitant not to tempt lexicographers on either side of the Atlantic because cagey appears in neither the 1928 Webster’s Dictionary nor the 1933 supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).  John Cage (1912–1992) was a US avant-garde composer who, inter alia, was one of the pioneers in the use of electronic equipment to create music.  He’s also noted for the 1952 work 4′33″ which is often thought a period of literal silence for a duration of that length but is actually designed to be enjoyed as the experience of whatever sounds emerge from the environment (the space, the non-performing musicians and the audience).  It was an interesting idea which explored both the definitional nature of silence and paralleled twentieth century exercises in pop-art in prompting discussions about just what could be called "music".

The related forms jail and gaol are of interest.  Jail as a noun dates from circa 1300 (although it had by then been used as a surname for at least a hundred years) and meant "a prison; a birdcage".  It was from the Middle English jaile, from the Old French jaiole (a cage; a prison), from the Medieval Latin gabiola (a cage (and the source also of the Spanish gayola and the Italian gabbiula)), from the Late Latin caveola, a diminutive of the Latin cavea.  The spellings gaile & gaiole were actually more frequent forms in Middle English, these from the Old French gaiole (a cage; a prison), a variant spelling thought prevalent in the Old North French, which would have been the language most familiar to Norman scribes, hence the eventual emergence of gaol which emerged under that influence.  It’s long been pronounced jail and the persistence of gaol as the preferred form in the UK is attributed to the continued use in statutes and other official documents although there may also have been some reluctance to adopt “jail” because this had come to be regarded as an Americanism.

The Mortsafe

A mortsafe.

The construct was mort + safe.  Mort was from the Middle English mort, from the Old French mort (death).  Safe was from the Middle English sauf, safe, saf & saaf, from the Old French sauf, saulf & salf (safe), from the Latin salvus (whole, safe), from the Proto-Italic salwos, from the primitive Indo-European solh- (whole, every); it displaced the native Old English sicor (secure, sure).  In the case of “mortsafe”, the “mort” element was used in the sense of “corpse; body of the dead”).  The “safe” element can be read either as a noun (an enclosed structure in which material can be secure from theft or other interference) or verb (to make something safe).  For its specific purpose, a mortsafe wholly was analogous with other constructions (meatsafe, monesafe etc).

Popular in the UK in the eighteenth & nineteenth century, mortsafes were structures placed over a grave to prevent resurrectionists (now better remembered as “body-snatchers” or “grave-robbers”) from exhuming the corpse or stealing any valuables which may have been interred with the dead.  The companion term was morthouse which was a secure facility in which bodies were kept for a period prior to burial (obviating the need for a mortsafe).  The noun “resurrectionist” was later re-purposed to describe (1) a believer in a future bodily resurrection, (2) one who revives (more often “attempts to revive”) old practices or ideas (3) one who (for profit or as a hobby) restores or reconditions objects) and (4) in the humor of the turf, a racehorse that mid-course recovers its speed or stamina.  Fashioned usually of wrought iron (sometimes in combination with concrete slabs), those which were hired or leased for only a few weeks usually were secured by the design including pile-like extensions driven into the ground while those permanently installed were “concreted in”.  The tradition of burying the dead with valuables has a long history (the best known example being the tombs of the pharaohs (supreme rulers) of Ancient Egypt) and although in the eighteenth century UK any treasure likely to end up in coffins was by comparison modest, items like wedding rings or other jewellery sometimes were included.  The body-snatcher trade existed because there was demand from medical schools which needed a fair number of fresh cadavers for anatomical study and student instruction.

Demand: Anatomische les van dr. Willem Röell (1728), (Anatomy lesson by Dr Willem Röell (1700-1775)), oil on canvas by Cornelis Troost (1697-1750), Amsterdam Museum.

The Enlightenment (which appears in history texts also as the “Age of Reason”) was the period Europe which created the a framework for modernity.  Beginning late in the seventeenth century, it was an intellectual and cultural movement which sought to apply reason and scientific rigor to explore or explain.  Throughout the eighteenth century the Enlightenment spread throughout Western Europe, the Americas and much of the territory of European empires, brining ideas of individual liberty, religious tolerance and the concept of systematic scientific investigation.  Superstitions didn’t vanish as the Enlightenment spread truth, but was increasingly marginalized to matters where proof or disproof were not possible.  One of the benefits of the Enlightenment was the expansion of medical education which was good (at least sometimes) but it also created a demand for fresh corpses which could be used for dissection, the quite reasonable rationale being it was preferable for students to practice on the dead rather than the living; in the pre-refrigeration-age, demand was high and, during the instructional terms of medical schools, often constant.  The Enlightenment didn’t change the laws of supply and demand and entrepreneurial commerce was there to provide supply, the resurrectionists undertaking their ghoulish work usually under cover of darkness when cemeteries tended to be deserted.

Supply: Resurrectionists at work (1887), illustration by Hablot Knight Browne (1815–1882) whose work usually was credited to his pen-name "Phiz".

Ghoul was from the French goule, from the Persian غول (ġul), from the Arabic غُول (ḡūl) and in mythology, ghouls were demons from the underworld who at night visited the Earth to feast on the dead.  It was an obvious term to apply to grave-robbers although for generations their interests tended to be in the whatever valuables might be found and it was only later “specialists” came to be known as “body-snatchers”, a profession created by corpses becoming commodities.  By extension, in the modern era, those with a disturbing or obsessive interest in stuff to do with the death or dying came to be labelled “ghouls” and their proclivities “ghoulish”.  Mortsafes were a usually effective deterrent to body-snatching and some have survived although they were in the eighteenth century more common than those few would suggest.  While wealthy families paid for permanent structures, many were leased from cemeteries or ironmongers for only the short time required before the processes of decay and putrefaction rendered a corpse no longer a tradeable commodity.  Sturdy and durable, ex-lease mortsafes were recycled for the next burial.  Despite the Enlightenment, rumors did still spread the mortsafes were there to prevent keep the undead from rising to again walk the earth but genuinely they were there to keep others out, not the deceased in.  Still, the idea has potential and were crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) to die (God forbid), some might be tempted to install a mortsafe atop her grave so she can’t arise…just to be sure.

Turreted watchtower (1827), Dalkeith Cemetery, near Edinburgh (photograph by Kim Traynor).

In England, the Murder Act (1751) had mandated the bodies of executed criminals could be deemed property of the state and a supply for the training of surgeons thus existed but demand proved greater.  The solution of the authorities was usually to “turn a blind eye” to activities of the grave-diggers (as long as they restricted the trade to snatching the deceased working class) although in Scotland which (as it does now) operated a separate legal system, there was much public disquiet because, north of the border, there was great reverence for the dead and among the population a widespread belief in resurrection (in the sacred sense), the precepts of which included that the dead could not rise from a bodily incomplete state.  Body snatchers were thus thought desecrationists and vigilantes formed into parties to protect graveyards and there were even fatalities as body-snatchers were attacked.  In Scotland, so seriously was the matter taken there were graveyards with permanent stone structures (“watch-towers” or “watch-houses”) to house the “watchers”, volunteer organizations (which, depending on the size of the town could be over a thousand-strong) with rosters so shifts were available to watch over the site.  Reputedly, especially entrepreneurial suppliers of demand solved the problem of interference by the authorities or “concerned citizens” by “cutting out the middle man” (as it were), murdering tramps, vagrants and such to be supplied to surgeons trusted not to ask too many questions.  The legislative response in the UK was the Anatomy Act (1832, known as the “Warburton Anatomy Act”) which made lawful the donation of dead bodies to those “authorized parties” (surgeons, researchers, medical lecturers and students) licence to dissect; this was the codified origin of the notion of “donating one’s body to science”, the modern fork of which is the “organ donation” system.  With the passage of the 1832 act, supply soon exceed demand with it becoming (in some circles) fashionable to include in one’s will a clause “donate my body to science” while some families, in the spirit of the Enlightenment anxious to assist the progress of medical science made the gesture while others wished just to avoid the expense of a funeral.

The cage bra

The single strap cage bra.

A cage bra is built with a harness-like structure which (vaguely) resembles a cage, encapsulating the breasts using one or more straps.  Few actually use those straps predominately to enhance support and the effect tends to be purely aesthetic, some cage bras with minimal (or even absent) cup coverage and a thin band or multi-strap back.  Designed to be at least partially seen and admired, cage bras can be worn under sheer fabrics, with clothes cut to reveal the construction or even (in elaborated form and often on red carpets) worn alone, the effect borrowed from engineering or architecture where components once concealed (air conditioning ducting, plumbing, electrical conduits etc) deliberately are exposed.  It’s thus a complete reversal of the old rule in which the sight of a bra strap was a fashion-fail.  The idea has been extended to sports bras which anyway have long often used additional, thick straps to enhance support and minimize movement, especially those induced by lateral forces not usually encountered in everyday life.  

Lindsay Lohan in harness cage bra with sheer cups and matching knickers.

The cage bra's salient features include: (1) the straps which are a cage’s most distinctive feature.  The most simple include only a single additional strap across the centre while others have a pair, usually defining the upper pole of each cup.  Beyond that, multiple straps can be used, both at the front and back, some of which may have some functional purpose or be merely decorative.  Single strap cage bras are often worn to add distinctiveness to camisoles while those with multiple straps are referred to as the harness style and have the additional benefit (or drawback depending on one’s view) of offering more frontal coverage, the straps sometimes a framework for lace or other detailing; this is a popular approach taken with cage bralettes.

Front and back views of modestly-styled criss-cross cage bras.

(2) Many cage bras are constructed around a traditional back band, especially those which need to provide lift & support while those (usually with smaller cups) have a thin band (merely for location) or none at all.  In this acknowledgement of the laws of physics, they’re like any other bra.  Those with a conventional back band (both bras and bralettes) are often constructed as the V-shaped cage, the symmetrical straps well suited to v-necks or even square necks and paired with cardigans or more structured jackets or blazers, they’re currently the segment's best-sellers.  A more dramatic look is the criss-cross cage but fashionistas caution this works well only in minimal surroundings so accessories should be limited to earrings or stuff worn on the wrist or beyond.

Example of the cage motif applied to a conventional bra, suitable for larger sizes.

(3) As a general principle, the cage bras manufactured tend to be those with cup sizes in the smaller range, supply reflecting the anticipated demand curve.  However, even the nominal size (A, B, C etc) of the cups of cage bras can be misleading because they almost always have less coverage than all but the most minimal of those used by conventional bras and should be compared with a demi cup or the three-quarter style of plunge bras.  That said, there are strappy designs which include molded cups with underwires suitable for larger sizes but it’s a niche market and the range is limited, the scope for flourishes being limited by the need to preserve functionality, a demand which, all else being equal, tends to increase with as mass grows.  Unlike the structural underwire, many of the "underwireish" parts of a cage bra purely are decorative.

Examples of designs used to fabricate harness cage bras which can be worn under or over clothing or, in some cases, to augment a more conventional bra or bralette.

(4) Despite the specialized nature of cage bras, some are multi-purpose and include padding with all the usual advantages in concealment and additional volume, permitting use as an everyday garment rather than one used exclusively for display.  Some include removable padding so the bra can be transformed into a see-through design.

Choker cage bra.

(5) The methods of closure type vary.  The most uncompromising designs actually have no closure mechanism; the idea being one would detract from the purity of the lines so this requires the wearer to pull it over the head; to be fashionable, sometimes there's a price to be paid.  Other types use both front and back closures, usually with conventional hook & clasp fittings (so standard-sized extenders can sometimes be used) but there are some which borrow overtly from the traditions of BDSM underwear (the origin of the cage bra motif) and use extravagantly obvious buckles and even the occasional key-lock.  The BDSM look is most obviously executed in the choker cage bra which includes a neck choker as a focal point to accentuate the neck and torso, something best suited to a long, slender neck.  Buyers are are advised to move around when trying these on because the origins of the BDSM motif lay in devices used in Medieval torture routines so a comfortable fit is important.

Cage bralette.

(6) Almost all cage bras continue to use the same materials as conventional garments, the fabrics of choice being nylon or spandex, their elasticity permitting some adjustments to accommodate variations in shape or location.  Sometimes augmented with lace, fabric, mesh or metal rings, straps can also be made from leather.

Singer Ricki-Lee Coulter (b 1985, left) in a (sort of) dress with an illusion panel under the strappings which may be compared with an illusion bra (right).

(7) The cage and the illusion. The illusion industry variously exchanges and borrows motifs.  Used by fashion designers, the illusion panel is a visual trick which to some extent mimics the appearance of bare skin.  It’s done with flesh-colored fabric, cut to conform to the shape of wearer and the best known products are called illusion dresses although the concept can appear on other styles of garment.  Done well, the trick works, sometimes even close-up but it’s ideal for photo opportunities.  Because cage bras use a structure which can recall the struts used in airframes or the futtocks which are part of nautical architecture, they're an ideal framework for illusion panels.

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.