Telegram

Telegram (pronounced tel-i-gram)

(1) A message or communication sent by telegraph; a telegraphic dispatch.

(2) To send a telegram across a telegraphic service.

(3) As Telegram, a freeware, cross-platform, instant messaging (IM) service, launched in 2013 and noted for its secure end-to-end encryption (including an innovative approach to message self-destruction).

1852: A creation of American English, the construct being tele- + -gram.  Tele- was from the Ancient Greek τῆλε (têle) (at a distance, far off, far away, far from).  Gram was from the Ancient Greek suffix -γραμμα (-gramma), from γράμμα (grámma) (that which is drawn; a picture, a drawing; that which is written, a character, an alphabet letter, written letter, piece of writing), from γράφω (gráphō) (to scratch, to scrape, to graze), from stem of graphein (to draw or write).  Although some words with the element are Greek compounds, others are modern formations.  The alternative -gramme was a French form which is now extinct in English except as an affectation or in commerce.  As a noun word-forming element it was used in the sense of “that which is written or marked, drawn or otherwise recorded”.  Telegram is a noun or verb (used with or without object), telegrammed & telegramming are verbs and telegrammatic & telegrammic are adjectives; the noun plural is telegrams.  The alternative spelling in English was the rare and now extinct telegramme.  As a descriptor of a new technology, telegram (sometimes even without localized variations in spelling) was around the world assimilated into many languages as the cables were extended and wires connected.

Recorded first among US Marines in the South Pacific in 1944, latrinogram was a jocular reference to barracks gossip, reliable or otherwise, which tended to be exchanged while using the latrines.  The element was later abstracted for commercial purposes such as the proprietary constructs Candygram (1959), Gorillagram (1979) & Stripagram (1981).  The most famous of all, Instagram, (operating first in 2010 and acquired by Facebook (Meta) in 2012) was actually a construction which violates Greek grammar which didn’t permit an adverb properly to form part of a compound noun; it should however be regarded as correct in English. There had before Instagram been controversy.  After the telegram service was first advertised in 1852, the classically schooled and appalled lost little time correcting the less learned, informing all the proper formation would be telegrapheme.  However, for neither the first time nor the last, English choose the handy vernacular over a mouthful of correctness and when the instant messaging (IM) service Telegram was launched in 2013, nobody objected to the name.  In both commerce and slang, other words related to wired telegraphy were created or emerged including telegraph, buzzer, cable, cablegram, call, flash, wire, teletype & eventually, “telegram” came usually to mean something quite specific: a short message (charging was by the word or letter) sent across a wire and printed by the receiving office, then delivered to the door of the receiver.

Telegrams have figured in many instances of historical significance, not because of anything inherent in the process of the telegram but because the wire services were at the time the quickest means by which information might be sent over distance from one place to another.  As technology improved, the transmission of urgent messages migrated to whatever was fastest:  When in 1865 Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865; POTUS 1861-1865) was assassinated, the news didn’t reach Europe until the fastest clipper had crossed the Atlantic a fortnight later.  By the time of William McKinley's (1843–1901; POTUS 1897-1901) assassination, the news was within minutes transmitted around the world through undersea cables (thus the still sometimes heard use in this context of “cable” and “cabled”).  In 1963, while news of John Kennedy's (JFK, 1917–1963; POTUS 1961-1963) death was close to a global real-time event, those many miles from Dallas had to wait sometimes 24 hours or more to view footage, the physical film stock delivered in canisters by land, sea or air.  By 1981, when an attempt was made on Ronald Reagan’s (1911-2004; POTUS 1981-1989) life, television stations around the planet were, sometimes within seconds, picking up live-feeds from satellites.  Hawley Crippen (1862–1910; a US born homeopath who styled himself “Dr” Crippen) is thought to have been the first murderer captured with the aid of wireless telegraphy.  After killing his wife in London, he absconded with his lover to Canada.  Although both were in disguise, he was recognized by the ship’s captain who sent a telegram to Scotland Yard just before the ship moved beyond wireless range.  The police sent an officer to Canada aboard a faster ship and he was in port to arrest Crippen.  Convicted, Crippen was hanged at Pentonville Prison.

The Zimmermann Telegram (referred to in some historical sources as a note or cable) was a diplomatic message sent in January 1917, in code, by Arthur Zimmermann (1864–1940: German foreign minister 1916-1917) to the German ambassador to Mexico.  It proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico under which Mexico would recover the territories of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, lost in the Mexican–American War (1846-1848).  The publicity generated contributed to the anyway swelling support for US participation in the Great War, the American declaration of war on Germany coming in April 1917.  The Zimmermann Telegram is of interest also in the history of espionage and cryptography because it was the British intelligence services which decoded the text and passed the content to the Washington.  That was fine but also required some subterfuge because, with many trans-Atlantic cables cut due to war-time restrictions, most traffic now went by the one circuitous route, the British had to concoct a story so it appeared they could intercept German messages but not those of the US.

Telegram (still listed in corporate registries in varies places with references to its original name (Telegram Messenger), is a cross-platform, instant messaging (IM) service.  First offered on iOS in 2013, in the way such (surviving) platforms of its type have evolved, it has grown to encompass many of the file-sharing and other features which have come to define “social media”.  Perhaps because of Telegram’s origin as essentially a exile from the Russian state, it has an unusually distributed corporate structure and it seems data blocks routinely are moved between server farms and data centres in different jurisdictions, apparently to muddy the waters, making harder intrusion from government oversight.  The nature of its security model has made it an attractive platform for both dissident groups and the agencies of the state seeking to counter their activities.

Telegram’s messages can be set to self-destruct.

WhatsApp added the feature too but Telegram’s option is more configurable.  The self-destruct mode can be attached only to a secret chat and the menu is accessed through the usual three-lined menu through which a secret chat is enabled.  From here, through the dots at the top-right, the self-destruct timer will appear and this, for obvious reasons, is not on by default and must manually be selected.  Users have the choice to set their messages last as little as one second or as long as a week, the timer countdown starting at the point when the receiver sees the message.  Telegram will mark the message with two green checkmarks to confirm the countdown has begun.  As a word of caution, the self-destruct mechanism is invoked also on replies to the message, the length of time still to elapse before a message vanishes is displayed at the bottom of the chat.  The rules for images and videos vary a little but the principle is the same.

The Long Telegram

Telegrams also made famous a number of very short messages, noted for their succinctness, the brevity of the medium encouraged by the sender being charged per letter or word.  A celebrated exception to the tendency for telegrams to be short was that in February 1946 sent to the US State Department by diplomat George Kennan (1904–2005) then attached to the US embassy in Moscow.  It’s remembered in history as the “Long Telegram” and Kennan choose the telegram as the medium, ostensibly because of the urgency of the matters he wished to discuss but also because, being uniquely long (5,363 words), it would gain attention; he would later note that his views until that point had been ignored.  After James Byrnes (1882–1972; US Secretary of State 1945–1947) received this telegram, his views were more widely discussed and although this wasn't the start of the Cold War (which to a degree has already begun), it contained most of the elements of what would for a generation constitute US policy towards the Soviet Union.

Page one of the Long Telegram, 22 February 1946 (de-classified 10 August 1972).

What Kennan advocated was a policy of containment.  He noted the Russian people were "...by and large, friendly to outside world, eager for experience of it..." and that the threat presented by the USSR was that of the "...apparatus of power (party, secret police and government)..." but that it was "exclusively with these" that the governments of the West were forced to deal.  The implications of this he illustrated by pointing out that while the history of the early twentieth century had shown "...peaceful and mutually profitable coexistence of capitalist and socialist states is entirely possible...", at the "...bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity…” and  “…they have always feared foreign penetration, feared direct contact between Western world and their own, feared what would happen if Russians learned truth about world without or if foreigners learned truth about world within. And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it."  Among the tactics he identified as distinctly Russian was that of setting "Western Powers against each other. Anti-British talk will be plugged among Americans, anti-American talk among British. Continentals, including Germans, will be taught to abhor both Anglo-Saxon powers. Where suspicions exist, they will be fanned; where not, ignited."

Because memories of the war were so recent, Kennan felt compelled to point out that “Soviet power, unlike that of Hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventuristic.  It does not work by fixed plans. It does not take unnecessary risks. Impervious to logic of reason, and it is highly sensitive to logic of force. For this reason it can easily withdraw-and usually does when strong resistance is encountered at any point.  Thus, if the adversary has sufficient force and makes clear his readiness to use it, he rarely has to do so. If situations are properly handled there need be no prestige-engaging showdowns.”  Tellingly (this was before the USSR gained nuclear weapons), he added that “gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force. Thus, their success will really depend on degree of cohesion, firmness and vigor which Western World can muster. And this is factor which it is within our power to influence.”

Containment became US policy but the reaction to Kennan’s views, later published in extended form (anonymously as “X Article”, a method which would later be reprised as the QAnon myth), were mixed, some claiming he was advocating little more than a maintenance of a nineteenth century “balance of power” while others could envisage his system working only by the US subsidizing and maintaining its own system of client states, something which later was said to be something of a description of NATO.  In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, in capitals of both sides of the Atlantic, there’s probably been some re-reading of the Long Telegram (probably in summary form; even at the time some admitted it was a bit too long) but then in Moscow some might also have looked up the words used by Georgy Zhukov (1896–1974; Soviet WWII general & Marshal of the Soviet Union) in which he explained the failure of the German offensive in 1942 as being “…due to an under-estimation of the forces and potentialities of the Soviet State, the indomitable spirit of the people.  It also stems from an over-estimation by the Nazis of their own forces and capabilities.”

Hostage

Hostage (pronounced hos-tij)

(1) A person given as a pledge or security for the performance of the conditions of a treaty or similar agreement, such as to ensure the status of a vassal.

(2) A person seized in order to compel another party to act (or refrain from acting) in a certain way, because of the threat of harm to the hostage.

(3) A security or pledge (obsolete).

(4) The condition of a hostage.

(5) To give someone as a hostage (rare).

1225–1275: From the Middle English hostage & ostage, from the eleventh century Old French hostage & ostage (kindness, hospitality; residence, dwelling; rent, tribute; compensation; guarantee, pledge, bail; person given as security or hostage (and ôtage (hostage) persists in Modern French)) of uncertain origin although most etymologists favor the Vulgar Latin obsidāticum (state of being a hostage; condition of being held captive), from the Latin obsid- (stem of obses (hostage)), the construct being ob- (before) + sid- (the base of sedere (to sit)) + -āticum (the suffix used (1) to form nouns indicating pertinence to the root verb or noun & (2) to form nouns indicating a state of being resulting from an action).  There is a (less supported) alternative etymology which traces hostage back to a construct from the Old French hoste (host) + -age (the sense development from “taking someone in and offering them lodging” to “taking someone in and holding them captive”.  The initial “h” was added to the Latin obses (hostage) under some influence which may have been the Old French hoste or the Latin hostis.  The word displaced the Old English ġīsl.  In idiomatic use, the phrase “hostage” to fortune historically had different meanings on either side of the Atlantic.  In the UK it meant “an action, promise, or remark that is considered unwise because it could be difficult to later to fulfill one’s obligations (even if merely implied)”.  In North America, it conveys the idea of “a person (or institution) whose fate is seen as dependent on chance or luck”.  Hostage & hostageship are nouns and hostaged & hostaging are nouns; the noun plural is hostages.

Swapped for one of Moscow’s hostages: Viktor Bout in Thailand.

The hostage negotiator is now a recognized specialist category in law enforcement and there are also many in the private sector, engaged usually on an ad hoc basis as needed.  The taking of hostages, although use of the word spiked only in the 1970s as the hijacking of civilian airliners became a popular means of pursuing political agendas, is ago old and during certain periods was institutionalized as an accepted part of how conflicts were executed.  Nothing new then but of late, some regimes have become more blatant in the way “hostage diplomacy” is done, making only the most perfunctory gestures towards adding a veneer of legal legitimacy to what is essentially the tactic of gangsters.  Some cases have attracted some public attention such as the exchange by Moscow of one of their American hostages for Viktor Bout (b 1967) a Russian arms trader apparently of Ukrainian origin and one of the great characters who flourished in the chaos which prevailed after the breakup of the Soviet Union.  Whether it was grenade launchers, government officials subject to UN sanctions or frozen chickens, all through Africa, Eastern Europe and the Middle East, Viktor Bout’s air-freight operation gained the reputation of delivering the goods as described, on time and at the price quoted, international sanctions and embargos no obstacle.  Unfortunately, he strayed too closely to the claws of Western law enforcement agencies and ended up being extradited to the US where he was convicted of this and that and sentenced to a 25 year term, ten of which he served before he was exchanged in a swap.

Held us hostage” is now a commonly used phrase applied to the tactics or antics of trade unions, film stars, Meghan Markle, minority political parties and anyone else who proves difficult.

US diplomat and historian George Kennan (1904-2005) is best remembered for the “Long Telegram” he sent from Moscow in 1946, warning the State Department of the possible implications of Soviet policy and advocating the US adopt its own policies to contain Soviet expansion.  He also published widely on other aspects of US foreign policy including an assessment of the PRC (People’s Republic of China), early in the rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and while he held the Chinese in high regard (he thought them “…probably the most intelligent, man for man, of the world’s peoples”), he thought “…no good could come of any closer relationship between the US and China” and he was little more enthusiastic about the rival Kuomintang government established by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek on the island of Formosa (Taiwan), regarded to this day by Beijing as a renegade province.  To support his views, he made four points which, some seven decades on, sound remarkably modern and probably familiar to diplomats in many chancelleries and embassies:

(1) The Chinese were, as a people, intensely xenophobic and arrogant.  Their attitude towards the foreigner and his world, based as it was on the concept of China as the “Middle Kingdom” and the view of the foreigner as a barbarian, was essentially offensive to other peoples and did not provide a basis for satisfactory international relations, other than ones of the most distant sort.

(2) He noted it seemed clear the Chinese, despite the highly civilized nature of their normal outward behavior, were capable of great ruthlessness when they considered themselves to be crossed.  How he thought in this Peking much differed from Washington & London he didn’t explore but he nevertheless found admirable many of their best qualities including industriousness, honesty in commerce, practical astuteness and political acumen.  Where he found the national character lacking was in their lack of two attributes of the Western Christian mentality: the capacity of pity and the sense of sin though intriguingly he conceded the possession of these both qualities induced weakness rather than strength in the Western character.  Presumably, he added, the Chinese were all the more formidable for their lack but this was a reason to afford them a healthy but wary respect, not to idealize them or seek intimacy in our relationship with them.

(3) His third observation was that of the pragmatic diplomat.  While the Chinese were often ready to make practical arrangements of an unwritten nature and usually ones that could at will be reversed if that suited their purposes, they were never prepared to yield on matters of principle.  Occasionally, they would consent, were sufficient pressure applied, to allow others to do certain things provided they were able to insist that there was no actual right to act in such a way.  In other words, at least in theory, China was always in the right, others in the wrong.  Kennan thought this an expression of national arrogance that augured badly for really good relations with any outside power.

(4) Finally, there was the matter of hostage taking although it’s clear from his writing that he was somewhat in awe of the skill and success in the subtlety of their gangsterism.  Over decades he noted, the Chinese had corrupted a large proportion of the Americans who had anything to do with them and the longer these visitors resided there, the greater the risk.  He was anxious to point out this corruption wasn't always, or even usually, financial, deciding it was something far more insidious, the Chinese infinitely adept at turning foreign visitors and residents (even diplomats) into hostages.  Then, with their superb combination of delicacy and ruthlessness, they would extract the maximum in the way of blackmail or ransom for giving them the privilege either of leaving the country or remaining, whichever it might be they most desired.  It all sounds remarkably modern.

Column

Column (pronounced kol-uhm)

(1) In architecture, a rigid, relatively slender, upright support, composed usually of relatively few pieces.

(2) A decorative pillar, most often associated with the classical architecture of antiquity, composed of stone and typically having a cylindrical or polygonal shaft with a capital and usually a base.

(3) Any column-like object, mass, or formation.

(4) A vertical row or list.

(5) A vertical arrangement on a page of horizontal lines of type, usually typographically justified.

(6) A regular feature or series of articles in a newspaper, magazine, or the like, usually having a readily identifiable heading and the byline; often related to a single subject or theme

(7) A long, narrow formation of troops in which there are more members in line in the direction of movement than at right angles to the direction.  A column one wide is said to be in single-file.

(8) A formation of ships in single file (largely archaic).

(9) In botany, a column-like structure in an orchid flower, composed of the united stamens and style.

(10) In anatomy or zoology, any of various tubular or pillar-like supporting structures in the body, such as the spinal column, each generally having a single tissue origin and function.

(11) In the design of accounting ledgers or computer-based spreadsheets, the vertical array of data (contrast with the row; the horizontal array).

(12) In chemistry, an object used to separate the different components of a liquid or to purify chemical compounds.

(13) As the fifth column (quinta columna), a group of people which clandestinely undermines a larger group, such as a nation, to which it is expected to be loyal.

1400–1450: From the late Middle English columne, columpne & columpe, from the Old French columne, from the Latin columna (column, pillar, post), the construct being colum(e)n (peak) + a (creating the feminine form).  Column replaced the Late Middle English colompne, also a Latin derivation and borrowed from the Anglo-French.  The Latin columna was akin to collis (a hill) & celsus (high), both likely derived from the Ancient Greek κολοφών (kolophṓn), (top, summit).  Ultimate root was probably the Primitive European kel (to project).  The sense of "matter written for a newspaper" dates from 1785; that of the “fifth column” is from 1936.  The most common derived forms are the adjectives columnar, columned or columnated.  The first commercially successful spreadsheet was VisiCalc (1979), Lotus 1-2-3 following in 1983 and Microsoft Excel in 1985; built with columns and rows, the spreadsheet was instantly successful in translating the physical ledger into digital form and is considered the "killer app" which legitimized the use of personal computers in business.

The Fifth Column

A fifth column is group of people who undermine the security of the state in which they’re living, in support of an enemy force, historically as a prelude to invasion.  The more modern and still current variation is the sleeper-cell, individuals or even families integrated into foreign populations where they lie dormant, awaiting activation.  There’s no doubt the origins of the phrase “fifth column” can be traced to the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) but, like many things from those years, the details are contested.  The first recorded instance was in a telegram, sent on 30 September 1936 by a German diplomat to the Foreign Ministry in Berlin reporting a "supposed statement” by the nationalist leader General Franco (Generalissimo Francisco Franco (1892–1975; Caudillo of Spain 1939-1975) claiming that not only did he have four columns of Nationalist troops marching on Madrid but that inside the city, a secret ”fifth column” (quinta columna) of fellow-travelers within the city would support the nationalist’s military campaign and undermine the Republican government from within.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) and Franco, photographed at their day-long meeting at Hendaye, on the Spanish-French border, 23 October 1940.

The dictators' discussions revolved around Spain's participation in the War against the British but it proved most unsatisfactory for the Germans, the Führer declaring as he left that he'd rather have "three of four teeth pulled out" than have to spend another day with the Caudillo.  Unlike Hitler, Franco was a professional soldier, thought war a hateful business best avoided and, more significantly, had a shrewd understanding of the military potential of the British Empire and the implications for the conduct of the war of the wealth and industrial might of the United States.  The Allies British were fortunate Franco took the view he did because had he agreed to afford the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces) the requested cooperation to enable them to seize control of Gibraltar, the Royal Navy might have lost control of the Mediterranean, endangering the vital supplies of oil from the Middle East, complicating passage to the Indian Ocean and beyond and transforming the strategic position in the whole hemisphere.   

The first known public use of the term is in the 3 October 1936 issue of the Madrid Communist daily Mundo Obrero.  In a front-page article the party propagandist Dolores Ibárruri (1895–1989; known as la Pasionaria (literally "the passionflower" and used in the sense of "the passionate one" for her strident oratory) referred to the same statement as reported to Berlin but attributed it to General Emilio Mola (1887-1937).  On the same day the another activist made a similar claim during a public rally and the Republican newspapers would in subsequent days repeat the story although with variations, some attributing the phrase to a different general.  Whether all this was some of the fog of war or part of the disinformation campaigns inevitable in any conflict will never be known but by mid-October media, the press were already routinely referring to the "famous fifth column".  Historians have never identified the original statement or its source.  All the verified documentary evidence of people using the words quinta columna is of instances after the publication in the Republican press.

Although renowned for its art deco buildings, there's also much neo-classicism in Miami, Florida.  A staple of gossip columns, Lindsay Lohan is pictured here among the columns, December 2013.

The “fifth column” caught the public imagination and became popular, Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961) using it as the title of the only play he wrote, published in his 1938 book The Fifth Column and the First Forty-Nine Stories.  Initially, use tended to be restricted to military operations but it came to be applied more broadly to describe sympathizers of any cause not formerly attached to any structure and was by the early 1940s, used to warn of potential sedition and disloyalty within the borders both of the UK and US, the popular press running stories warning of a “Nazi Fifth Column”.  Always one with a fondness for a pungent phrase, Winston Churchill reassured the House of Commons the "…parliament has given us the powers to put down fifth column activities with a strong hand".  In Australia, a radio drama exploring the theme, The Enemy Within, was banned by the censor, the authorities apparently concerned listeners might confuse fact with fiction and become alarmed or worse.

General Franco’s troops interview a suspected fifth columnist.  This photo was one of many staged for publicity purposes, a propaganda technique first first used at scale during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1940).

Cryptic

Cryptic (pronounced krip-tik)

(1) Deliberately mysterious in meaning; puzzling.

(2) A message which is abrupt; terse; short, ambiguous, obscure (ie the effect rather than the intent).

(3) Of things secret; the occult.

(4) Involving use of a code or cipher etc (the stuff of cryptography).

(5) In zoology, fitted for concealing; serving to camouflage (applied especially to the coloring or shape of animals); living in a cavity or small cave (also as cryptozoic).

(6) In cruciverbalism (the compilation of crosswords), the puzzle, or a clue in such a puzzle, using, in addition to definitions, wordplay such as anagrams, homophones and hidden words to indicate solutions (the “cryptic crossword” usually distinguished from the “standard”, “basic” or “simple”.

(7) In biology, apparently identical, but actually genetically distinct.

(7) In biology, as “cryptic ovulation”, a phenomenon noted in certain species where the female shows no perceptible signals indicating a state of fertility (also as “concealed ovulation”).

1595-1605: From the Late Latin crypticus, from the Ancient Greek κρυπτικός (kruptikós) (fit from concealing), from κρυπτός (kruptós) (hidden), from κρύπτω (krúptō) (to hide).  The construct was crypt + -ic.  Crypt was from the Latin crypta (vault), again from the Ancient Greek κρυπτός (kruptós) (hidden).  The suffix -ic was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃).  The alternative spelling cryptick is obsolete.  Cryptic is a noun and adjective, cryptical is an adjective and cryptically an adverb; the noun plural is cryptics.

Cryptic’s synonyms can include ambiguous, arcane, enigmatic, equivocal, incomprehensible, mysterious, strange, vague, veiled, abstruse, apocryphal, cabalistic, dark, esoteric, evasive, hidden, inexplicable, murky, mystic, mystical & perplexing.  However, it’s often necessary to distinguish between that thought deliberately obscure in meaning and messages either badly written or too brief for the meaning to be clear.  The familiar modern meaning “mysterious or enigmatic” is surprisingly modern, emerging only in the 1920s.  The noun cryptography (the art & science of writing in secret characters) sates from the 1650s and was either from the French cryptographie or directly from the Modern Latin cryptographia, the construct being the Ancient Greek κρυπτός (kruptós) (hidden) + graphia (of or relating to writing), the practitioner or code-breaker (the latter sense now more common and known also as crypto-analysts) being a cryptographer, the discipline cryptography (or cryptoanalytics) and the adjectival form the cryptographic.

Novelty birthday card on the theme of Freaky Friday (2003).

In English, the Ancient Greek κρυπτός (kruptós) (hidden) proved productive.  A cryptogram can be just about any form of puzzle although as a commercial name (sometimes as crypto-gram) it has been used (on the model of telegram a la the strippergram, gorillagram, kissogram etc).  The idea of cryptocurrency gained the name from (1) the use of cryptography when storing the underlying data in the blockchain (a big-machine distributed database) and (2) the notion of the blockchain as a secure crypt (vault).  In biology, cryptobiosis is a state of life in which all metabolic activity is temporarily halted (a cryptobiont any organism capable of cryptobiosis).  In critical political discourse, crypto- was used (crypto-communist, crypto-Nazi, crypto-fascist etc) to label someone as something they were attempting to conceal.  In medicine, the unfortunate condition cryptorchism (the plural (where required) cryptorchisms) was the failure of one or both testes to descend into the scrotum.  In geology, a cryptoclastic rock is one composed of minute or microscopic fragments.

Pope Benedict XVI with Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023), Australia 2008. 

In his theological writings Pope Benedict XVI (1927–2022; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus 2013-2022) could be cryptic but when speaking to his flock of 1.3 billion-odd, his thoughts were expressed usually in simple language, his meaning clear.  Not all pontiffs have managed this so Benedict’s pontificate of plain-speaking was welcome, even if his messages didn’t please all.  Even so however, he never manage to issue anything with the raw honesty Pope Adrian VI (1459–1523; pope 1522-1523) showed in the instructions he gave to his nuncio, Francesco Chieregati (1479-1539) his representative at the Diet of Nuremberg, a gathering of the princes of the Holy Roman Empire convened in 1552.  Adrian’s words, a statement of repentance unique in the Church’s history was an admission of the need to reform the corrupted institution which instructed Chieregati to make clear:

“…we frankly confess that God permits this persecution to afflict His Church because of the sins of men, especially of the priests and prelates of the Church. For certainly the hand of the Lord has not been shortened so that He cannot save, but sins separate us from Him and hide His face from us so that He does not hear. Scripture proclaims that the sins of the people are a consequence of the sins of the priests, and therefore (as Chrysostom says) our Savior, about to cure the ailing city of Jerusalem, first entered the Temple to chastise first the sins of the priests, like the good doctor who cures a sickness at its source.

We know that for many years many abominable things have occurred in this Holy See, abuses in spiritual matters, transgressions of the commandments, and finally in everything a change for the worse (et omnia denique in perversum mutata). No wonder that the illness has spread from the head to the members, from the Supreme Pontiffs to the prelates below them. All of us (that is, prelates and clergy), each one of us, have strayed from our paths; nor for a long time has anyone done good; no, not even one.

Therefore, we must all give glory only to God and humble our souls before Him, and each one of us must consider how he has fallen and judge himself, rather than await the judgment of God with the rod of His anger. As far as we are concerned, therefore, you will promise that we will expend every effort to reform first this Curia, whence perhaps all this evil has come, so that, as corruption spread from that place to every lower place, the good health and reformation of all may also issue forth.

We consider ourselves all the more bound to attend to this, the more we perceive the entire world longing for such a reformation. (As we believe others have said to you) we never sought to gain this papal office. Indeed we preferred, so far as we could, to lead a private life and serve God in holy solitude, and we would have certainly declined this papacy except that the fear of God, the uncorrupt manner of our election, and the dread of impending schism because of our refusal forced us to accept it. Therefore we submitted to the supreme dignity not from a lust for power, nor for the enrichment of our relatives, but out of obedience to the divine will, in order to reform His deformed bride, the Catholic Church, to aid the oppressed, to encourage and honor learned and virtuous men who for so long have been disregarded, and finally to do everything else a good pope and a legitimate successor of blessed Peter should do.

Yet no man should be surprised if he does not see all errors and abuses immediately corrected by us. For the sickness is of too long standing, nor is it a single disease, but varied and complex. We must advance gradually to its cure and first attend to the more serious and more dangerous ills, lest in a desire to reform everything at the same time we throw everything into confusion. All sudden changes (says Aristotle) are dangerous to the state. He who scrubs too much draws blood.

We know how prejudicial it has been to the honor of God and the salvation and edification of souls that ecclesiastical benefices, especially those involving the care and direction of souls, for so long have been given to unworthy men.”

Probably plenty of popes could over the centuries have been justified in saying much the same thing but if any were tempted, none did.  Benedict did of course issue the odd statement of (carefully drafted) apology for this and that but they bore the mark of a lawyer’s careful vetting to avoid legal troubles rather than a sinner repenting and seeking forgiveness.  Most of the Church’s problems and scandals were of course not of his making and it was unfortunate his time on the throne came when scandals stretching back decades were being exposed because the publicity these attracted meant there was less attention paid to some of Benedict’s genuinely interesting thoughts on the state of Western Civilization.  Unfortunately, there were occasions on which he should perhaps have been rather more cryptic when discussing these matters, such as the famous address delivered at the University of Regensburg in 2006, entitled Faith, Reason and the University, none of which attracted the attention of the popular press except the one notorious sentence:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

The comment was originally written in 1391 as an encapsulation of the view of the Manuel II (1350–1425; Byzantine emperor 1391-1425) but the thoughts were not new to Benedict and nor was its expression but what one says as an academic theologian is less scrutinized than when it comes from the vicar of Christ on earth.  That one brief fragment from the lecture overshadowed what was a thoughtful warning to Western civilization about its internal threats and contradictions, specifically the retreat from reason in moral and political life.  Among academics, the similarity of Benedict’s ideas to those of the German philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) seemed striking and poignant too, the pope among the last of then generation of Germans who, like Strauss, had seen Nazism, probably the most evil of the totalitarianism which was such a feature of the twentieth century.  In their time, Strauss and Benedict both knew the West was facing a crisis, something identified by the philosopher as the very modern culture which had lost “its faith in reason’s ability to validate its highest aims”, understood as the view that notions of right and wrong are historically variable, changing as intellectual fashions shifted.  The pope knew this as moral relativism and understood that a “crisis of political reason… is a crisis of politics as such” which has relegated moral and political knowledge to the realm of radical subjectivity.

As a historical decline, Benedict traced the retreat from the Reformation, through the liberal theology of the last two-hundred years to the latter-day descent of Christendom to cultural relativism.  That didn’t mean the pope wished to undo the Enlightenment, it was rather that scientific positivism should run in parallel with moral certainty.  It might have been better, certainly for the quality of the press coverage, if Benedict had adhered a little more to one of Strauss’ techniques of didacticism: cultured crypticism.  Strauss held that Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was no proto-Nazi but had written in such an accessible manner that it was simply for the Nazis to twist and appropriate his words for their purposes.  Strauss therefore sought to be more elusive, not wishing to be another misused German philosopher, his words were sometimes cryptic, the meaning able to be unlocked only by the few who had long been immersed.  Benedict too might have been well advised on occasion to remain a little more obscure because he had many interesting things to say which could have been plainly spoken.

Benedict XVI lying in state.

The mortal remains of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI were moved early in the morning on Monday 2 January 2023, from his former residence in the Vatican's Mater Eccle.  The archpriest of the basilica, Cardinal Mauro Gambetti, received the remains with a liturgical act that lasted about 30 minutes.

Pope Francis conducting the Solemn Requiem Mass.  It's the first time a pope has presided over the funeral of his predecessor since Pius VII (in somewhat different circumstances) attended the funeral of Pius VI in 1802.

A Solemn Requiem Mass was conducted in St Peter’s Square on Thursday 5 January, presided over by Pope Francis.  The readings for the Mass were Isaiah 29:16–19 in Spanish; Psalm 23 sung in Latin; 1 Peter 1: 3–9 in English, and the Gospel of Luke 23: 39–46 read in Italian.  At the conclusion of the service, the coffin was carried to his place of burial in the crypt of St. Peter’s Basilica, accompanied by the choir singing the Magnificat in Latin.

Psittacism

Psittacism (pronounced sit-uh-siz-uh-m)

(1) Speech or writing that appears mechanical or repetitive in the manner of a parrot.

(2) A pejorative description of the use of words which appear to have been used mechanically, without understanding; mere parroting; repetition without reasoning.

1861: From the French psittacisme or the German psittazismus, both from Latin psittaci (parrot), an inflection of psittacus, from the Ancient Greek ψιττακός (psittakós) of unknown origin although presumed to come from a non-Greek source.  The construct was thus psittac(i) + -ism (ie “parrotism”).  The –ism suffix was from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  The use in English appears seems to have been rare until the 1880s and even now is limited often political science or works in the various fields of critical theory.  An alternative word is the verb “parroting”.  Psittacism & psittaceous are nouns and psittacistic is an adjective; the noun plural is psittacisms.  The temping adverb psittacistically is not listed as a standard form.

Psittacism is speech or writing that appears mechanical or repetitive in the manner of a parrot which can be taught to recite phrases in human speech but without any knowledge of their meaning.  The author Evelyn Waugh (1903-1966) noted this parrot-like behaviour when meeting Pope Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958).  The pope spoke Italian, Latin & French, was fluent in German (he’d been a diplomat there for thirteen years) and during his pontificate, it was reported he’d added Russian, Swedish, Spanish, Portuguese, Danish and Dutch, all of which were displayed whenever he would have audiences with anyone from those countries.  However, most of these multi-lingual flourishes appear to have been set-piece scripts because as Waugh observed: “The sad thing about the Pope is that he loves talking English and has learned several elegant little speeches by heart parrotwise and delivers them with practically no accent, but he does not understand a word of the language.”  Apparently, the pontiff was “relieved when Waugh began to speak in French”.

Usually though, psittacism is used to describe either the banalities which litter conversations conducted for reasons of politeness rather than genuine interest or the “buzzwords” of management such as “Thinking outside the box” or “synergies”.  In politics too, phrases like “Make America great again” or “Continuity with change” are psittacistic, as is a significant volume of what appears on pop-culture platforms such as TikTok or Instagram.  Psittacisms though do differ for “filler words” such as the traditional “um”, “ah” and “you know” which are “gap fillers” in conversational flow; in structural linguistics, filler words are known as vocal disfluencies (filling in hesitations).  The growth in the use of “like” (meaning “said” or “did”) in recent decades differs in that it is a genuine addition to the norms of English expression (at least among certain classes) and the frequent disapproval of its use seems to have had little effect.  In some cases, oft-repeated phrases such as “left-wing” or “moderate” may no longer convey an accurate meaning (although they continue to be parroted) but such are not psittacisms because they are used with the intent to convey meaning; they are often merely misleading. 

In literature, it’s not uncommon to co-opt the birds as literary devices; Gustave Flaubert's (1821–1880) parrot in Un Coeur Simple (A Simple Heart (1877)) said to represent the bourgeoisie who repeat their psittaceous banalities without thought.  Those who are more interested in French society than their inner selves or the relationship a troubled genius had with his mother will prefer Flaubert to Proust.  Marcel Proust’s (1871-1922) thirteen novel set À la recherche du temps perdu (1913–1927) (In English translated originally as “Remembrance of Things Past” and of late as “In Search of Lost Time”) is a work like no other and should be read but most will find Flaubert more fun.  On the subject of (now dated) fun, although unrelated to the etymology of psittacism, the silent “P” is a footnote in English literature, Rupert Psmith (later Ronald Eustace Psmith) one of the roll-call of characters who appear in a number of novels by PG Wodehouse (1881-1975).  The surname Psmith was pronounced as “Smith” (“as in pshrimp” the character’s helpful explanation) and was self-appended just to make him seem “a cut above all the many other Smiths”.

Psittacism, tautology & plagiarism

A pair of Scarlett Macaw parrots.

The sin of psittacism differs from that of tautology or plagiarism.  Tautology is the use of extraneous words needlessly to repeat an idea (eg “completely, totally and utterly beyond my comprehension and understanding”) or the use of words which impart no additional force or clarity (eg “female schoolgirl” (although perhaps now the modifier may be a good idea)).  Plagiarism (examples of which are littered throughout this blog), is an act or instance of using or closely imitating the text (and text can be melody, image and such) or ideas of another without attribution or authorization, the worst cases of which being those where there’s a representation (overtly or by implication) the material is original.  That latter part applies not to this blog, written as it is by someone who has never in their life had an original thought.  Although controversial even when blatant or obvious (eg Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) “borrowing” parts of a speech from Neil Kinnock (b 1942; Leader of the UK Labour Party from 1983-1992)) in academia, genuinely there are grey areas.  Does rephrasing a paragraph or two to re-express things already well-known constitute plagiarism or is it merely a review of what’s out there?  One would expect a president of Harvard University to be able to explain the concept but not all are convinced of that.  The act can also be blatant but if what’s reproduced is so well-known as to be notorious (eg William Shakespeare's (1564–1616) “to be, or not to be” fragment from Hamlet (1603)), there’s never going to be a suggestion it was plagiarised.

What’s alleged to be our increasingly psittacistic world may in part be technologically deterministic.  There was a time when every printed word was precious because there was a cost to printing every letter and verbosity does seem to increase as costs fall; compare the punchy brevity of an old telegram when every letter came at a cost with the profligacy of E-mail messages.  The trend towards increasing volumes of text, apparent already in the post-war years, accelerated exponentially as soon as distribution became disconnected from physically printed paper.  Impressionistically, the psittacistic does seem now more prevalent but the volumes of all text and many tendencies have increased so much we may be deceived by our own prejudices.

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.