Emerge

Emerge (pronounced ih-murj)

(1) To come forth into view or notice, as from concealment or obscurity

(2) To rise or come forth from or as if from water or other liquid.

(3) To come up or arise, as a question or difficulty.

(4) To come into existence; develop.

(5) To rise, as from an inferior or unfortunate state or condition.

1560s: From the Middle French émerger from the Latin ēmergere (bring forth, bring to light (intransitively "arise out or up, come forth, come up, come out, rise"), an assimilated form of the construct ē- (a variant of the suffix ex- (out, forth)) + mergere (to dive, dip, sink).  The notion was of rising from a liquid by virtue of buoyancy.  The verb re-emerge (also as reemerge) (to emerge again or anew) dates from 1775 and other forms of this evolved: re-emerged (1778), re-emerging (1088) & re-emergence (1801).  The noun emergence dates from the 1640s, initially in the sense of "an unforeseen occurrence" from the French émergence, from the Middle French émerger, from the Latin ēmergere; the modern meaning (process of coming) emerged in 1704, the meanings co-existing until by circa 1735 the new had entirely replaced the old.  The noun emersion (reappearance, act of emerging) dates from the 1630s; it was a noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin ēmergere and originally was used of eclipses and occultations.  The adjective emergent was actually quite old, noted from the late fourteenth century in the sense of “rising from what surrounds it, coming into view", from the Latin emergentem (nominative emergens), present participle of ēmergere.  The present participle is emerging and the past participle emerged)

Emerge, emanate or issue all mean to come forth but differ in nuance.  Emerge is used of coming forth from a place shut off from view, or from concealment, or the like, into sight and notice in the sense the sun emerges from behind the clouds.  Emanate is used of intangible things, as light or ideas, spreading from a source and both gossip and rumors can emanate from sources reliable or otherwise.  Issue is often used of a number of persons, a mass of matter, or a volume of sound or the like, coming forth through any outlet or outlets; smoke is said to issue from a chimney, something, if it be white, associated with the emergence of a new Roman Catholic Pope 

Emerging from the magic circle

With Boris Johnson’s curious, slow-motion resignation as prime-minister of the UK, attention begins to turn to the way Conservative and Unionist (Tory) Party elects its next leader to become the latest custodian of one of the world’s nuclear arsenals.  These days, it takes longer than once it did for the Tories to do this for it’s now an exhaustive process consisting of (1) a multi-round contest in which all members of parliament (MPs) vote for however many of their colleagues have nominated, the unfortunate chap (and these days some Tory chaps are women) receiving the fewest voted dropping out so the next round may proceed until the field is whittled down to two at which point (2) that pair is submitted to the party membership at large to make their choice.  The winner will assume the party leadership and, with the Tories enjoying in the House of Commons the solid majority Mr Johnson secured at the last election, will go to the palace to kiss hands and be invited to become Her Majesty’s Prime-Minister of the United Kingdom & First Lord of the Treasury.

This democratic (and leisurely) process is relatively new to the Tory party, its leaders elected by a formal vote only since 1965 and even then, until 2001, it was only MPs who voted.  Prior to that, Tory leaders were said to “emerge” from what was known as a “magic circle” and although never as mysterious as some suggested, it was an opaque process, conducted by party grandees.  The classic example was in 1957 when the choice was between Harold MacMillan (1894-1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) and Rab Butler (1902-1982).  To his office in the House of Lords, the lisping (fifth) Lord Salisbury (1983-1972) summoned those he thought good chaps (women at this point hadn’t yet become chaps) and asked “Hawold or Wab?”  Hawold prevailed.

The change in process in 1965 came about at the insistence of Sir Alec Douglas-Home (1903-1995 and the fourteenth Earl of Home before disclaiming his peerage in 1963 to become prime-minister (1963-1964)).  Since 1957, the country had changed and there was much criticism of the murky manner by which Sir Alec had become party leader and there was a clamour, even within the party, both to modernize and appear more transparently democratic.  From this point, unleashed were the forces which would in 1975 see Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013; UK prime-minister 1979-1990) elected leader but the first beneficiary of the wind of change was Edward "Ted" Heath (1916-2005; UK prime-minister 1970-1974), a grammar school boy who replaced a fourteenth earl.  Notably, to appear more modern, Heath in 1965 didn't repair (as he had with MacMillan when he emerged in 1957), to the Turf Club for a celebratory meal of oysters, game pie and champagne which “…might have made people think a reactionary regime had been installed”.  It can be hard now to understand quite what a change Heath's accession in 1965 flagged; the Tory Party previously had leaders from the middle class but never the lower middle class.  The significance of what emerged in 1965 was less the new leader than a changed Tory Party in a changed country.     

So Tory leaders no longer emerge from a magic circle but a remarkable number are emerging to offer themselves as willing to be considered so clearly it’s thought still a desirable job although not what it was.  MacMillan once marveled that his predecessor, William Ewart Gladstone (1809–1898; four times UK prime-minister 1868-1894), prime-minister at a time when the British Empire spanned the globe, managed every year to spend four months at his country house, an arrangement one suspects Mr Johnson would have found most tolerable.  Ideologically, the indications are there will be little to choose between those on offer, the extent of the variation probably something like that once described by Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; Prime Minister of France 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) as the difference between "a politician who would murder their own mother and one prepared to murder only someone else's mother".

Mr Johnson will no doubt reflect on his time in Downing Street and perhaps conclude a few things might have been done differently but, after all, he has been prime-minister, one of the few to make it to the top of the greasy pole.  When the office beckoned Lord Melbourne (1779-1848; UK prime-minister 1834 & 1835-1841), he was disinclined to accept, fearing it would be “…a damned bore” but his secretary persuaded him, saying “…no Greek or Roman ever held the office and if it lasts but three months it’ll still be worthwhile to have been Prime Minister of England”.  Having apparently appointed himself Prime-Minister Emeritus, as he sits in No 10, plotting and scheming ways to remain, Mr Johnson can at least remember and be glad.

For a brief, shining moment (2019-2021), the world had three leaders with nuclear weapons and outstanding haircuts.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson (b 1964; Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 2019-2022 (probably)) (left).

Donald John Trump (b 1946-; President of the United States 2017-2021) (centre).

Kim Jong-un (b circa 1983; Supreme Leader of DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)) since 2011) (right).