Conversation

Conversation (pronounced kon-ver-sey-shuhn)

(1) A (usually) informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc, by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.

(2) Association or social intercourse; intimate acquaintance.

(3) In tort law, as criminal conversation, an action variously available (according to circumstances), pursuant to adultery.

(4) Behavior or manner of living (obsolete).

(5) Close familiarity; intimate acquaintance, as from constant use or study (now rare).

1300–1350: From the Middle English conversacion & conversacioun, from the Old French conversacion (behavior, life, way of life, monastic life), from the Latin conversātiōnem (accusative singular of conversātiō) (conversation) (frequent use, frequent abode in a place, intercourse, conversation), noun of action from the past-participle stem of conversari (to live, dwell, live with, keep company with), the passive voice of conversare (to turn about, turn about with (conversor (abide, keep company with) a frequently used derivative)), from an assimilated form, the construct being com (with, together) + versare, frequentative of vertere (to turn), from the primitive Indo-European root wer (to turn, bend).  Both the mid-fourteenth century meanings (1) "place where one lives or dwells" and (2) "general course of actions or habits, manner of conducting oneself in the world" are long obsolete.  Those senses were picked up from the Old French conversacion and directly from the Latin conversationem.

The modern sense of "informal interchange of thoughts and sentiments by spoken words" dates from the 1570s but this for a long time ran in parallel with being a synonym for "sexual intercourse", in use since at least the late fourteenth century.  Depending on the circles in which one moved, that might have been the source of misunderstandings.  In common law, the tort of criminal conversation emerged in the late eighteenth century.  The "conversation-piece" was noted from 1712 in the sense of "painting representing a group of figures arranged as if in conversation" al la "still life"; by 1784 it had come to mean "subject for conversation, something about which to talk".

The tort of criminal conversation

Like “knowing” (of biblical origin), "conversation" was a euphemism for illicit sex and in this sense has long been obsolete except as “criminal conversation”. which, at common law, is a tort which can be used in proceedings pursuant to certain types of adultery.  Dating from the eighteenth century, although abolished in England in 1857, the tort survived in Australia until 1975 when the Family Law Act replaced the old Matrimonial Causes Act, a piece of law reform which much disappointed Liberal Party lawyers, not a few moralists (professional & amateur) and readers of the Melbourne Truth, a most disreputable tabloid noted for its outstanding racing form guide and publication of salacious photographs (often taken through the windows of St Kilda motels) used as evidence in divorce cases.  The action remains available in a handful of jurisdictions in the United States where the rules can be more liberal than permitted in English courts in that women are entitled to sue.  The name has always been misleading; although called "criminal" conversation, the action was only ever strictly a claim for damages in money.

Example one (Cheryl & Gareth): A man has an affair with a married woman.  

The husband of the unfaithful wife would have been able to sue the unfaithful husband in the tort of criminal conversation.

It was a precisely defined tort which existed to allow wronged parties to seek monetary compensation for acts of unfaithfulness.  Under criminal conversation, within certain limitations of timings and sequence of events, a husband could sue any man who slept with his wife, even if consensual.  If the couple was already separated, the husband could sue only if the separation was caused by the person he was suing.

Example two (Vikki & Barnaby): A man has an affair with an unmarried woman.  

No action would have been possible in the tort of criminal conversation because the woman has no husband to raise the action.  Only a husband could be the plaintiff, and only the "other man" could be the defendant.

Reflecting the moral basis of the tort, each separate adulterous act could give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation and curiously, the plaintiff, defendant and wife were not permitted to take the stand, evidence being given by other observers, often servants in the employment of one of the parties to the suit.  The tort was a matter wholly a creature of civil law and the definitions of adultery codified in canon law had no relevance to the offence or any subsequent penalty.  Under canon law, someone was deemed to have committed adultery if they enjoyed intimacy with someone while married to another whereas if the other party was also married, the offence was double adultery but neither aggravated the offence or could be offered in mitigation.

Conversation piece: Lindsay Lohan in conversation with her sister Aliana, La Conversation bakery & café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Conversation piece: The Schutz Family and their Friends on a Terrace (1725) by Philip Mercier, Tate Gallery.  As a genre in painting, the "conversation piece" was a notionally informal (though obviously often staged) group portrait, usually small in scale and depicting families (and sometimes groups of friends) in domestic interior or garden settings.  They were popular for much of the eighteenth century, the most noted artists in the style including Philip Mercier (1689-1760), William Hogarth (1697-1764), Arthur Devis (1712-1787) and Johan Zoffany (1733-1810).

The form is interesting because it reflects the emergence of a new component of the leisured class, the newly rich merchants, or mine and factory owners whose wealth was derived from the profits of industrial revolution and the country’s expanding international trade.  The painters tended to show their subjects in genteel interaction, taking tea, playing games or sitting with their pets.  Conversation pieces were thus different from the formal court or grand style portraits favored by the aristocracy and were an attempt to represent the new middle class behaving as they imagined the old gentry did in everyday life.  Their influence worked also in reverse, aristocratic and royal patrons soon commissioning artist to paint their families in a similar vein.

Putsch

Putsch (pronounced poo-ch)

A (usually violent) sudden uprising; a political revolt, especially a coup d'état.

1915:  From the German Putsch, derived from the Swiss or Alemannic German Putsch (knock, thrust, blow) and therefore of imitative origin.  It picked up the meaning “a political coup” in standard German through Swiss popular uprisings of the 1830s, especially the Zurich revolt of September 1839; first noted in English in 1915.

Operation Hummingbird (1934): Crushing the "Röhm Putsch"

Adolf Hitler looking at Ernst Röhm, 1934.

Nacht der langen Messer (Night of the Long Knives), also called Unternehmen Kolbri (Operation Hummingbird) was a purge executed in Nazi Germany between 30 June-2 July 1934, when the regime carried out a number of extrajudicial executions, ostensibly to crush what was referred to as "the Röhm Putsch".  Targets of the purge were those in the Nazi (National-Socialist) movement labelled as identifying with the need to continue the revolution so it would be as much socialist as it was nationalist.  Ironically, at the time, there was no putsch planned although Ernst Röhm (1887–1934; chief of the Sturmabteilung (the stormtroopers (the SA)), head of the four-million strong SA had certainly in the past hinted at one.

Hermann Göring, 1934.

Intended by Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; head of government (1933-1945) & head of state (1934-1945) in Nazi Germany) to be a short, sharp hit with a handful of arrests, Hummingbird suffered the not infrequent fate of operations during the Third Reich: mission creep.  By the time Hummingbird ended in early July, Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS (Schutzstaffel (Security Section (or Squad)) 1929-1945), his henchman Reinhard Heydrich (1904–1942; high-ranking SS official, chief of Reich Security Main Office (Gestapo, Sipo, Kripo & SD 1939-1942) and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1923-1945 and Hitler's designated successor 1941-1945), then a dynamic force, settled scores and, including collateral damage, the death toll was probably around 180.  Even Hitler thought that a bit much and worried for days there might be consequences but he addressed the parliament, claimed it was a matter of national security and received the thanks of the president for sorting things out.  All’s well that ends well.

The Nazi state was so extreme in its depravity and gangsterism it can be difficult fully to appreciate the enormity of what was done in 1934 and, dreadful as it was, the regime would get worse.  After Nacht der langen Messer, the Nazis cast themselves loose from the moorings of civilization, first drifting, later accelerating towards the holocaust.  The appalling nature of Nacht der langen Messer is best understood by imagining it happening in Australia under vaguely similar circumstances. 

Operation Galah (2018): Crushing the Dutton Putsch

Malcolm Turnbull & Scott Morrison.

At about 4:30am, Malcolm Turnbull and his entourage flew into Brisbane.  From the airport they drove to Federal Police headquarters, where an enraged Turnbull dismissed the police chief and told him he would be shot.  Later that day, he was executed while a large number of other police were arrested.  Turnbull meanwhile assembled a squad of federal police and departed for the northern suburbs hotel where Peter Dutton and his followers were staying.  With Turnbull's arrival around 6:30am, Dutton and his supporters, still in bed, were taken by surprise.  The squad stormed the hotel and Turnbull personally placed Dutton and other prominent Liberal-Party conservatives under arrest. According to Michaelia Cash, Turnbull turned Abbott over to "two detectives holding pistols with safety catches off".  Turnbull ordered Eric Abetz, George Christensen, Kevin Andrews and others in Dutton’s group immediately to be taken outside, put up against a wall and shot.

Christopher Pyne.

Although Turnbull presented no evidence of a plot by Dutton to overthrow his government, he nevertheless denounced the leadership of the conservative faction.  Arriving back at Liberal Party headquarters in Canberra, Turnbull addressed the assembled crowd and, consumed with rage, denounced "the worst treachery in world history". He told the crowd that "…undisciplined and disobedient characters and malcontents" would be annihilated. The crowd, which included party members and some Dutton supporters fortunate enough to escape arrest, shouted its approval.  Christopher Pyne, jumping with excitement, even volunteered to “shoot these traitors".

Julie Bishop & Peter Dutton.

Julie Bishop, who had been with Turnbull in Brisbane, set the final phase of the plan in motion and upon returning to Canberra, telephoned Scott Morrison at 11:00am with the codeword "Galah" to let loose the execution squads on the rest of their unsuspecting victims.  Some 180 enemies of the moderate faction were killed, most by shooting although there were mistakes; the music critic of the Courier Mail was executed because of a filing error when mixed-up with a member of the Young Liberals with a similar name.  The Liberal Party sent a wreath to the funeral.

Eric Abetz & Scott Morrison.

The regime did not limit itself to a purge of the Liberal-Party conservatives.  Having banished some of them from the ministry, Turnbull and Bishop used the occasion to add to the list some moderates he considered unreliable.  Also executed were Barnaby Joyce and two other members of the National Party, apparently just because Turnbull hated them.  Another against whom he had long held a grudge, a former Treasury official, met an especially gruesome fate, his body found in a wood outside Canberra, beaten to death with a vintage mechanical adding machine.

Tony Abbott & Kevin Andrews.

Dutton, along with Tony Abbott, briefly was held in a cell at Liberal Party headquarters while Turnbull considered their fate.  In the end, he decided Dutton and Abbott had to die and, at Turnbull’s behest, Tim Wilson and Trent Zimmermann visited Dutton and Abbott.  Once inside the cell, they handed each of them a pistol loaded with a single bullet and told them they had ten minutes to kill themselves or they would do it for them.  Abbott demurred, telling them, "If I am to be killed, let Malcolm do it himself."  Having heard nothing in the allotted time, Wilson and Zimmermann returned to the cell to find them still alive, Abbott standing in a gesture of defiance, wearing just his Speedos.  They were then both shot dead.

George Christensen.

As the purge claimed the lives of so many prominent members of the party, it could hardly be kept secret.  At first, its architects seemed split on how to handle the event and Morrison instructed police stations to burn "all documents concerning the action of the past two days". Meanwhile, Julie Bishop tried to prevent newspapers from publishing lists of the dead, but at the same time used a radio address to describe how Turnbull had narrowly prevented Dutton and Abbott from overthrowing the government and throwing the country into turmoil.  Then, Turnbull justified the purge in a nationally broadcast speech in the House of Representatives.

“If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this. In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the Australian people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the Australian people. I gave the order to shoot the ringleaders in this treason, and I further gave the order to cauterise down to the raw flesh the ulcers of this poisoning of the wells in our domestic life. Let the nation know that its existence—which depends on its internal order and security—cannot be threatened with impunity by anyone! And let it be known for all time to come that if anyone raises his hand to strike the state, then certain death is his lot”.

Peter Dutton & Malcolm Turnbull, 2016 General Election.

Concerned with presenting the massacre as legally sanctioned, Turnbull had the cabinet approve a measure that declared, "The measures taken to suppress treasonous assaults are legal as acts of self-defence by the State."  Attorney-General Christian Porter, a one-time conservative, demonstrated his loyalty to the regime by drafting the statute which added a veneer of lawfulness.  Signed into law as the Law "Regarding Measures of State Self-Defence", it retroactively legalised the murders committed during the purge.  Australia's legal establishment further capitulated to the regime when a leading legal scholar wrote an article defending Turnbull’s speech. It was named "The Prime-Minister Upholds the Law".  From Yarralumla, the governor-general sent Turnbull a personally-signed letter expressing his "profoundly felt gratitude" and he congratulated the prime-minister for "nipping treason in the bud".

Rusticate

Rusticate (pronounced ruhs-ti-keyt)

(1) To go to the country; to stay or sojourn in the country; to banish or retire to the country

(2) To make rustic, as persons or manners; to make or become rustic in style, behaviour etc.

(3) In architecture, to finish an exterior wall with large blocks of masonry that are separated by deep joints and decorated with a bold, usually textured, design.

(4) Temporarily to send down a student from a university as punishment (historic UK use).

(5) By extension, to sack a politician from office because of misbehavior or some scandal.

1650–1660: From the Latin rūsticātus, past participle of rūsticārī (to live in the country), the construct being rūstic(us) (rustic + -ātus); ultimate root was rūs (the country) which, like rūsticus was derived from the Proto-Italic rowestikos. The Classical Latin suffix –ātus (feminine -āta, neuter -ātum) is from the Proto-Italic -ātos, from the primitive Indo-European -eh₂tos and is listed by scholars as a "pseudo-participle" possibly related to -tus, though similar formations in other Indo-European languages indicate it was distinct from it by Indo-European times.  The suffix –ate was used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality and was one of Latin’s perfect passive participle suffixes of first conjugation verbs (-ātus, -āta & -ātum) which, in Middle English was written -at.  Rusticate is a verb, rusticator & rustication are nouns and rusticated & rusticating are adjectives & verbs; the usual noun plural is rusticators.

Rusticated by nature (and sometimes by circumstances): Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022).

Choleric

Choleric (pronounced kol-er-ik or kuh-ler-ik)

(1) Extremely irritable or easily angered; irascible; bad-tempered.

(2) A person with a choleric temperament.

(3) A person suffering from the infectious disease cholera (rare).

1300–1350: From the Middle English colrik & colerik (bilious of temperament or complexion), from the Old French colerique, from the Medieval Latin colericus (bilious), from the Classical Latin cholericus, from the Ancient Greek cholerikós or kholerikós, from the Greek kholera (a type of disease characterized by diarrhea, supposedly caused by bile), from khole (gall, bile) and so-called for its color, related to khloazein (to be green) & khlōros (pale green, greenish-yellow), from the primitive Indo-European root ghel- (to shine), with derivatives denoting "green, yellow," and thus "bile, gall”.  The meaning "easily angered, hot-tempered" is from 1580s (based on the then-current medical orthodoxy of the supposed effect of excess choler) and the synonyms include wrathful, testy, impatient, touchy, bilious, irascible and peevish.  The more literal use "of or pertaining to cholera" dates only from 1834.  Choleric is a noun & adjective, cholerically & cholericly are adverbs and cholericness is a noun; the noun plural is cholerics.  

It was an excess of the humor of yellow bile (xanthe chole) which made one choleric.  Humoral (humor a translation of the Ancient Greek χυμός (chymos (literally juice or sap, figuratively flavor)) theory (known also as humorism or humoralism), was a system of medicine from antiquity which provided a framework and description of the supposed workings of the human body.  It was the standard model for the philosophers and physicians of Ancient Greek and Rome and endured in Western medicine well into the nineteenth century when many of its assumptions about physical illness were disproved by germ theory and the understanding of the role of pathogens in disease.  The overturning of humoral theory was one of the landmarks in the origins of modernity.

In antiquity it was a concept rather than something with a standardized systemization and there existed competing models with more or fewer components but it’s because the description with four was that endorsed by the Greek physician Hippocrates (circa 460–circa 370 BC) that it became famous in the West and absorbed into medical practice.  The four humors of Hippocratic medicine are black bile (μέλαινα χολή (melaina chole)), yellow bile (ξανθη χολή (xanthe chole)), phlegm (φλέγμα (phlegma)) & blood (αἷμα (haima)), each corresponding with the four temperaments of man and linked also to the four seasons: yellow bile=summer, black bile=autumn, phlegm=winter & blood=spring.  In Hippocratic medicine, to be healthy, the four humors needed to be in balance and this, once achieved, was the state of enkrateia (from the Ancient Greek ἐγκράτεια (eukrasia) (in power), the construct being ἐν (en-) (in-) + κράτος (krátos) (power), a word which appears in the New Testament in the context of virtues (Acts 24:25, Galatians 5:23 & 2 Peter 1:6).  In the King James Version (KJV, 1611), it would be translated as "temperance", a word which went on to assume a life of its own.

Using Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2021) to illustrate the basic, comparative and superlative adjectives (choleric).  Mr Joyce’s symptoms (ambitious, leader-like, restless, easily angered) suggest an excess of yellow bile and to counteract this, Hippocrates recommended cold and wet foods such as cucumber or lettuce to bring the humors back into alignment.  Mr Joyce should adopt a cucumber & lettuce diet.

Choleric.

Comparative: more choleric.

Superlative: most choleric.

 

Probity

Probity (pronounced proh-bi-tee or prob-i-tee)

Integrity and uprightness; honesty.

1505-1515: From the Middle English probite (tried virtue or integrity, strict honesty), from the Middle French probité, from probitatem (nominative probitās (uprightness, honesty), from probus (virtuous, good, excellent, honest).  The construct of the Latin probitās was prob(us) (upright; worthy, good) + itās (the -itas suffix was from the Proto-Italic -itāts & -otāts (-tās added to i-stems or o-stems, later used freely) and ultimately from the primitive Indo-European -tehats.  The noun plural is probities.  Synonyms include (variously according to context) godliness, goodness, honor, righteousness, saintliness, uprightness & virtue; the antonym which best catches the sense is probably wickedness.

Quia suam uxorem etiam suspicione vacare vellet

Pompeia was (probably the second) wife of Julius Caesar (100–44 BC; Roman general & dictator 49-44 BC) who Caesar married in 67 BC.  In 63 BC Caesar was elected to the position of Pontifex Maximus (head priest of the Roman state church), a perk of which was a grand house on the Via Sacra and it was there in 62 BC that Pompeia hosted the festival of the Bona Dea (the good goddess), an event no man was allowed to attend.  However a young man called Publius Clodius Pulcher, disguised as a woman, managed to enter the house, his purpose the seduction of Pompeia.

Discovered early in the event, he was arrested and Caesar immediately divorced Pompeia.  The young man was prosecuted for sacrilege but when called as a witness, Caesar disavowed any knowledge of the events and declined to offer any evidence against Clodius who was therefore acquitted.  Pompeia assured her husband her honor hadn’t been violated which her husband believed but when asked by the prosecutor why therefore he'd divorced her, Caesar's answer was that his wife couldn't be even under suspicion and there must be no doubt as to the probity of Caesar's wife.

From this passed into use the phrase attributed to Julius Caesar by the Greek (later Roman) historian Plutarch (circa 46–circa 124): quia suam uxorem etiam suspicione vacare vellet (because he should wish even his wife to be free from suspicion) which is translated usually as "because Caesar's wife must be above suspicion", and the expression of womanly virtue therefore being understood as "acting with the probity of Caesar's wife".

Many subsequent Caesars have benefited from the probity of their wives, their rectitude not always appreciated or reciprocated.

Hypocrite & Pharisee

Hypocrite (pronounced hip-uh-krit)

(1) A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles etc., that they do not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

(2) A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

1175–1225: from the Middle English ypocrite & ipocrite (false pretender to virtue or religion), from the Old French ypocrite (the Modern is French hypocrite), from the Ecclesiastical Latin hypocrita, from the Ancient Greek ὑποκριτής (hupokritḗs) (a stage actor, one who plays a part), from ὑποκρίνομαι (hupokrínomai) (I answer, act, feign, the construct being from hupo(krinein) (to feign (from krinein (to judge) + -tēs (the agent suffix).  Hypocrite is a noun (and long ago an adjective), hypocritical an adjective and hypocritically an adverb

Hypocrite came to English from the Ancient Greek hypokrites, which translates as “an actor”, the word a compound noun, the construct being two Greek words that literally translate as “an interpreter from underneath.”  That sense may sound strange but is actually literal, the actors in ancient Greek theater wearing large masks to indicate the part being played, thus they interpreted the story from underneath their masks.  This meaning endured from Antiquity, the Greek word later taking on an extended meaning to refer to someone said figuratively to be masked and thus pretending to be someone or something they were not.  This sense was taken-up in medieval French and subsequently English, where initially it used the earlier spelling ypocrite and in thirteenth century was used to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others.  Hypocrite gained its initial h- by the sixteenth century and it wasn’t until the early 1700s that it assumed in general use the now familiar modern meaning “a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings”, some five-hundred years after those striding English stages were so-described.

The adjective hypocritical (of, pertaining to, or proceeding from hypocrisy) dates from the 1540s (as implied in hypocritically) and prevailed over hypocritish (1520s) & hypocritic (1530s).  It was adjectivally innovative because from the thirteenth century, Middle English used the simple hypocrite as the adjective as well as the noun.  In Scottish, the late fifteenth century Lowrie (the characteristic name of the fox) was also used in the dual sense of "crafty person; hypocrite”

Hypocrite is so precise and well-understood that synonyms really aren’t required to convey any intent of meaning but for literary purposes there’s also bigot, charlatan, crook, impostor, phony, trickster, actor, backslider, bluffer, casuist, cheat, deceiver, decoy, dissembler, dissimulator, fake, four-flusher, fraud, humbug, informer, pretender & pharisee.  That such an impressively long list exists is a commentary on the human condition.  The noun dissembler is probably closest; a dissembler is “one who conceals his opinions, character etc, under a false appearance, one who pretends that a thing which is not".  Attested since the 1520s, it’s the agent noun from dissemble.

Pharisee (pronounced far-uh-see)

(1) A member of a Jewish sect that flourished between the second century BC and first century AD (during the Second Temple Era (536 BC-70 AD) which differed from the Sadducees principally in its strict observance of religious ceremonies and practices, adherence to oral laws and traditions (as interpreted rabbinically), belief in an afterlife and the coming of a Messiah (always with initial capital).  The movement was ultimately the basis for most contemporary forms of Judaism.

(2) Of or pertaining to the Pharisees.

(3) A sanctimonious, self-righteous, or hypocritical person (usually and correctly with initial lower-case).

(4) In figurative (and usually derogatory or offensive) use, a person who values the letter of the law over its spirit or intention; a person who values form over content.

Pre 900: From the Middle English Pharise & Farise, from the Old English Fariseos & Farīsēus, from the thirteenth century Old French pharise, from the Church Latin Pharisaeus (a variant of Pharīsaeus), from the Ancient Greek Φαρισαῖος (Pharisaîos), a transliteration of the Aramaic פְּרִישַׁיָּא‎ (pərîšayyâ’), emphatic plural of פְּרִישׁ‎ (pərîš) (separatist (literally “separated”)) and related to the Hebrew פרוש‎ (parush), qal passive participle of the verb פָּרַשׁ‎ (pāraš) (one who is separated for a life of purity), from parash (the Aramaic (Semitic) pərīshayyā was the plural of what is usually rendered as perīsh & pərīshā (literally “separated”)).  The extended meaning "any self-righteous person, formalist, hypocrite, scrupulous or ostentatious observer of the outward forms of religion without regard to its inward spirit" dates from the 1580s.  There’s no agreement between scholars about whether "Pharisee", derived words meaning “separated; set apart" refers to a physical separation from impure gentiles or a doctrinal separation from less religiously rigorous Jews and there’s even a suggestion they were regarded as "separatists" in the modern political sense.  The derived terms pharisaic, pharisaical, pharisaically, pharisaicalness, pharisaism & phariseeism (used according to context with and without an initial capital) are rarely used except in biblical scholarship or especially learned (and usually critical) legal texts.

The ancient Jewish sect which flourished between the second century BC and first century AD was distinguished the strict observance by its members of laws of behavior & ritual but were so extreme in their adherence that others came to regard them as pretentious and self-righteously sanctimonious and one of those others, recorded in the Gospel of Matthew was Jesus Christ himself:

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

(23) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

(24) Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

(25) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

(27) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

(28) Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

Matthew 23 (King James Version (KJV 1611))

The recently revealed text messages sent by Australia’s deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice deputy prime-minister 2016-) included a character assessment of Prime Minister Scott Morrison (b 1968; Prime Minister of Australia 2018-) as “…a hypocrite and a liar from my observations and that is over a long time,” adding “I have never trusted him, and I dislike how earnestly [he] rearranges the truth to a lie.”  That was good but more amusing still was Mr Joyce’s “unreserved” apology to which he added the reservations that (1) it was a long time ago (10 months) and he was younger then, (2) he didn’t really know him at the time the message was sent (they’ve served together in cabinet for most of the last decade), (3) his opinion since he got to know him better has softened and he now thinks he’s a fine chap “of high integrity and honesty” and (4), he was in a bad mood when sending the message.

Given the ferocity of the critique, one might have thought Mr Morrison may have been consumed by hatred and vengeful thoughts but, perhaps feeling constrained by Luke 6:37…:

Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. (King James Version (KJV 1611))

… issued a statement saying he’d forgiven Mr Joyce his trespasses, a gesture which either demonstrates some generosity of spirit or hints at his increasingly perilous political position.

Grace Tame looking at Scott Morrison, The Lodge, Canberra, annual pre-Invasion Day (aka Australia Day) festivities, 25 January 2021 and, arm in sling, after “a bike stack”.

Mr Joyce however may still nervously be looking over his shoulder.  A few days after Grace Tame (b 1994; activist for survivors of sexual assault & 2021 Australian of the Year), not best pleased with some aspects of Mr Morrison’s commitment to helping victims of sexual assault, spoiled one of his prized photo-opportunities by fixing him with a frosty stare rather than the expected asinine smile, she was involved in an accident, tumbling from her bike, breaking a collarbone and sustaining the odd graze.  There is no suggestion either Mr Morrison or the Liberal Party’s squad of dirty tricks operatives were involved in what Ms Tame described as a “bike stack” but Mr Joyce, noting no doubt that Mr Morrison said only “forgive” and not “forget”, may be impressed by the coincidence.

Even if he worries about that, perhaps Mr Joyce might have time to reflect on the attitude of Jesus to hypocrisy, discussed in the Gospel of John.  The Pharisees, in an attempt to discredit Jesus, brought before him a woman they accused of adultery, reminding the crime was under Mosaic law punishable by stoning.

(3) And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

(4) They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

(6) This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

(7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

(9) And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

(10) When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

(11) She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

John 8 (King James Version (KJV 1611)

Given the enthusiasm Mr Joyce showed for defending the sanctity of the marriage vow during the debate about same-sex marriage before deserting his wife to co-habit with a former employee with whom he’d been conducting an adulterous affair, it may be time for him to read the bible rather than just thumping one.

Gladys Berejiklian looking at Scott Morrison.

What made the latest in Mr Joyce’s long line of gaffs funnier still was the release a few days earlier of text messages between former New South Wales premier Gladys Berejiklian (b 1970; Premier of NSW 2017-2021) and an un-named member of Mr Morrison’s cabinet in which Ms Berejiklian branded the prime minister a “horrible, horrible person” who was "untrustworthy" and “more concerned with politics than people”.  The minister proved responsive to the then premier’s analysis, describing his leader as “a fraud”, “a complete psycho” and “desperate and jealous.”  Perhaps a victim of Sinodinos syndrome, when asked, Ms Berejiklian said she couldn't recall of the exchange.

Spirit of forgiveness: The prime-minister washes and conditions his deputy’s hair (digitally altered image).

As soon as this scurrilous texting was revealed, Mr Joyce affected outrage that anyone would do such a thing, condemning the anonymous minister and demanding they reveal their identity.  “I would suggest that if you know anything about this don’t wait to be outed”, Mr Joyce told the media.  He also had practical advice, adding “…and give an explanation.  Maybe it was a bad day in the office, I don’t know. That’s a better way to do it. It getting out is one good rump steak, with horseradish sauce, vegetables and chips, two bottles of red wine, and some journo is going to say ‘You know who told me that? Blah blah blah.’ And she’s out.”  That may yet prove sound advice.  Most revealing perhaps was (1) the admission by the journalist who provided the leak that the ministerial author had on two prior occasions over the last year refused to authorize a public release of the text, dropping the embargo only to permit a release on 1 February 2022 and (2) the journalist writes for the Murdoch press.  Politicians’ motives for doing things always attract interest (when being told of the Belgium ambassador’s death, Talleyrand mused “I wonder what his motive was?”) and there’s been much speculation, most of it pondering which minister would gain most to gain from the messages entering the public domain.

Former NSW premier Bob Carr (b 1947; Premier of NSW 1995-2005, foreign minister 2012-2013 (@bobjcarr)), anxious to help, tweeted:

The minister who shared the text with van Onselen and gave permission to use it was Peter Dutton. If PM Morrison has one more week in free fall the prospect of a leadership change pre-election is real.  Party rules don’t count if most MPs think you will lead them to defeat.

Mr Dutton (b 1970; member of cabinet since 2013) responded by tweeting “Bob Carr’s tweet is baseless, untrue and should be deleted” but Mr Carr declined, instead adding “Only one way Peter Dutton can win his case: get another colleague to admit that they were the source for comments about the Prime Minister.  If not you, Mr Dutton, which of your colleagues? Until then who has most to gain from undermining further a flailing PM?”

In happier times: Liberal-National Party billboard for the 2016 election campaign.

Given Ms Berejiklian and Mr Dutton sat in different parliaments, hailed from different states and belonged to different factions, it does seem strange he might be the suspect texter but few things in politics unite like a mutual loathing.  Mr Carr offered no evidence for his claim and seemed unconcerned the notably litigious Mr Dutton might issue a writ.  The former foreign minister said that, like a journalist, he wouldn’t be revealing his sources but did indicate the tip came from a normally reliable source and was not supposition based on Mr Dutton having “a bit of previous”.  Mr Dutton's texting history included sending one calling a journalist a "mad fucking witch".  Unfortunately he sent the text to the target of his remarks but fortunately she worked for the Murdoch press and thus had to cop it sweet which the witch did with some aplomb, even complimenting Mr Dutton for having been a minister who had made a great contribution to government.  The conspiracy theory which underpins Mr Carr's tweet is the notion that in 2018 Mr Morrison tricked Mr Dutton into triggering the defenestration of Malcolm Turnbull (b 1954; prime-minister of Australia 2015-2018) and then double-crossed him, securing the numbers and The Lodge for himself.  Not quite Fortinbras in Hamlet but an anyway successful venture.  Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.

Peter Dutton looking at Scott Morrison.

Amidst the Sturm und Drang which has raged since the text messages emerged, what’s not been discussed is the desirability of characteristics such as hypocrisy, having more interest in politics than people and being an actual psychopath in a prime-minister.  Being a hypocrite in its original meaning in Ancient Greek (an actor; one playing a part) is so obvious a helpful attribute for a political leader that Ronald Reagan (1911-2004 US President 1981-1989) was probably genuinely surprised at the journalistic naiveté when, during the 1980 presidential election campaign, he was asked if was possible for an actor to be good president.  His rely was “How is it possible for a good president not to be an actor?” and his point was well made and Harold Macmillan (1894-1986, UK prime-minister 1957-1963) was habitually referred to as an “actor-manager”.  Being, in its modern sense, a hypocrite, liar and psychopath might sound less promising qualifications for political leadership and for idealists something truly appalling and it may be these qualities are more valuable in attaining office than exercising successfully its power although there’s always the extraordinary example of Comrade Stalin (1878-1853; leader of the USSR 1924-1953) to illustrate just what a serious psychopath can achieve.

Another fun aspect of these text messages is that the conflict is internecine.  Politicians being mean to those on the other side is so common it barely rates as news unless there’s some particularly egregious accusation, preferably involving a goat or some other abomination but when it’s within the same party, it’s especially amusing because that’s where the real hatreds lie.  That’s why Gordon Brown (b 1951; UK prime-minister 2007-2010) being was labeled “a psychopath” by Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) was funny; had he said it of the leader of the opposition it’s doubtful anyone would have noticed.  Mr Joyce’s contribution to the genre was really quite good as was that of Mr Dutton (or whomever the culprit may be) but that of Ms Berejiklian lacked punch; she needs to sharpen the hatchet.