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 a coincidence Ms Tame’s bike stack was not an unusual event. Although an admirable means of transportation (a bicycle is one of the most efficient means of getting from A to B in urban environments), there is a death and injury toll associated with the machines. In 2021, 38 cyclists were killed in road-related incidents in Australia, a slight increase from the previous year in which there were 35 fatalities and the riders typically account for some 3% of all road deaths nationally. Quite how many are injured each year isn’t known because many minor injuries are treated only with first-aid and those dealt with by GP (general practitioners or family doctors) don’t appear in aggregate statistics but data from hospital admissions record over 12,000 cyclists who were in 2021 treated for non-fatal injuries related to cycling accidents. The most common injuries included fractures, head injuries and soft-tissue damage while a significant proportion of fatalities involved collisions with motor vehicles, especially on urban roads.
As Mr Joyce ponders coincidences, he might pause 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.
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.”
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?”
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. Interestingly, despite many opportunities, Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.
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.
