Scrofulous (pronounced skrof-yuh-luhs)
(1) In pathology, pertaining to, resembling, of the
nature of, or affected with scrofula.
(2) In figurative use, degraded, morally tainted or degenerate.
(3) In figurative use, Having an unkempt, unhealthy
appearance.
1605–1615: The construct was scroful(a) + -ous. Scrofula (primary tuberculosis of the
lymphatic glands, especially those of the neck) dates from 1350–1400, from the Middle
English scrofula (the plural), from
the Medieval Latin scrophulosus &
scrōfulae (swollen glands in the neck
(literally “little sows”)), the construct being scrōf(a) (a sow) + -ulae (the plural suffix), the derivation
explained by the belief breeding sows were particularly susceptible to the
disease. Scrofula is most common in
children and is usually spread by unpasteurized milk from infected cows; No
longer in technical use, scrofula was also known as “the king’s evil”; as part
of the mystique of monarchy, the kings of England and France long pretended to
possess the power of curing scrofula by touching the sore, a belief which
endured and as late as the eighteenth century, there were still doctors who
believed the only cure was to be touched by a member of a royal family. Improvements in social conditions and treatment
meant scrofula became a less common disease in adults by mid- twentieth century
although it persisted in children. With
the spread of HIV-AIDS reaching critical mass in the 1980s, there was a resurgence
in scrofula and it’s been linked also with monkeypox. Despite the similarity is spelling, the word scruff
is unrelated, being an Old English term for dandruff, the generalized sense of
someone who is “rough and dirty” (and thus scruffy) dates from 1871. Scrofulous is an adjective, scrofulously is
an adverb and scrofulousness & scrofuloderma are nouns
The
–ous suffix was from the Middle
English -ous, from the Old French –ous & -eux, from the Latin -ōsus
(full, full of); a doublet of -ose in
an unstressed position. It was used to
form adjectives from nouns, to denote possession or presence of a quality in
any degree, commonly in abundance. In
chemistry, it has a specific technical application, used in the nomenclature to
name chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a lower
oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix
-ic. For example sulphuric acid (H2SO4)
has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H2SO3).
Scott Morrison's five other jobs
The revelation former Australian prime-minister Scott
Morrison (b 1968; prime minister of Australia 2018-2022), in much secrecy, had
himself appointed himself to five ministerial roles in addition to being the
head of government attracted some interest.
The public reaction was muted given the rather arcane administrative mechanisms
involved but the usual suspects (journalists and political commentators) seemed
to think it a great scandal, an opinion loudly and repeatedly expressed by Her
Majesty’s loyal opposition who seemed most interested of all. Others who had their attention stirred were those
of his former colleagues (including the Secretary-General of the Organization
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)) who were unaware they were
job-sharing with the prime-minister until they read about it in the Murdoch
press.
Between March 2020 and May 2021, Mr Morrison, on paper, appeared to centralize power in his office by becoming Australia's minister of health, finance, resources, home affairs and the treasury. In practice, the powers accrued seem to have been exercised only once but that was in a way which appears to violate the agreement between the Liberal and National parties which provides the parameters for the coalition arrangements maintained in government. Even that, whatever the political implications, doesn’t seem to suggest anything unlawful and the general conclusion which has emerged is that the additional appointments were constitutional. Whether there are technical reasons which operate to mean the parliament should have been informed is a matter for debate but unarguably, to do so is at least a convention.
The This uncertainty and the opposition’s inability to cite specific unlawfulness is why the attack on Mr Morrison was received, outside of the usual suspects, with such indifference, the suggestion of a general moral scrofulousness hardly the same thing as a smoking gun. What the strange tale did provide was an opportunity for the amateur psychoanalysts to ponder Mr Morrison’s motives and map them onto his well-known world view which is that of an evangelical, born-again Christian. In justifying his actions because the COVID-19 pandemic meant “these were unprecedented times which required extraordinary measures” and that “no prime-minister… had faced the same circumstances” and added that "there was a clear expectation established in the public's mind, certainly in the media's mind, and absolutely in the mind of the opposition… that I, as Prime Minister, was responsible pretty much for every single thing that was going on". It was an interesting observation given that almost immediately the pandemic was declared an ad-hoc “national cabinet” was convened, consisting of the prime-minister and the eight premiers & chief-ministers and there was at least as much focus on that eight as there was on the prime-minister.
That was of course inevitable because of the way the
Australian constitutions divides the heads of power between the Commonwealth
and the states and Mr Morrison, during the pandemic, showed little hesitation
in ascribing responsibility for many unpopular measures to the premiers. In that he was quite correct and there is little
to suggest there was a public perception focused wholly on him. Indeed, what the operations of governments
during the pandemic did illustrate was just how extensive are the residual
powers of the states, despite a century or more of centralization of power by the
actions of the Commonwealth and decision of the High Court. Still, Mr Morrison says he felt the way he
did and was presumably content to be the savior of the nation at its moment of
need, an intoxicating prospect for any politician.
Despite the frequency with which it’s used, no edition of
the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM) has ever used the term "messiah complex" (a desire
and compulsion to redeem or save others or the world, a form of megalomania in
which the individual experiences delusions of grandeur) although other diagnosis
are listed which contain at least some of the elements which are understood as
being identified with the syndrome. Of
course, there was also the matter of him not trusting some of his ministers to
be sufficiently competent to deal with a genuine crisis and it has to be admitted
some of his more average ministers (some of them very average) didn’t inspire confidence.
In the chair: Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference. A Peace Conference at the Quai d’Orsay (1919), oil on canvas by William Orpen (1878–1931).
Most interesting perhaps is that the revelation of this matter is a story in itself and one which seems to confirm Mr Morrison’s sincerity of purpose in originally having himself created minister of this and that. Because, in constitutional theory, ministers exercise the powers of the sovereign and many of those powers are limited to a particular minister, in a time of crisis, it can make things worse if a minister is unavailable. Mr Morrison says he thought at the time the pandemic was declared, the information from overseas was dire and it wasn’t impossible that were the virus to take hold in Australia, it was not impossible ministers might drop dead (the Lord forbid, obviously) and it was thus a sensible precaution to have a backup for ministers serving in critical areas. Not wishing to burden others, he assumed the duties himself.
Prime-ministerial intrusions into matters beyond their remit have over the years been a thread in a number of memoirs by members of cabinets who at times felt usurped but Mr Morrison's actually cloning and in parallel assuming another's constitutional authority was most unusual. Some however were interested in other fields and, responding to accusations prime-minister Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) was too activist in the conduct of the war and too inclined to interfere in military tactics and strategy, the political cartoonist David Low (1891-1963) in 1942 commented by depicting the PM as a politician-cum-general-cum-admiral-cum-air-marshal. There was something in the criticism in that much like Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) and others not professional soldiers, Churchill was interested in grand strategy and the minutiae of detail like the calibre of shells but not the vast logistical & organizational operations which tend ultimately to determine success or failure. Churchill certainly tried to exert influence on his military advisors in favor of his pet projects (of which there were many) and while some were inspired and (especially in the early stages of US involvement in the conflict) wise, the war effort was undoubtedly aided by the chiefs of staff resisting some of his more Napoleonic visions of battle, ensuring Quixotic ventures in the Baltic or the Far East never proceeded.
The multiple ministries Mr Morrison discussed some two years ago, in a
matter-of-fact manner, with two journalists writing a book about the pandemic. That this wasn’t revealed for two years seems
to be simply because it was a good, juicy bit of the book which the authors
didn’t wish to reveal in advance. When
it was published, it was mentioned just as an interesting aspect of pandemic
management with not a hint it might be thought improper or even unusual, the
secrecy mentioned but only in the sense of it be just one of the many things
governments keep secret, so as not to frighten the horses. It made the front page of the national daily
but not as the headline, only a “color” piece rather than the lede, the details
on page 2 while the main story was within, a discussion of the book. Intriguingly for students for media
management and the generation of moral panics, the media essentially ignored
the story for two days before joining the opposition’s bandwagon attempting to
paint the former prime-minister as morally scrofulous. At that point it did get more interesting, Mr
Morrison having appointed himself to five portfolios rather than the two he
mentioned and that he’d actually once exercised the powers secretly vested and
in a matter which had nothing to do with the pandemic. What may be of interest is what's not (yet) known. Whether the power Mr Morrison enjoyed as being minister of this and that was exercised to allocate public money for some purpose isn't known but if such allocations did in secret happen would be a matter pursue. If the appointments were lawful (as all assume) there presumably any exercise of ministerial power would presumably also be lawful, however politically toxic it may retrospectively prove. Case law will be of no guide because there have never been, as far as is known, any such cases.
Mr Morrison did call a press conference and there the evasive answers and obfuscation
began. His response to his actual
exercise of one minister’s nominal authority was so carefully lawyered it
should be a model answer for any law student explaining what a minister must do
to conform with the demands of administrative law and in claiming he would publicly
have advised of his appointment(s) had he exercised the power(s) was simply an
untruth. When asked why he’d vetoed
something within the remit of the resources minister, he’d responded that it
was within his power as prime-minister. Still,
however economical with the truth he may have been, all appears to have been
lawful and presumably if God was that concerned about lying, he’d have added an
eleventh commandant.
