Sycophancy (pronounced sik-uh-fuhn-see)
(1) The usually self-seeking, servile flattery or fawning behavior of a sycophant.
(2) The
character or conduct of a sycophant.
(3) An informer, a bearer of tales (obsolete).
1537:
From the Latin sȳcophanta
(informer, trickster), from the Ancient Greek sykophantia (false accusation, slander; conduct
of a sȳcophanta) from συκοφάντης (sykophántēs), the construct being sûkon (fig) + phaínō (I show). The gesture
of "showing the fig" was an “obscene gesture of phallic
significance”, made by sticking
the thumb between two fingers, a display which vaguely resembles a fig and was
symbolic of a vagina (sûkon also
meant “vulva”), the gesture understood in many cultures in many places. Technically, it was a way of expressing one’s
thoughts without actually speaking an obscenity. The politicians in Ancient Greece were said
not to use this vulgar gesture but urged their followers to deploy it in the taunting
of opponents, a tactic familiar to observers of modern politicians who like to
delegate the dirty work to others. It
was cognate with Italian sicofante and
the Spanish sicofanta and the later
Greek form was sykophantia, from sykophantes. Sycophancy, sycophantism & sycophant are
nouns, sycophantize is a verb, sycophantic & sycophantish are adjectives
and sycophantishly is an adverb; the noun plural is plural sycophancies
(sycophants is more commonly used).
When
young, Lindsay Lohan had her troubles and in a 2012 interview blamed them on
loneliness, “sycophants
and bad influences”, adding “be careful who you surround yourself with”.
As late as the sixteenth century,
sycophancy was still used in the now long obsolete sense of “informer,
talebearer, slanderer” which was from the French sycophante and directly from Latin sȳcophanta. Such
was the influence of the often fanciful notions of Medieval scholars whose
writings were copied with such frequency that by virtue of sheer volume they
assume authority that it wasn’t until the twentieth century the old tale that a
sycophant was “one who
informed the authorities against someone unlawfully exporting figs” was
universally discredited. The general
sense of “a parasite; mean, servile flatterer” (especially of those in power)
was in use in English by the 1570s. The
phrase “yes-man” (a man who agrees from self-interest or fear with everything
put to him by a superior) was first used in 1912, a creation of American
English, the male-centric wording indicative of the predominance at the time of
men in corporate structures but there's no exclusivity of gender, women too can
be “yes-men” although “yes-women” doesn't as easily roll from the tongue and
nor does the collective “yes people”. To
even suggest someone is a “yes man” or “yes woman” may be at least a micro aggression
so to avoid compounding the offence with another “yes person” is recommended.
The sexy fig.
The
modern meaning is that of the "insincere flatterer", the "yes
man", the motive presumed usually to be personal gain. Historians from antiquity suggest the origin
of the word lies in agricultural policy, Plutarch (46–circa 120) writing that the
source was in laws forbidding the export of figs, and that those who made
accusations against others of illegally exporting figs were therefore called
sycophants. Plutarch
was citing "Solon's Laws"
which included regulations which stipulated also: “(1) trees should not be planted within five feet
of a neighbour’s property, except in the case of olives and fig-trees, which
were not to be planted within nine feet (for these trees spread out their roots
farther than others, and spoil the growth of any others by taking away their
nourishment and by giving off hurtful juices), (2) Trenches and pits
must be dug as far away from another man’s property as they were deep
and (3) no
hive of bees was to be placed within three hundred feet of those already
established by another man.”
Because the laws permitted only the export of oil, the export of figs
was forbidden and the men who informed against those who had done so were
therefore called sycophants (fig-shower).
Later, Sir William
Blackstone's (1723–1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1770) noted
there were laws making it a capital offense to break into a garden and steal
figs, and that law was thought so odious that informers were given the name
sycophants. Another variant in the fig
jam was that a sycophant was a shaker of trees: before the court, the
sycophant's false accusations makes the accused yield up the truth; in the fig
grove, sycophant's shaking forces the tree to yield up its fruit. Certainly, the fig linkage runs strong in the
language, the making of false accusations held to be such an insult to the
accused it was said to be "showing the fig", an obscene gesture “of
phallic significance" and that false charges were often so flimsy as to be
worth “not a fig".
Modern
historians enjoy the explanations but tend to be dismissive of their veracity
though all seem to agree the original sense is of a word used to disparage one
who, by the levelling of unjustified accusations, has perverted the legal
system beyond a mere abuse of process.
Pervading all is the suggestion the term was thought always at least
slightly obscene, the linkage presumably because of the symbolism of the fig in
ancient Greek culture in that sense. The
attachment to legal process in Athenian culture, separate from any hint of
obscenity, did grow and the net was cast wide, sycophants not only vexatious
litigants but also those who issued writs merely to try to induce defendants to
make a payment in exchange for dropping the case or third parties otherwise
unconnected to the sometime ancient matters before the court, appearing only to
seek an undeserved profit. In time, to
accuse a litigant of sycophancy became a serious thing, such was the opprobrium
society had come to direct towards the conduct and there are surviving texts
written by those defending themselves from the charge. Athenian law responded, imposing fines on
litigants whose matters were found vexatious or which were clearly an abuse of
process and there are echoes still of these acts in modern Greek domestic law
where, as in France, sycophant is used still in the original sense. The phenomenon attracted the playwrights
too, explored by Aristophanes (circa 446 BC-circa 386 BC) in his satires.
Impact
Of Wealth (1563) by Philips Galle (1537–1612) & Hadrianus Junius
(1511–1575).In the English-speaking world, the meaning shift seems to have
happened during the Renaissance, meanings old and new running in parallel until
the sense of the "insincere flatterer" came to prevail. It was an organic linguistic morphing, not
something induce by some event or individual, the common thread probably that
both behaviors were perceived parasitic and insincere.
Notable
Sycophants in History and Literature
Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) had been an early critic
of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) so to redeem himself, spent the rest of his career in fawning
devotion, initiating the Heil Hitler salute and insisting on the
use of Der Führer (the leader, originally just a party title) as an official title. His
letters and diaries are full of groveling praise and his propaganda campaigns created
the modern personality cult. In fairness
to Goebbels, his work was inspired and sometimes brilliant and when the fortunes of war turned there was even the hint of criticism (his acute sense of things picking up the difference between a "leadership crisis" and a "leader crisis") but other sycophants
in the Third Reich were less impressive.
While Goebbels’ work sparkled, youth leader, Baldur von Schirach (1907-1974; party functionary 1931-1945), wrote verse after verse of dreary poetry in
praise of Hitler though there’s no suggestion the Führer much
troubled himself to read his oeuvre. At
least Goebbels and Schirach stayed loyal to the end (though the latter would recant when on trial for his life in Nuremberg (1945-1946) and avoid the hanging he deserved. Sycophant number one and head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945; head of the SS 1929-1945), called himself “the
truest of the true” and Hitler
agreed, often referring to the Reichführer-SS as “der treue Heinrich" (the faithful Heinrich), and, although never part
of the inner circle, was much valued for his sycophancy and unconditional
obedience. Himmler though, by 1944 and
perhaps earlier, worked out things weren’t going too well and eventually, in negotiating
with the enemy and planning ways to ingratiate himself to General Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US president 1953-1961), delivered
the Führer a final stab in the back and the one which seems to have hurt the Führer the most. By then it was already too late and Hitler has long concluded none of his sycophants were worthy enough to be his successor, deciding Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Deputy Führer 1933-1941) had gone mad and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945) had lost the sympathy of the German people. Both judgements were fair enough but his reason for rejecting Himmler made sense only in Hitler's bizarre world view: He thought the Reichführer-SS "unartistic".
Julia Gillard looking at Penny Wong.
Appointed
to cabinet by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013), Australian politician Penny Wong (b 1968) Australian minister for Foreign Affairs since 2022 (and one of
the Australian Senate's three "mean girls")) was never reticent in
praising Gillard’s fine judgment and feminist solidarity. That was until she finally worked out things
weren’t going too well and so voted to back-stab Gillard and resuscitate the
previously knifed Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013). Modern
identity politics helpfully provides Wong with handy cover; any criticism,
however justified, she can condemn as misogyny, homophobia or racism. Centuries before, early
in the reign of Caligula (Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12–41; Roman emperor 37-41), he fell
ill, inspiring one Roman to offer to sacrifice own life if the emperor
recovered. This kind, if extravagant, vow was declared publicly, in the hope
his show his deep loyalty would elicit some generous award. Caligula did recover but the sycophant’s tactic
backfired; the dutiful emperor decided to accept the chap’s offer and ordered his
execution.
Secretary
of State Dr Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, East Room, White House,
22 September 1973.
There are many who
list former US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1937-1977) as among the famous
sycophants, a reasonable achievement in Washington DC, a
city full of the breed, but it’s probably unfair although, in his fascinating relationship
with President Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), he certainly aimed to please. Kissinger met with Israeli prime-minister Golda Meir (1898–1978; prime-minister of Israel 1969-1974) in
1973 and she asked him to pressure Moscow to allow more Soviet Jews to emigrate
to avoid persecution. Nixon, intent on
détente with the USSR, sought to avoid the request. Kissinger, himself Jewish, responded
“…the emigration of Jews from the Soviet
Union is not an objective of American foreign policy and if they put Jews into
gas chambers in Russia, it’s not an American concern… maybe it’s a
humanitarian concern”. Not for nothing was Dr Kissinger thought dean of the school of power-realists.
Plácido
Domingo (b 1941) in Giuseppe Verdi’s (1813–1901) Otello (1993), a studio recording from Paris noted for its
technical perfection. It featured Cheryl
Studer (b 1955) as Desdemona and in Act IV she delivered perhaps the loveliest
version of the Willow Song available on disc.
In
David Copperfield (1849-1850), Charles Dickens (1812–1870) created one of literature’s most repulsive
sycophants, the reptilian Uriah Heep. Dickens, never one to understate his
characters, ensures readers will revile Heep by emphasizing his physical creepiness: cadaverous and lanky, with
clammy hands and sleepless eyes. Trained
in being “umble” by his father, Heep is always quick to affirm his lowly
station and abase himself. Chaplain
to the Bishop of Barchester, the duplicitous Obadiah Slope in Anthony Trollope’s (1815-1882) Barchester Towers (1857), epitomizes the "lick up-kick down" sycophant, fawning before the powerful, tyrannical towards
subordinates. For Australians, one of
the real pleasures in reading Barchester Towers is imagining Bronwyn Bishop (b 1942; speaker of the Australian House of Representatives 2013-2015) when picturing the bishop’s wife (both deserving the memorable phrase "that ghastly woman"). Nobody
however did it better than William Shakespeare (1564–1616) in Othello (1603). The play is a roll-call of strategies for ingratiation,
subversion, and destruction, as Iago
corrupts the mind of the noble Othello. No work in English better shows the
devastating personal consequences of sycophancy or so starkly renders its
intricate ties to other vices for Shakespeare knew the sycophant is capable of
every fraud, every hypocrisy, every deceit.
Mr Dutton in one of his happier moments. Interestingly, despite many opportunities, Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.
In
politics, the word sycophantic seems surprising rare, probably because punchier
forms like “arse-kisser”, “arse-licker”, “brown noser”, “suck-up”, “lap-dog”, “flunky”
& “lackey” are preferred, at least behind closed doors because all these would
probably be ruled “unparliamentary”. Of
course it’s behind closed doors the more amusing stuff happens, the internecine
party squabbles and factional battles more intense and pursued with more
passion than the often confected sturm
und drang between actual opponents. Still
words like “obsequious” and “sycophantic” have the advantage they can be used
on the floor or parliament and in May 2024, in the Australian House of Representatives,
sycophantic made a rare appearance when Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the
opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) spoke: “Why did this weak
and incompetent prime minister [Anthony Albanese (b 1963;
prime-minister of Australia since 2022)] put his close and sycophantic relationship with Jacinda
Ardern ahead of the safety of Australians?”
The
context of Mr Dutton’s waspish attack was the matter of Ministerial Directive
99 (MD-99) of 23 March 2023, issued by Andrew Giles (b 1973; Minister for
Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs since 2022), an instruction
to his department which required the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT, a
statutory authority soon to be replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART)
& Administrative Review Council (ARC)) to consider the cases of non-citizens
facing deportation pursuant to section 501 (as revised in 2014) of the
Migration Act (1958) by applying a number of criteria including “Strength,
nature and duration of ties to Australia”.
Previously, the law required mandatory visa cancellations for any
non-citizens sentenced to jail for twelve months or more, or those convicted of
a child sex offence. The way MD-99 was
applied by the tribunal resulted in a number of serious offenders not being
deported, some of whom subsequently re-offended, one currently awaiting trial
for murder.
Two
Fabians: Jacinda Ardern and Anthony Albanese, press conference, Sydney, July 2022. It has been confirmed the man taking the photograph is not Mr Dutton.
The
origin of MD-99 was in a dinner in July 2022 between Mr Albanese and Jacinda
Ardern (b 1980; Prime Minister of New Zealand 2017-2023). The matter of criminals who hadn’t lived in
New Zealand for decades, sometimes having left as infants, had been a matter of
concern to successive New Zealand Governments but until 2023 no Australian
government had been prepared to alter the policy. However, Ms Ardern was at the time something
of a political pin-up of the left and a role model to social democrats around
the planet and their admiration for her progressive policies and general “wokeness”
at least verged on the sycophantic. Mr
Albanese and Mr Giles are both members of the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP)
Socialist Left (or Progressive Left) faction, a label which means less than
once it did and shouldn’t be taken too literally but the tribal aspect of the
factionalism is as strong as ever.
The
idea of dozens (literally) of violent criminals being released into the
community whereas prior to MD-99 they would have been deported created a furore
and not even the usual suspects felt it wise to leap to a defence of the
policy. Following the manual, Mr Giles for
a few toughed it out with the usual obfuscation but seldom has the tactic sounded
so unconvincing. He was defended (at
least to the extent of not being sacked) by the prime minister which really he
was compelled to do because it would have been his instruction to Mr Giles
which resulted in MD-99. Mr Albanese
also stuck to the manual, having the department trawl the archives so he could
quote instances of criminals being released into the community a decade-odd
earlier when Mr Dutton was immigration minister. Unlike the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), there
was no International Military Tribunal (IMT) to deny use of the tu quoque defense.
Andrew Giles, House of Representatives, Canberra, Australia, May 2024.
However,
after a few days it became obvious deniability was never going to become plausible and the issue couldn’t be spun out of the media
cycle. Mr Albanese announced MD-99 would be dumped, replaced by the overriding
direction that “…community
safety must be considered the top priority in deciding whether to allow someone
to remain in Australia”. Mr
Giles said the new direction would “…ensure the protection of the community outweighs any
other consideration", adding this had always been the government's
“highest
priority”. Neither Mr
Albanese nor Mr Giles have commented on the tone of their discussions behind
closed doors and it’s assumed an account is unlikely to appear in any memoir either may write.