Latest news with #Juvenal
Spectator
3 days ago
- General
- Spectator
The cunning meanings of quant
The FT headline said: 'Man Group orders quants back to office five days a week.' I didn't know what quants were and all my husband could say was: 'Complete quants', as though it were funny. Of course I kept thinking of Mary Quant, and I suppose her name was French in origin. There was a Hugo le Cuint in 1208 and a Richard le Queynte in Hampshire in 1263. The name would relate to quant or quaint, meaning 'clever' or 'cunning', and derived from Latin cognitus. The varied spelling overlapped with the word Chaucer used for a woman's private parts, which comes from a completely different Latin word. Such is the elasticity of language, where words of distinct meaning can have exactly the same form, that another word quant has been in use for 600 years to mean a sort of punt pole with a flanged end to avoid being caught in the mud of the Norfolk Broads. The same pole-like element called a quant is found in windmills to transmit drive to the upper millstone. This all sounds like something from Call My Bluff, but the funny thing about the pole-like quant is that in Latin, as Thomas Shadwell noted in his translation of Juvenal, contus means a bargepole, as kontos does in Greek. Yet today's etymologists refuse to fall for the casual resemblance. I would like to imagine that, in the context of the FT headline, City workers were to be punted by quant-power down the river every working day. But the City quants are nothing but quantitative analysts, no doubt given to fits of quantitative easing. Quant as an abbreviation of quantitative was first observed among chemical scientists in the 19th century, but was applied to financial analysts only in the late 1970s. The abbreviation has something of the flavour of cit, popular from the 17th century as a name for an inhabitant of a city – 'in an ill sense' as Samuel Johnson put it, 'a pert, low townsman'. But be they never so high, they'll be coming in five days a week.
Sydney Morning Herald
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
A message to the major parties: Embrace reform or end up like the Romans
With both parties having announced their flagship policies, it appears that Australia today is following the path of the late Roman Empire: tired, overextended and ruled by an elite political class more interested in voter appeasement than real reform. The ancient Roman poet Juvenal called it panem et circenses, or 'bread and circuses' – a strategy of appeasing the public with necessities and entertainment to distract them from the real issues and maintain social order while selling future generations up the river. My home state of Victoria now resembles the Roman province of Britannia in its final years— overburdened with debt, mismanaged by its rulers. But the parallels with ancient Rome are not just rhetorical. As Professor Frederik Vervaet of the University of Melbourne explains, 'the fall of the Roman Republic could easily have been avoided if the senatorial aristocracy had supported moderate reformers instead of brutally repressing them'. Vervaet calls it 'reform aversion', the conscious refusal on the part of powerful segments of the senate to embrace undesirable reforms, however pressing the need or justified the cause. 'The aristocracy's reform aversion put the Roman republic on the road to authoritarianism,' he writes in his recent essay How Republics Die. If our politicians think tinkering around the edges instead of engaging in meaningful reform is enough, well – et tu, delulu. 'Roman politics became marked by escalating polarisation and a rise in factionalism, with the ensuing political deadlocks causing interest groups to divide and lose faith in the traditional political process.' We see this occurring today, with voters abandoning major parties in favour of more extreme minor parties.
Sydney Morning Herald
22-04-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
A message to the major parties: Embrace reform, or end up like the Romans
With both parties having now announced their flagship policies, it appears that Australia today is following the path of the late Roman Empire: tired, overextended, and ruled by an elite political class more interested in voter appeasement than real reform. The ancient Roman poet Juvenal called it panem et circenses, or 'bread and circuses' – a strategy of appeasing the public with necessities and entertainment to distract them from the real issues and maintain social order while selling future generations up the river. My home state of Victoria now resembles the Roman province of Britannia in its final years— overburdened with debt, mismanaged by its rulers. But the parallels with ancient Rome are not just rhetorical. As Professor Frederik Vervaet of the University of Melbourne explains, 'The fall of the Roman Republic could easily have been avoided if the senatorial aristocracy had supported moderate reformers instead of brutally repressing them.' Vervaet calls it 'reform aversion', the conscious refusal on the part of powerful segments of the senate to embrace undesirable reforms, however pressing the need or justified the cause. 'The aristocracy's reform aversion put the Roman Republic on the road to authoritarianism,' he writes in his recent essay How Republics Die. If our politicians think tinkering around the edges instead of engaging in meaningful reform is enough, well – et tu, delulu. 'Roman politics became marked by escalating polarisation and a rise in factionalism, with the ensuing political deadlocks causing interest groups to divide and lose faith in the traditional political process.' We see this occurring today, with voters abandoning major parties in favour of more extreme minor parties.
The Age
22-04-2025
- Politics
- The Age
A message to the major parties: Embrace reform, or end up like the Romans
With both parties having now announced their flagship policies, it appears that Australia today is following the path of the late Roman Empire: tired, overextended, and ruled by an elite political class more interested in voter appeasement than real reform. The ancient Roman poet Juvenal called it panem et circenses, or 'bread and circuses' – a strategy of appeasing the public with necessities and entertainment to distract them from the real issues and maintain social order while selling future generations up the river. My home state of Victoria now resembles the Roman province of Britannia in its final years— overburdened with debt, mismanaged by its rulers. But the parallels with ancient Rome are not just rhetorical. As Professor Frederik Vervaet of the University of Melbourne explains, 'The fall of the Roman Republic could easily have been avoided if the senatorial aristocracy had supported moderate reformers instead of brutally repressing them.' Vervaet calls it 'reform aversion', the conscious refusal on the part of powerful segments of the senate to embrace undesirable reforms, however pressing the need or justified the cause. 'The aristocracy's reform aversion put the Roman Republic on the road to authoritarianism,' he writes in his recent essay How Republics Die. If our politicians think tinkering around the edges instead of engaging in meaningful reform is enough, well – et tu, delulu. 'Roman politics became marked by escalating polarisation and a rise in factionalism, with the ensuing political deadlocks causing interest groups to divide and lose faith in the traditional political process.' We see this occurring today, with voters abandoning major parties in favour of more extreme minor parties.
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Ed Martin is the wrong person to investigate Biden-era prosecutors
A newly-appointed U.S. attorney is putting an unfortunate twist on the the satirist Juvenal's ancient question: 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?' — 'Who will guard the guards themselves?' Edward R. Martin, Jr., became the interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. after previously defending many Jan. 6 protestors. Within hours of his appointment, Martin opened an investigation into whether his office, under Biden-era leadership, engaged in misconduct in prosecuting the Jan. 6 cases, many involving crimes of violence against police officers. His view is that federal prosecutors overcharged the cases, and he seeks to ascertain whether the prosecutors were improperly politically motivated to do so. The premise for examining prosecutors' work in the Jan. 6 cases is that the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, set aside one of the charges brought against a Jan. 6 protestor. The court found that the federal trial court and appeals court had interpreted the federal obstruction-of-justice law too broadly. The court let stand the defendant's conviction on six other counts, including assaulting a federal officer. It is shocking for federal prosecutors to be suspected of misconduct for bringing charges based on what was, in retrospect, an overly broad reading of a criminal law. It has never been the department's policy to adopt conservative readings of criminal laws. Over the years, the Supreme Court has overturned federal criminal convictions on many occasions where it concluded that prosecutors stretched the law, including in prosecutions of politicians for mail fraud and bribery. But no one — least of all the leadership in the Department of Justice — has seriously questioned prosecutors' motives in bringing these cases. Particularly in the Jan. 6 cases, it seems plain that the prosecutors proceeded in good faith, given that their reading of the law was shared by the lower court judges and three Supreme Court justices. In situations where there is a good reason to think federal prosecutors may have abused their vast power, it is critical to investigate and, if misconduct is discovered, to hold the errant prosecutors accountable. The question in such cases is, who should undertake this task? Ordinarily, this assignment goes to either of two offices in the Department of Justice — the Office of Professional Responsibility or the inspector general. The career government lawyers in those offices have experience investigating potential misconduct by Department of Justice personnel. Just as importantly, they can be trusted to do this work objectively, because they do not have direct political ties. Further, these offices are themselves subject to oversight — by Congress in the case of the inspector general, and by the attorney general in the case of the Office of Professional Responsibility. Martin's decision to initiate and oversee the investigation of his predecessor's work, rather than to refer the matter to the Department of Justice officials responsible for investigating prosecutorial misconduct, is troubling in several respects. One problem is his own evident conflict of interest in commencing an investigation of prosecutors whom he opposed as a defense attorney. But even if he had not participated on the criminal defense side of Jan. 6 cases, Martin's role as President Trump's political appointee would raise concerns about his own political bias. Equally problematic is Martin's proximity to the president. It is reasonable to conclude that Trump's political appointees would share his personal and political interest in discrediting the Jan. 6 prosecutions. Far from neutral watchdog, Martin would seem to have a political axe to grind. If he, or those under him, conclude there was prosecutorial misconduct, many will be skeptical because of his evident bias. More troubling still is the message this sends to all federal prosecutors. Prosecutors will now worry, as they should, about retaliation if they make unpopular decisions in politically sensitive cases. Because law and justice itself often require such politically inexpedient choices, the Department of Justice will be significantly less effective. Prosecutors are generally trained to make decisions about whom to investigate, whether to initiate criminal charges and which charges to bring, whether to offer a plea bargain, what sentences to seek after obtaining a conviction, and other important decisions according to norms and practices of the legal profession and the Justice Department. These norms are designed to minimize bias and improper considerations. Prosecutors are taught to apply law to facts and treat like cases alike. They are trained not to consider inappropriate factors, such as partisan political considerations. But it will be hard for federal prosecutors to ignore political considerations after a new U.S. attorney, without cause, seeks to unearth prosecutorial misconduct in cases that are anathema to the new president, who closed out the cases by issuing hundreds of pardons. The glaring if unstated message is that prosecutors' future work will be subject to a political litmus test. If future prosecutors, acting independently, investigate or prosecute the sitting president's allies, or fail to pursue that president's foes, those prosecutors can expect their decisions to be reviewed and to face adverse employment action. If they want to keep their jobs, they will use their power to weaken Trump's political opponents while emboldening his allies to commit crimes with impunity. Who then should investigate possible misconduct by Biden-era prosecutors? If we care about democratic principles and the rule of law, the answer plainly should not be, 'Trump's latest political appointee.' Bruce Green is a professor at Fordham Law School, where he directs the Louis Stein Center for Law and Ethics and Rebecca Roiphe is a professor at New York Law School, where she directs the Institute for Professional Ethics. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
