Nolle

Nolle (pronounced nol-ee)

In law, an oral and verbal shorthand for nolle prosequi (pronounced nol-ee pros-i-kwahy or nol-ee pros-i-kwee): an entry (historically a certificate) made upon the records of a court when the plaintiff or prosecutor will proceed no further in a suit or action. The official abbreviation is nol. pros.

1681:  From the Latin, the construct being nolle (unwilling) + prosequi (to pursue), literally “unwilling to pursue” which, in the context of legal proceedings, is a formal notice of discontinuance by a prosecutor or plaintiff.  Nolle was the present active infinitive of nōlō (I do not wish; I refuse), a formation based on ne- (not) +‎ volō (I want) or velle (will).  Prosequi was the present active infinitive of prōsequor (I escort, I pursue, I describe), the construct being prō- (forward direction, action) +‎ sequor (follow).  As a verb, nolle-pross is attested from 1880.

No-billing

The legal shorthand is “to nolle” but the more common expression is now “no-bill”.  The nolle prosequi is most familiar in criminal cases when it’s used by the state to discontinue prosecutions but some jurisdictions maintain the device in civil matters where it may used as a declaration by a plaintiff voluntarily withdrawing a claim although a retraxit (a motion for voluntary dismissal) is now a more commonly used procedure,

A nolle prosequi is not the same as a verdict of not guilty; it merely terminates the existing case and, as a general principle, doesn't disbar continuation of the case at a later date, if a prosecutor so empowered wishes.  However, the common law position has been modified in some jurisdictions to provide that if the attorney- general issues a certificate of nolle prosequi, no-one may prosecute the charges.  That exemption aside, anyone whose prosecution has been subject to a nolle prosequi is not “found not guilty” and therefore cannot plead autreufois acquit (a peremptory plea made before the commencement of a trial in which a defendant asserts they were earlier tried for the same crime under same facts of the case) in respect of the relevant offence at any subsequent resumption; as a general principle, double jeopardy cannot apply.

Attorneys-general in Australia have been reluctant to intervene in matters if they regard a request as political rather than technical or procedural.  In 1977, Bob Ellicott QC (b 1927), attorney-general in the second (1975-1980) Fraser administration, resigned rather than accede to the prime-minister’s request he take over a (somewhat bizarre) politically-inspired case and close down the prosecution (although in resigning he also cited the matter of costs).  In 2022 however, the new Australian Labor Party (ALP) attorney-general Mark Dreyfus (b 1956; Attorney-General of Australia 2013 & since June 2022) announced he had directed Commonwealth prosecutors to nolle the prosecution of lawyer Bernard Collaery (b 1944), prosecuted for his part in exposing a bugging operation undertaken by agents of the Australian Security Intelligence Service (ASIS; the overseas intelligence organization) against Timor-Leste during negotiations over the ownership of oil and gas resources in the Timor Sea.

One must be sympathetic to any attorney-general who is expected to reconcile matters involving international relations (probably always somewhere within the rubric of “national security”) with legal or democratic principles.  The attorney sits atop the legal system in Australia, representing a government which insists all who appear in the nations courts must always speak the truth and imposes sometimes severe punishment on those who do not yet he was in the position of considering whether to continue the prosecution of someone who would be brought before one of those courts and accused of telling the truth.  It’s true that historically one has been able to fall foul of the law for telling the truth (such as in matters of defamation) but as a general principle courts do insist on hearing and protecting the truth.  National security matters are however a special case and there are also laws imposed on those working from agencies such as ASIS which prevent public or other disclosures, truthful or otherwise.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Bugging the government of another nation, perhaps especially an ally and close neighbor when the intelligence sought was essentially commercial, does raise ethical issues and also of note was that “Witness K” (who revealed the bugging) actually used proper channels to report what he regarded an inappropriate action he had been ordered to execute although, interestingly, a judge would during the course of the proceedings rule that it was not relevant whether or not the action undertaken by ASIS was lawful.  That may sound strange but in the context of national security matters and the details of the charges actually presented, it’s undoubtedly the correct ruling.  The competing principles displayed in the long tale illustrate why, in matters of national security, it pays not to be too bothered by (sometimes shifting) principles and focus instead on the essentially un-shifting interest of national security and there are precedents from the UK which support this view.  Everybody spies on everybody else and it’s usually the best course that these things remain secret; we have a right not to know.  No-billing the prosecution was surely the best thing to do but really, those who find distasteful the idea of bugging other people’s offices perhaps shouldn’t go into the spying business.

Party comrade Jacob Zuma in court.

Certificate of nolle prosequi issued by the office of the South African Director of Public Prosecutions (KwaZulu-Natal Division) in response to complaint made by Jacob Zuma.

William (Billy) Downer (b 1956) is a retired South African prosecutor.  In an echo of the case (Sankey v Whitlam & Others, (1978) 142 CLR 1, (1978) HCA 43) which in 1977 Bob Ellicott declined to nolle, Mr Downer is privately prosecuting the former President of South Africa, party comrade Jacob Zuma (b 1942; President of South Africa 2009-2018) on charges of fraud and corruption.  Mr Zuma objected to Downer’s involvement in his case and claimed that the retired prosecutor acted unlawfully by leaking information to the media.  Despite a request from Mr Zuma, the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute Mr Downer, issuing a no-bill while noting this did not preclude the former president initiating a private prosecution; this, Mr Zuma has undertaken.  The first hearing of Mr Downer's case against Mr Zuma has been set down for August 2022.

DARVO

DARVO (Pronounced dhar-vo)

The acronym of Deny, Attack & Reverse Victim and Offender.

1997: Coined by US academic psychologist Dr Jennifer J Freyd in 1997 in Violations of power, adaptive blindness, and betrayal trauma theory in the journal Feminism & Psychology (7, 22-32).  The initialism references both the behavior of perpetrators of wrongdoing (said to be prevalent especially among sexual offenders) and the tactic used in courtrooms by counsel for the defense, attacking the victim, reversing the roles of victim and offender.

DARVO references the reaction noted sometimes of perpetrators of wrong doing.  Said to be most prevalent among sexual offenders, as a general principle, it’s treated as a response to being held accountable for their behavior and is in its simplest form an elaborated claim of self-defense or provocation, legal concepts well known (and often codified) in the criminal law as a defenses in assault-related cases.  It can be thought an instance of "victim blaming".  DARVO deconstructed is:

Deny the behavior: This is actually standard legal advice; whatever else may happen during an investigation or subsequent proceedings, an initial denial is unlikely to compromise a later defense whereas an admission, even if later recanted, can be most damaging.  An extreme example was the (unsuccessful) defense strategy of Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1903–1946; Austrian-born head of Reich Security Main Office (RSHA) in Nazi Germany 1943-1945) during the main Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  Whatever he was accused of, Kaltenbrunner, a trained lawyer, denied it; when shown his signature on a documents, he denied it was his, when shown photographs in which he appeared, he denied he'd ever been there and when witnesses attested to what he'd said, he denied he'd ever met them.

Attack the individual doing the confronting: This is the basis of the claim of self-defense or provocation.  Self-defense can, depending on the fact of the case, be a good defense to a charge of assault and can succeed even in instances of death where the charge can be murder.  The defense of provocation where the prior conduct of the victim tends to be either remote in time or indirect in the sense of something said rather than a physical attack, can succeed as a defense but is introduced more often in mitigation as a factor when considering sentencing.

Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender: The perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim (who can be a whistle blower previously unknown to the perpetrator) into an alleged offender.  The variations on this theme most typically include (1) the perpetrator assumes the role of one "falsely accused" or (2) attacks the accuser's credibility and blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.

There is also Institutional DARVO which occurs when the DARVO is done by an institution (or with institutional complicity) such as when police wrongly charge rape victims with making a false complaint, institutional DARVO a form of what in the literature of political science is called “institutional betrayal”.  Structural DARVO describes the cultural construct in patriarchal societies where institutions act to protect the interest of its hegemonic components (in Western cultures those white, male and rich).  Other layers can be added to the analysis depending on the structure of a society: In non-Western cultures which can be essentially heterogeneous at what can be defined on some ethnic or racial basis, it can benefit those belonging to the dominant religious, cultural or tribal group.  Anti-DARVO is an omnibus term which encompasses both (1) the research & teaching in academic work describing ways to reduce the negative impact of DARVO (2) actual legislative and procedural innovations such as restrictions placed on the conduct of defense counsel in certain proceedings, especially sexual assault cases.

Dr Jennifer J Freyd.

The use of DARVO had for some time been controversial before Dr Freyd in 1997 coined the acronym and some jurisdictions had introduced some restriction of the extent to which defense counsel were permitted to attack victims (judges are limited in the extent to which they can intervene), especially on matters not directly connected with the offence.  It was also of interest to the mental health community, empirical research published in the literature of psychology & psychiatry both noting the prevalence of DARVO during victim-perpetrator confrontations and a striking correlation among many of the victims displaying feelings of self-blame, the more DARVO the perpetrator used during the interactions, the more victims reported feeling blameworthy for the wrongdoing.  Given the long history of the understanding of the imbalance in the power relationship between perpetrators (usually male) and victims (usually female), the findings were not suggested as unexpected.  One of the most interesting findings to emerge was the importance perpetrators place on the building of the social capital which surrounds their relationship with the victim.  For those who have committed abusive acts, the ability to influence how others perceive them and their victims is indispensable and typically this involves convincing those within their social circle (and even bystanders) either that nothing abusive happened and even if it appeared so it was not harmful.  Constructing a perception that the victim is untrustworthy gives the perpetrator a clear advantage in both social networks and the legal system.  Ultimately, in the absence of other evidence (as, inherently is often the case in these matters), in court it is a battle of competing narratives, the credibility of the authors often decisive.

Dr Freyd’s codification of DARVO however focused attention, both in law reform and the mental health community, the latter having previously documented tactics adopted by perpetrators to temper reactions to their wrongdoings, the umbrella term “outrage management” a construct which included a set of techniques employed to mitigate observers’ negative evaluations of both perpetrators and their objectionable behaviors.  Notably, this included casting doubt onto the credibility of the victim and denying the victims’ versions of events or, more typically, re-constructing the narrative to make them seem something innocuous.  Also identified were strategies intended to deflect blame for wrongdoing even if to some extent admitted: (1) Emphasize previous good behavior or (2) highlight some past suffering (thus inherently identifying as a victim).  Again, both these approaches will be familiar to defense counsel, even those never involved with sexual assault cases.  DARVO may thus be understood as generalized critique, although it’s most associated with sexual assault cases or other violence against women. 

Research about the real-world effect of DARVO is interesting. The findings do suggest that exposure to a perpetrator’s use of DARVO does to some extent displace at least some of the blame for the abusive behavior from the perpetrator to the victim, this hinting at why defense counsel so often adopt the tactic: It works.  The success of DARVO is not that it usually reverses the perception of a victim as blameless in favor of them being wholly culpable but that it introduces elements of doubt.  DARVO indeed often seemed to decreases the extent to which perpetrators are viewed as believable so the technique has the general effect of rendering both victims and perpetrators less believable.  That’s perhaps a predictable consequence of something so obviously antagonistic ("relational aggression" in the jargon).  However, as a legal tactic, success is not infrequent because the purpose of DARVO is not to actually render perpetrator as victim but to induce a perception of doubt about the victim; in criminal law, if that reaches the threshold of reasonable doubt then a jury, if properly instructed, must acquit.  In civil proceedings, cases are decided on a “balance of probabilities” but there too, the element of doubt must affect perceptions.

Amber Heard (b 1986).

DARVO would presumably have remained little more than part of the jargon of law and psychology had it not been for a well-publicized defamation lawsuit (John C Depp II v Amber Laura Heard (CL-2019-2911; Fairfax County Circuit Court)) between two celebrity actors, the matters of dispute relating to the period of their brief and clearly turbulent marriage.  It was a trial notable for reasons other than bringing the concept of DARVO to public attention, it being unusual in the US for defamation suits by public figures to succeed, based on precedent followed for some sixty years.  The substance of the suit was a piece written by Ms Heard and in 2018 published in The Washington Post.  Although the conventional legal wisdom is that where the choice exists, one sues the party with the capacity to pay whatever judgment one hopes to gain, in this case that was tempered by the robust protection courts have afforded the news media under the First Amendment to the constitution.  Mr Depp, as a public figure was anyway limited in his capacity to seek redress for defamation but his strategy seemed more risky still because of the earlier outcome in a defamation trial in an English court in which he sued a newspaper which printed allegations much more serious than anything mentioned by Ms Heard (who in her piece didn’t mention his name).  In that case (the verdict later upheld on appeal) the judge ruled against Mr Depp, noting in his judgment that "…the great majority of alleged assaults of Ms Heard by Mr Depp have been proved to the civil standard” of having, on the balance of probability, to have occurred as alleged.  The conventional wisdom, widely shared at the time, was that Mr Depp’s likelihood of success in a US court was smaller still.

Johnny Depp (b 1963).

As it was, the judge in Virginia ruled any mention of the English case or its verdict inadmissible but whether or not the jury were aware (or during proceedings made themselves aware) of the matter isn’t known.  The celebrity association aside, it was thus a trial of some technical interest, Ms Heard in her piece taking the precaution (if any doubt existed) of self-identifying as ”…a public figure representing domestic abuse".  Mr Depp sued on the grounds that Ms Heard’s statements had damaged his career and reputation; Ms Heard counter-sued on the basis that one or Mr Depp’s legal team had defamed her in statements published in an English newspaper.  Ms Heard’s defense was on the basis of (1) truth and (2) her free speech being protected by the First Amendment.

Dr Kate Manne.

The jury found for both Mr Depp and Ms Heard in their respective suits although, given the nature of the claims and the quantum of damages awarded, it could hardly be represented as anything but a victory for Mr Depp.  That of course was greeted with much commentary on social media though little of that was helpful, reflecting mostly the nature of celebrity culture, Mr Depp’s groupies both more numerous and more strident than those of his ex-wife.  More serious criticism did however discuss the extent to which the verdict could be thought a successful execution of DARVO.  Tellingly, many lawyers noted not only was it exactly that but nor was unusual, the novelty more the publicity attached to it being something between film stars.  The feminist critique was more severe, some claiming that DARVO works as well as it does because it interacts with “himpathy” (the construct him + (sym)pathy) coined by Cornell philosophy professor Dr Kate Manne (b 1983) and defined as “the inappropriate and disproportionate sympathy men and boys (and the more powerful or influential the man the greater the himpathy) often enjoy in cases of sexual assault, intimate partner violence, homicide and other misogynistic behavior”).

DARVO and himpathy are recent constructs but both are said to represent the long history of sympathy shown toward male perpetrators of sexual violence, women having long been expected to endure sexism (including violence) as part of their defined gender role which includes protecting men's reputation and power.  That of course went beyond being a social construct and was reflected in Western legal systems, women (and the bulk of her possessions) often literally “owned” by a husband or father and rape within marriage a statutory impossibility until well into the twentieth century.  DARVO for its success draws on those cultural biases.

Johnny Depp & Amber Heard, Australia, 2015.

Depp v Heard (a civil matter with a jury not sequestered and thus exposed to what were essentially un-mediated publicity campaigns on social media) was obviously not a typical trial and what its effect might be on later criminal matters (with which DARVO is more associated) is uncertain.  Lawyers do however note that in the US, relatively few cases actually proceed to trial and the greatest (and substantially unpublicized) effect is on prosecutors who decide not to proceed with cases (or downgrade charges) because, cognizant of the effectiveness of DARVO, take the decision there’s no reasonable prospect of securing a conviction.  This can be understood as an example of institutional DARVO, reinforcing the imbalance of power which typically exists between victim (typically female) and perpetrator (typically male) and it should not be unexpected that an institution created by the hegemon should act to protect the hegemony.  So, there was nothing contradictory when lawyers remarked of Depp v Heard that the jury’s verdict was remarkable given the evidence and unsurprising given the history.

Couplet

Couplet (pronounced kuhp-lit)

(1) In literature, most often in poetic form, a pair of successive lines of verse, usually rhymed and of the same metre.

(2) A pair; a couple.

(3) In musical composition, any of the contrasting sections of a rondo occurring between statements of the refrain.

(4) In computing, a pair of interdependent programming statements.

(5) In the induction or exhaust systems of internal combustion engines, a pipe running between main tubes for the purpose of flow-balancing.

(6) In town planning and traffic management, a pair of one-way streets which carry opposing directions of traffic through gridded urban areas.

(7) In taxonomy, a pair of two mutually exclusive choices in a dichotomous key.

1570-1580: From the Middle French couple (a little pair), the construct being couple from the Old French couple, from the Vulgar Latin cōpla, from the Classical Latin cōpula (doublet of copule) + -et from the Middle French and Old French –et from the Medieval Latin –ittus (Suffix indicating diminution or affection).  Couplet was used first in poetry in the 1570s and in music since 1876.  Later adoptions all emerged in the twentieth century or later.

Closed and Heroic Couplets

A rhyming couplet is two lines of around the same length which rhyme and complete one thought.  Rhyming words are those of a similar sound when spoken; they don't of necessity have to be similar in spelling.  A couplet is closed when the lines form a bounded grammatical unit like a sentence whereas a heroic couplet is written often in iambic pentameter, though with some variation of the meter.

A closed couplet from Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet.

Good night, good night. Parting is such sweet sorrow

That I shall say good night till it be morrow.

Several characteristics distinguish the heroic couplet from the regular couplet. A heroic couplet is always rhymed and is usually in iambic pentameter and is also usually closed, meaning that both lines are end-stopped and are a self-contained grammatical unit.

This rhymed, closed, iambic pentameter couplet from Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116 is not however a heroic couplet.

If this be error and upon me prov'd,

I never writ, nor no man ever lov'd.

That’s because for a couplet to be heroic, it demands a heroic setting.  The subjectivity inherent in this is why satirists were attracted to the form, using the heroic form when writing of the mundane or banal; the Dadaists being the twentieth century’s most celebrated practitioners.

This fragment is from John Dryden's translation of Virgil's The Aeneid, and because it’s one of the dramatic epic poems of antiquity, these are heroic couplets. 

Soon had their hosts in bloody battle join'd;

But westward to the sea the sun declin'd.

Intrench'd before the town both armies lie,

While Night with sable wings involves the sky.

Like many seminal literary forms, the heroic couplet attracted parody, known in literary theory as the mock-heroic, most commonly associated with Alexander Pope, his best-known example of this work of this kind being The Rape of the Lock in which a minor transgression is written of in a narrative of epic proportions, recalling the legends and magic of mythology.

Here Thou, great Anna! whom three Realms obey,

Dost sometimes Counsel take—and sometimes Tea.

In a case which legal commentators described as "speculative" and "optimistic" Lindsay Lohan in 2011 sued Rapper Pitbull (Armando Christian Pérez, b 1981), objecting to some lines in his single Give Me Everything (2011), the offending couplet being:

Hustlers move aside, so I’m tiptoein’, to keep flowin’

 I got it locked up like Lindsay Lohan.

Rapper Pitbull.

Grounds for the suit were the negative connotations in the text and claims she should have been compensated for the use of her name in the song.  The suit sought unspecified damages for characterizing her as a person who has been to jail, when actually she is a professional actor, designer, and devotee of charitable causes. It was alleged the lyrics were clearly “destined to do irreparable harm” to Lohan’s reputation.  The case was dismissed by a federal judge who ruled the words were protected by the First Amendment, which covers freedom of speech and creative expression.

Canossa

Canossa (pronounced kuh-nos-uh or kah-naws-sah (Italian))

(1) A province in Northern Italy (and a name used in other places and not to be confused with the proper noun Canosa).

(2) As Canossa Castle (now a ruin), near Reggio nell'Emili, the scene in 1077 of the penance of Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV of before Pope Gregory VII (the “Walk to Canossa”).

(3) In idiomatic use, for a person to humble themselves.

Circa 940: The castle was built around 940 by a princely family of Lombardy at the summit of a hill overlooking the region.  As well as the family’s seat, the castle incorporated a convent, a Benedictine monastery and the church of Sant'Apollonio.  Reflecting the practice of military architecture in the Middle Ages, the central structure was protested by there, progressively more fortified stone walls and, prior to the development of modern artillery, was close to impregnable under conventional assault, vulnerable only to a protracted siege.

Going to Canossa

The coronation of Christmas Day, 800 when Charlemagne (747-814, Emperor of the Carolingian Empire (and retrospectively regarded first Holy Roman Emperor)), was crowned Emperor was an event which turned out to be one of the most significant of the Middle Ages, the consequences unfolding in Europe over a thousand years, some of which are visible still today.  One aspect of the coronation at the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome which Charlemagne almost immediately realized as a mistake was that the crown was placed on his head by Leo III (circa 750-816; pope 795-816, described by one historian as “one of the shiftiest” popes and one accused of perjury & adultery) with the words “To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-giving Emperor, life and victory.”  The squabble for primacy between the “vicar of Christ on earth” and the earthly rulers wasn’t new but this didn’t help their cause.  In 1804, at Notre Dame de Paris, snatching the crown from the hands of Pope Pius VII (1742–1823; pope 1800-1823), Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821, Emperor of the French 1804-1814 & 1815) did not repeat the error.

One famous round in that squabble was Henry IV’s Walk to Canossa (also called the Road to Canossa or the Humiliation of Canossa.  It describes the ritualistic submission in 1077 of the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV (1050–1106; King of Germany 1054-1105, Holy Roman Emperor 1084-1105) to Pope Gregory VII (circa 1015–1085; pope 1073-1085) at Canossa Castle, the climax of what came to be called the investiture controversy.  Popes and emperors had for generations argued about the precedence of ecclesiastical or secular authority but Gregory had attempted further to assert the authority of Rome by claiming an exclusivity of right to "invest" bishops, abbots and other clergy, a dispute with modern echoes.  Despite attempts at mediation, the conflict grew, pope and emperor both appointing bishops, not recognized by each-other and eventually, the battle evolved into each side gathering bishops and organizing the numbers to excommunicate the other.  Given the communications of the age it was something of a slow-motion war of words but eventually (though not without the odd close scrape), Gregory prevailed and the excommunicated Henry lost the numbers, clerical and secular.  To seek his throne, he would have to capitulate, apologize and beg forgiveness.

Heinrich IV barefoot in Canossa (1862), woodcut by Hermann Freihold Pluddemann (1809-1868).

Accordingly, in what was said to be the coldest winter in almost forty years, Henry and his party made the trek to Canossa where the pope was staying, a journey made longer, more difficult and colder still by having to “go the long way round” because passage through the more convenient (and safer) alpine passes, controlled by forces aligned with the pope, was denied.  The journey took more than three months, the party reaching Canossa Castle on 25 January 1077.  There, the pope ordered he be refused entry, the suspicion of historians being that some message was passed to the visitors suggesting the gates might be opened were the emperor for three days to display “sufficient penance”.  According to legend, Henry (and perhaps some of his entourage including his wife) for the three days donned the simple robe of a monk, fasted and walked barefoot in the snow.

Fist bump: Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV before Pope Gregory VII (1875), woodcut after a drawing by Friedrich Hottenroth (1840-1917).

On 28 January, the pope ordered the castle gates opened and it’s said Henry supplicated himself on his knees before the pope and begged forgiveness.  Clearly impressed (or at least satisfied), Gregory granted absolution and revoked the act of excommunication, that evening offering the emperor communion in the chapel of Sant'Apollonio.  All’s well that ends well then, the pope lingering for a few months before returning to Rome with his authority confirmed and Henry headed home, soon to extract what vengeance he could.  Almost immediately the alpine pilgrimage was regarded as a humiliation for Henry but even some medieval scholars would soon create a revisionist history, arguing the emperor’s strategy was a masterstroke, gaining much which was important and sacrificing little.  Modern historians tend not to be convinced by the “stoops to conquer” school, regarding it a humiliation still and the phrase "going to Canossa" endures as a reference to an act of penance or submission.

Whether Canossa was much on the mind of President Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) as he flew to Saudi Arabia hasn’t been revealed but at least Air Force One is comfortable and he certainly didn’t need to go the “long way round”, his 747 granted a direct flight path from Tel Aviv to Jeddah, a presidential first and something long thought unimaginable.  Interestingly, according to the president, as recently as June 2022, also unimaginable was him meeting with Saudi Arabia’s de-facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud (b 1985 and referred to colloquially as MBS).  “I’m not going to meet with MBS” Mr Biden had last month assured the press.  “I’m going to an international meeting, and he’s going to be part of it.”  That might seem a fine distinction but in the language of diplomacy, a not unreasonable one.

President Biden meets King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (b 1935; King of Saudi Arabia since 2015) Jeddah, July 2022.

However, the world has changed since the 2020 presidential campaign in which Mr Biden vowed to make the Saudi government “pay the price and make them in fact the pariah that they are”, his stridency a reaction to the murder and dismemberment in Saudi’s Istanbul consulate of Washington Post journalist (and Saudi citizen) Jamal Khashoggi (1958-2018) by agents of the Saudi state.  On advice from the US intelligence community, Mr Biden in 2020 made clear he held MBS personally responsible for Khashoggi’s death although doubts have by some been expressed, their thinking that MBS may well have authorized “an extraction” but not “an execution” and the unfortunate consequences were a product either of misunderstandings as the message proceeded down the line or the allocation of a specialized task to specialists in another field.  MBS has always denied ordering the killing of Mr Khashoggi, answering with an emphatic “Absolutely not” when asked directly by the US press.  “This was a heinous crime” he said in an interview, adding that he took “…full responsibility as a leader in Saudi Arabia, especially since it was committed by individuals working for the Saudi government.”  The taking of responsibility for acts committed by others, including those of which one has no knowledge, is the essence of the Westminster system of ministerial responsibility although a more nuanced expression of the concept which extended to a “collective responsibility” was later developed by Albert Speer (1905-1980) during the first Nuremberg trial (1945-1946).  The Saudi government had initially denied any involvement in the matter although later it would admit the death was an accident which happened when an intelligence team was attempting to extradite (in Turkish law presumably a kidnapping) the journalist, against his will, to Saudi Arabia.

Fist bump: President Biden meets Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Jeddah, July 2022.

But the world has changed and to mark that, Mr Biden and MBS met, a friendly fist bump a photo opportunity for the gathered press pack, the entrance to the Al Salman Palace a good backdrop.  According to Mr Biden, MBS “…basically said that he was not personally responsible” for the killing of Khashoggi and “I indicated that I thought he was.”  What’s done is done and can’t be undone so, the discussion of human rights complete, the president and crown prince then got down to the substantive matter of oil and how helpful it would be if the kingdom could pump more of it from their fields, the unchallenging idea being that if supply could be made to exceed demand (which is already the case so presumably what Mr Biden would prefer is a glut), then the price would fall, this eventually being reflected in the cost of a gallon of gas in the US, hopefully in good time for the US mid-term congressional elections in November.

Just like the old days.

Industry analysts have cast doubt on whether the Saudis have the additional extractive and distributional capacity greatly to affect the price of oil which has anyway recently declined in response to concerns about a global economic slowdown although jitters remain, the oil futures market reacting hourly to news of COVID lockdowns and hints about monetary policy from those central banks which matter.  It’s thought MBS is unlikely to have done more than agree to act in unison with whatever increase in supply the Organization of Oil Producing Countries (OPEC) may undertake to implement when it (actually the expanded OPEC+) meets in August.  Still, August is a couple of months before the mid-terms so there’s that but these are troubled times, few anxious to predict what the economy or geopolitics will look like by then, any more than there's a model precisely to measure the effects of what the US Treasury still insist will be the next round of sanctions on Russian oil & gas.  Like the OPEC+ meeting, these are due in August.  

Bedint

Bedint (pronounced buh-dent (U) or bed-ent (non-U))

(1) Something which suggests a bourgeois aspiration to the tastes or habits of the upper classes.

(2) A generalized expression of disapproval of anyone or anything not in accord with the social standards or expectation of the upper classes.

(3) Any behavior thought inappropriate (ie something of which one for whatever reason disapproves).

1920s:  A coining attributed to variously to (1) English writer and diplomat Harold Nicolson (1886–1968), (2) his wife, the writer Vita Sackville-West (1892–1962) or (3) speculatively, Vita Sackville-West’s family.  The word is of Germanic origin and although there are variants, a common source is the Middle Dutch bedienen, the construct being be- +‎ dienen.  The Middle Dutch be- was from the Old Dutch bi- & be-, from the Middle High German be-, from the Old High German bi-, from the Proto-Germanic bi-, from the primitive Indo-European hepi and was used to indicate a verb is acting on a direct object.  Dienen was from the Middle Dutch dienen, from the Old Dutch thienon, from the Proto-Germanic þewanōną and meant “to be of assistance to, to serve; to serve (at a tavern or restaurant); to operate (a device).  In the rituals of the Roman Catholic Church, it has the specific technical meaning of “to administer the last sacraments (the last rites).  A bedient (the second third-person singular present indicative of bedienen) was thus a servant, a waiter etc.  The acceptable pronunciation is buh-dent, bed-int, be-dit or anything is the depth of bedintism. 

The idea thus is exemplified by a maître d'hôtel (the head waiter in a good restaurant) who, well dressed and well mannered, appears superficially not dissimilar to someone from the upper classes but of course is someone from a lower class, adopting for professional reasons, some of their characteristics (dress, manner, speech (and sometimes snobbery) etc).  Whoever coined the word, it was certainly popularized by Harold Nicholson and Vita Sackville-West.  It seems initially to have been their shared code for discussing such things but soon became common currency amongst the smart set in which they moved and from there, eventually entered the language although not all dictionaries acknowledge its existence.  It one of those words which need not be taken too seriously and is most fun to use if played with a bit (bedintish, bedintesque, bedintingly bedinded, bedintism, bedintology et al).  As a word, although from day one weaponized, bedint was subject to some mission-creep to the point where, as Lewis Carol’s Humpty Dumpty explained to Alice: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."  Humpty Dumpty to Alice in Alice Through the Looking-Glass (1871) by Lewis Carroll (1832–1898).

Harold Nicolson & Vita-Sackville West, London, 1913.

As originally used by Nicolson & Sackville-West, bedint, one the many linguistic tools of exclusion and snobbery (and these devices exist among all social classes, some of which are classified as “inverted snobbery” when part of “working-class consciousness” or similar constructs) was used to refer to anyone not from the upper class (royalty, the aristocracy, the gentry) in some way aping the behavior or manners of “their betters”; the behavior need not be gauche or inappropriate, just that of someone “not one of us”.  Nicolson didn’t exclude himself from his own critique and, as one who “married up” into the socially superior Sackville family, was his whole life acutely aware of what behaviors of his might be thought bedint, self-labelling as he thought he deserved.  His marriage he never thought at all bedint although many of those he condemned as bedint would have found it scandalously odd, however happy the diaries of both parties suggest that for almost fifty years it was.

Harold Nicolson & Vita-Sackville West, Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Kent, 1932.

Bedint as a word proved so useful however that it came to be applied to members of the upper classes (even royalty) were they thought guilty of some transgression (like dullness) or hobbies thought insufficiently aristocratic.  The idea of some behavior not befitting one’s social status was thus still a thread but by the post-war years, when bedint had entered vocabulary of the middle-class (a bedint thing in itself one presumes Nicolson and Sackville-West would have thought), it was sometimes little more than a synonym for bad behavior (poor form as they might have said), just an expression of disapproval.

Harold Nicolson & Vita-Sackville West, Sissinghurst Castle Garden, Kent, 1960.

The biographical work on Nicolson reveals a not especially likable snob but, in common with many fine and sharp-eyed diarists, he seems to have been good company though perhaps best enjoyed in small doses.  One of those figures (with which English political life is studded) remembered principally for having been almost a successful politician, almost a great writer or almost a viceroy, he even managed to be almost a lord but despite switching party allegiances to curry favor with the Labour government (1945-1951), the longed-for peerage was never offered and he was compelled to accept a knighthood.  His KCVO (Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, an honor in the personal gift of the sovereign) was granted in 1953 in thanks for his generous (though well-reviewed and received) biography of King George V (1865-1936, King of England 1910-1936), although those who could read between the lines found it not hard to work out which of the rather dull monarch’s activities the author thought bedint.  As it was, Nicolson took his KCVO, several steps down the ladder of the Order of Precedence, accepting it only "faute de mieux" (in the absence of anything better) and describing it “a bedint knighthood”, wondering if, given the shame, he should resign from his clubs.

Wedding day: Duff Cooper & Lady Diana Manners, St Margaret's Church, London, 2 June 1919.

So a knighthood, a thing which many have craved, can be bedint if it's not the right knighthood.  When the Tory politician Duff Cooper (1890–1954) ended his term (1944-1948) as the UK's ambassador to France, the Labor government (which had kept him on) granted him a GCMG (Knight Grand Commander of the order of St Michael & St George) and although he thought his years as a cabinet minister might have warranted a peerage, he accepted while wryly noting in his diary it was hardly something for which he should  be congratulated because: "No ambassador in Paris has ever failed to acquire the it since the order was invented and the Foreign Office has shown how much importance they attach to it by conferring it simultaneously on my successor Oliver Harvey (1893-1968), who is, I suppose, the least distinguished man who has ever been appointed to the post".  Still, Cooper took his "bedint" GCMG and when a Tory government returned to office, he was raised to the peerage, shortly before his death, choosing to be styled Viscount Norwich of Aldwick.  His wife (Lady Diana Cooper (1892–1986) didn't fancy becoming "Lady Norwich" because she though it "sounded like porridge" and took the precaution of placing notices in The Times and Daily Telegraph telling all who mattered she would continue to be styled "Lady Diana Cooper".  They had a "modern marriage" so differences between them were not unusual.

Conjecture

Conjecture (pronounced kuhn-jek-cher)

(1) The formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof; an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation; to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability.

(2) The interpretation of signs or omens (obsolete though still used in some superstitious circles and a common phrase among occultists).

(3) In mathematics and philology, a technical term for a statement which, based on available evidence, is likely to be true but for which there’s no formal proof.

1350–1400: From the Middle English conjecturen (infer, predict, form (an opinion or notion) upon probabilities or slight evidence), from the Old and Middle French from the Latin conjectūra (a guess; inferring, an assembling of facts; reasoning), the construct being conject(us), past participle of conjicere (to throw together; to form a conclusion).  The late Middle English verb conjecturen was a direct borrowing from the Middle French, from the Late Latin conjecturāre, derivative of the noun.  The Latin conjicere is a combining form jacere (to throw) + -ūra –ure (the Latin suffix used to form nouns of quality from adjectives).  The Latin coniectūra is derived from coniectus, perfect passive participle of cōniciō (throw or cast together; guess), the construct being con- (together) + iaciō (throw, hurl).  In Middle English, there were also peacefully co-existing forms, the noun conjecte & the verb conjecten.

Derived forms include the adjective conjecturable, the adverb conjecturably, the noun conjecturer and the verbs (used with our without the object) conjectured and conjecturing.  The verbs misconjecture & misconjectured and the noun misconjecturing are valid words but so rare that some dictionaries list them as obscure.  Indeed, given the meaning of the root, it can be argued there’s little difference between conjecture and misconjecture although it could be useful in describing things in retrospect.  For those times when conjecture seems not quite right, there’s surmise, inference, supposition, theory, hypothesis, suppose, presume, guesswork, hunch, presumption, guess, fancy, opinion, conclusion, notion, guesstimate, gather, figure, conclude, feel, deem & expect.

The Oesterlé–Masser Conjecture

The Oesterlé–Masser conjecture, a problem in number theory, is named after the mathematicians Joseph Oesterlé (b 1954) and David Masser (b 1948) who first published their speculation in the 1980s and popularly known as the abc conjecture, based on the equation which underlies it all.  The conjecture postulates that if a lot of small prime numbers divide two numbers (a) and (b), then only a few large ones divide their sum (c); basically, if you add lots of primes together the result is divisible only by a few large numbers.  Mathematicians concur that intuitively this seems likely because of the nature of prime numbers but a proof has proved elusive.  It’s of interest to the profession because it might resolve some of the fundamental problems in Diophantine geometry, a typically arcane fork of number theory but beyond the implications for mathematics, given the importance of prime numbers in commerce, ICT and diplomacy (primes underpin encryption), other fields may be significantly affected. 

Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki san (b 1969) has been working on the problem for some thirty years and, over the decades has circulated within the community many un-published papers, none of which garnered much support.  Not discouraged, Mochizuki San persisted and in 2012 posted on his website, four papers 500 pages in length, claiming they contained the definitive proof (including a new theory called inter-universal Teichmüller theory (IUTT)).  While some of his peers actively disagreed with his methods or conclusions, most either ignored his work or said it couldn’t be understood, one recently commenting his experience was something like “reading a paper from the future, or from outer space”.

Several years later, despite conferences staged to explain Mochizuki san’s work to other mathematicians, there is no consensus and he has been accused of not doing enough to communicate (in the sense of explaining) his ideas.  While there are some who claim to have both read his work (that alone an achievement) and understood it (more admirable still given how much that depends on knowledge of other work he has developed over decades), they're a small sub-set of number theorists, most of whom remain sceptical or dismissive .  Interest was stirred in 2018 when two noted German mathematicians, Peter Scholze (b 1987) and Jakob Stix (b 1974), published a paper in which they asserted a critical part of Mochizuki san’s work (said to be central to the proof), was wrong.  Unusually in this matter, their work was based not only on analysis but a face-to-face meeting with Mochizuki san.  The discussion however concluded with neither sided able to persuade the other, something like three pocket calculators sitting on a table, unable to agree on the best method of determining a number without knowing that number.

In April 2020, it was announced the claimed proof would be published in the Japanese journal Publications of the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences (RIMS).  Although Mochizuki san was RIMS's chief editor, the institution noted he was “…not involved in the review” or the decision to publish.  There was scepticism but in 2021, the material appeared in RIMS and the number theory community awaits with interest to see if there are defections from the tiny “proven” faction or the more populated “unproven”.

It's not just number theorists who have engaged with Mochizuki san.  Ted Nelson (b 1937), a US sociologist who as long ago as 1963 invented the term hypertext, thinks the controversial Japanese professor may be the inventor of Bitcoin.  Dr Nelson noted that that Bitcoin creator "Satoshi Nakamoto san" appears to have existed long enough only to (1) introduce Bitcoin, (2) stimulate excitement and (3) disappear and thought this similar behavior to that of Mochizuki san who has some history of making mathematical discoveries and posting them to the internet to be found, rather than publishing.  Not many share the suspicion, noting that while a grasp of high-level mathematics would have been essential to build the Blockchain, Mochizuki san is not known to have any background in software development although, given Bitcoin may have been developed by a team, that may not be significant.  Dr Nelson remained convinced and in 2013 offered to donate one Bitcoin (then trading at $US123) to charity were Mochizuki san to deny being the inventor.  It's not known if Dr Nelson revised the terms of his offer as the Bitcoin price moved.