Paraphernalia

Paraphernalia (pronounced par-uh-fer-neyl-yuh or par-uh-fuh-neyl-yuh)

(1) Tools, equipment, apparatus or furnishing used in or necessary for a particular activity (sometimes used with a singular verb).

(2) Personal belongings (used with a plural verb).

(3) At common law, a historic term for the personal articles, apart from dower, reserved by law to a married woman as goods the title of which did not pass to her husband upon marriage (used with a singular verb).

1470-1480: From the Medieval Latin paraphernālia, from the Ancient Greek παράφερνα (parápherna) (goods which a wife brings over and above her dowry), the construct being παρά (pará) (beside) +‎ φερνή (phernḗ) (dowry), + the Latin -ālia, (noun use of neuter plural of –ālis), thus the “things additional to a dowry”.  Among the propertied classes, title to the possessions of a wife (the dowry) passes to the husband upon marriage while the paraphernalia which she brought remained her property. Paraphernalia is a noun and paraphernal is an adjective.  Paraphernalia, perhaps strangely, is now inherently singular because a paraphernalia is a granular construct made of a number of items.  The Medieval Latin paraphernālia was the neuter plural of paraphernlis, pertaining to the parápherna (a married woman's property exclusive of her dowry) so in the Latin it was a plural and the singular was paraphernlis but the word has been absorbed into English as a plural.  Paraphenalium has been suggested but is likely just undergraduate humor.

Twenty-first century paraphernalia.

Paraphernalia in what is now the normal conversational sense refers to the “stuff” associated with and sometimes specific to some activity, modern usage by analogy, unrelated to status of ownership.  Hooks, and sinkers are part of the paraphernalia of fishing, brushes and easels those of painting.  The word has become a favorite of police who, when searching for drugs, don’t actually need to find any to bring charges, drug paraphernalia being enough to convince some judges, especially if accused has “a bit of previous”.  The more elaborate synonyms of paraphernalia are appurtenances, accoutrements, parapherna or trappings but most useful and certainly best understood is “stuff”.

Public service announcement: Lindsay Lohan sends the message.

In the context of the illicit use of narcotics, the term “paraphernalia” is sometimes referenced in legislation but there’s often not any attempt to list exactly which items may be considered thus, the definition hanging on purpose rather than form.  It refers to any equipment, product or material used primarily or intended for use in connection with the production, preparation, or consumption of illicit drugs.  Drug users can be imaginative in the adoption of hardware for purposes other than what was in the designer’s mind and a wide range of stuff has appeared as exhibits in prosecutions.  In some jurisdictions, possession, sale or distribution of drug paraphernalia can be unlawful, even if there’s no evidence of the presence of narcotics.  Examples of drug paraphernalia include:

(1) Smoking devices: Pipes, bongs, water pipes, hookahs, and rolling papers used for smoking marijuana, crack cocaine, or methamphetamine.  Obviously, some of these items can also be used lawfully to consume (dual-use in the language of sanctions) substances like tobacco so the possibility of prosecution depends on the circumstances of each case.

(2) Syringes and needles: These typically are associated with intravenous drug use, most infamously heroin and other opioids but there are many substances (including Diazepam (Valium) and other pharmaceuticals) which can appear in liquid form.

(3) Spoons and straws: Small spoons or hollow tubes (often depicted in popular culture being rolled from high-value US$ bills) are used to “snort” drugs supplied or rendered in powdered form, of which cocaine is the best known.  The popular association of spoons with cocaine led to the comparison “silver spoon vs paper plate” to contrast the user profile with that of the much cheaper crack cocaine.

(4) Grinders: Devices used to break down marijuana buds into smaller particles for smoking or vaporization.  There are specialized products for this but others use the regular kitchen item intended for grinding herbs such as mint when making mint sauce.  Weed smokers like to give their grinders affectionate names like “mull-o-matic”.

(5) Scales: High-precision scales are used to weigh drugs for distribution or sale.  Modern electronics mean these can now be very small.

(6) Roach clips: There are metal or plastic clips used to hold the end of a joint, allowing users to smoke without risk of burning the finger tips.  It’s just common sense really.

(7) Pill bottles and pill crushers: These are used to store and crush prescription medications for illicit use.  In recent years there’s also been a crackdown on pill making devices which also have a legitimate purpose in communities such as the “holistic health” set who make their own pills from (non-narcotic) herbs.

(8) Freebase kits: One of the part-numbers associated with the trade of the dark web, the kits include the tools needed to convert cocaine hydrochloride into a smokable form, such as crack cocaine.

Historically, at common law, upon marriage, a woman’s assets became possessions of her husband, title passing automatically.  The exception was her paraphernalia which tended to include things inherently personal (clothes, sewing equipment, shoes etc) but could in certain circumstances include items of jewelry.  A husband could neither appropriate nor sell paraphernalia without her explicit consent and they did not accrue to his estate upon death but a woman could include paraphernalia in her will.  Concept is now obsolete in all common law jurisdictions but can still be cited in disputes over wills, though only in argument and the scope is limited.

Medieval paraphernalia.

Inherited from Greek and Roman law, in English law, paraphernalia differed from some of the property rights granted to women and mentioned in various iterations of the Magna Carta (1215-1225) in that it wasn't mentioned and assumed an at times strained co-existence with customary practice, the procedures of the Church, common law and civil law, judges feeling often constrained to distinguish between "our law" and "spiritual law", the latter tending always to be more generous to a widow.  All the medieval evidence however does hit that attempts to enforce ecclesiastical law were probably fitful although it may be that matters involving disputes about paraphernalia were either rare or nor recorded.  Where matters are recorded, they concerned not stuff like pins and needles but variations of apparel, a wide category which could include anything a woman might wear and that might be shoes, gowns or jewelry; in other words, like just about any dispute brought to court, money was involved.  Some jurisdictions were more accommodating still, The late-medieval and early-modern Court of Canterbury recognizing a "widow's chamber" which included her bed, the contents of her bedchamber, her apparel, her jewels and the chest in church all was stored.  There exists even records of proto-feminist husbands counter-signing their wife's list of what she considered her paraphernalia; a kind of early pre-nuptial arrangement.  The common law courts of course always preferred the rules of common law to any recognition of customary practice but in the Chancery courts of equity, successive chancellors recognized the local rules of London and York which, although abolished respectively in 1692 and 1724 and neither had anyway mentioned paraphernalia.  Despite the abolition however, at least in some instances, courts in London continued to make awards to widows based on the old rules.

Eighteenth century paraphernalia.

The most significant definitional development regarding paraphernalia dates from 1585 and it turned on the meaning of "apparel", extending the meaning of the term at common law.  What it did was confirm what some earlier judgements had at least implied: That it was no longer confined to pins and petticoats, items of little financial value, the wife in this case claiming as paraphernalia jewels and items of precious metal.  The plaintiff, citing medieval authorities, claimed it was established law that all the apparel of a woman was not paraphernalia but only that which was necessary and essential, ad necessitatem, not baubles and jewels which were ad ornamentum. How the court might have ruled on that as a general principle isn’t known because the matter appears to have been decided on the basis of the social status of the widow, a viscountess, the fourth wife of the viscount and some forty years his junior.  Whether the age difference attracted a sympathetic eye from the bench isn’t noted but the judge agreed that “parapherna” should be allowed to a widow according to her degree and viscountess being of a suitably high degree, he allowed he claim.  She kept the jewels.  While she may not have set a precedent in the narrow technical sense, the report of the case suggests this was not the first occasion where judges had been called upon to define what could be considered apparel based on the social and economic position of the widow, the viscountess certainly seems to have started a trend.  Just about every reported case thereafter, the paraphernalia sought was almost always jewelry.

So there was progress and by the end of the eighteenth century a widow was likely to keep many more of her personal possessions than women six-hundred years earlier, both the common law and equity courts expanding the definitional framework of paraphernalia well beyond the clothes on her back and case law existed to establish a husband could not by the operation of his will deprive his widow of her rights.  However, much still lay ahead, a husband’s debts in some cases still able to absorb paraphernalia, nothing prevented a husband giving away any of his wife’s possessions during his lifetime and a cleverly arranged trust could still defeat just about anything.  Still, progress there had been.

The legal progress attracted not just the odd viscountess but also the author Anthony Trollope (1815–1882), one with an eye for antics of an avaricious aristocracy.  In The Eustace Diamonds (1871), he tracks the progress of the beautiful but entirely unprincipled and recently widowed Lizzie Eustace through the dual plot of her husband-hunting and attempts to keep a cluster of diamonds, it being consequential whether they were an heirloom and therefore the property of her late husband’s heirs, or part of her paraphernalia and thus her own.  Most modern fiction may be worthless but Trollop is rewarding; everyone should read the Chronicles of Barsetshire (1855-1867).