Dominion

Dominion (pronounced duh-min-yon)

(1) The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority.

(2) Rule; control; domination; predominance; ascendancy.

(3) A territory, usually of considerable size, in which a single ruler-ship holds sway (used sometimes figuratively).

(4) Lands or domains subject to sovereignty or control.

(5) In political science, a territory constituting a self-governing commonwealth and being one of a number of such territories united in a community of nations, or empire.  Formerly applied to self-governing former colonies of the British Empire; Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and later, others.

(6) In law, a rare (probably archaic) alternative spelling of dominium.

(7) In taxonomy, kingdom.

(8) A specialized classification in theology; in biblical scholarship, an order of angel in Christian angelology, ranked above virtues and below thrones.

Mid 1400s: From the Middle English dominion (lordship, sovereign or supreme authority), from the Middle & Old French dominion (rule, power), from the Medieval Latin dominionem (nominative dominio) or dominium (lordship, right of ownership), from dominus (lord, master), corresponding to dominium (property, ownership) from domus (house) from the primitive Indo-European root dem (house, household).  The meaning "territory or people subject to a specific government” dates from the 1510s, the specific legal meaning at law “power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal" was codified by the 1650s.  In law, dominion was used from the 1510s to refer to (a territory or people subject to a specific government or control) and in the law of real property, from the 1650s assumed the meaning "power of control, right of uncontrolled possession, use, and disposal".

British sovereign colonies often were called dominions, hence the Dominion of Canada, the formal title after the 1867 union, Dominion Day, the Canadian national holiday in celebration of the union, and “Old Dominion”, the popular name for the US state of Virginia, first recorded 1778.  Dominions are best remembered as the quasi-independent nations under the British Crown, constituting the part of the British Empire best remembered as “the white dominions” or, later, “the white commonwealth”.  Canada was the first, declared in 1867 and Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa followed.  Later additions included the Irish Free State and the states of the old Raj, India, East and West Pakistan, and Ceylon.  The Balfour (Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour), 1848–1930, UK prime-minister 1902-1905; Lord President of the Council 1925-1929) Declaration of 1926 recognized the United Kingdom and the Dominions to be "...autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." and the Statute of Westminster (1931), in what was the first general enactment for the constitution of the British Empire since Lord North's (later Lord Guilford, 1732–1792; GB prime-minister 1770-1782) regulating act of 1778, granted them what was close to legislative independence.

The word dominion was earlier used to refer to a geographically-defined political entity without legal status mentioned above.  Wales was thus described between 1535-1801 and New England between 1686-1689.  It was also the popular name for the US state of Virginia, the use first recorded in 1778.  While never bothering fully to define the status, the covenant of the League of Nations made provision for the admission of any “fully self-governing state, Dominion, or Colony”, the implication being that Dominion status was something between that of a colony and a state.  That certainly reflected British Empire practice.

Flag of Canada, adopted 1965.

Canada, officially still uses the title though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created such a dominion by passing into law the British North America Act which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.  It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next major event in 1982 when the structurally significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).

Canada, officially still uses the title “Dominion of Canada”, though it’s now merely historical with no constitutional effect, the most obvious residual effect the annual "Canada Day" national holiday (1 July) in celebration of the 1867 act of union which some older folk still refer to as "Dominion Day", the official title until 1982.  Prior to the act of union, the idea of a confederation comprising the colonies of British North America had been for some time discussed and on 1 July 1867, the Imperial Parliament created the dominion by passing into law the British North America Act (1967) which joined the then defined territories of Upper and Lower Canada, New Brunswick & Nova Scotia.  In a typically British colonial "fix", the act created the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the latter to accommodate the French-speaking minority there clustered and made further provisions for other colonies and territories in future to join the dominion.

It was on this constitutional framework that Canada evolved into its present form, the next structural event in 1982 when the significant (though by most barely noticed) Canada Act was passed which included the symbolically notable word "patriation" apparently a prime-ministerial invention by Lester B Pearson (1897–1972; Canadian prime minister 1963-1968) who in 1966 coined the term as a back-formation from repatriation (returning to a country of origin).  In this context the difference between "patriation" & “repatriation” was merely political, lawyers agreeing there was no technical point to be argued but as a symbolic gesture, it appealed to politicians who wished to make the point that the Canadian constitution was, for the first time, fully to be in Canadian hands.  Prior to the 1982 act, the process to amend the constitution required the parliament in Ottawa to request the parliament in Westminster to give effect to the change; the United Kingdom assembly thus still functioning as an imperial parliament.  This was the arrangement which prevailed upon the granting of dominion statue in 1867 and while the 1931 Statute of Westminster (limiting the circumstances win which the British Parliament's could legislate for Canada) and the 1949 British North America (No 2) Act (granting the (federal) parliament in Ottawa significant authority to amend the constitution) did render Canada de facto independence, the device of needing to refer major amendments to London remained.

Lindsay Lohan at the Ultra Supper Club, during the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), Toronto, Canada, September, 2008.

The retention of this authority in London was not the choice of the colonial oppressors, successive British governments having offered to expedite any (patriative or repatriative as preferred; repatriate from the Latin repatriare, the construct being re- (back, backwards, again) + patria (homeland) and cognate to repair (to return)) request from the Canadian parliament, but rather the inability of the politicians in Ottawa to secure the agreement of the politicians in Quebec City about the exact model of any locally-held authority.  In one of the charming quirks which emerged as the decolonization processes of the twentieth century unfolded, the view, rightly or wrongly, of the French-speaking politicians in Quebec was that the UK politicians would be less likely to make changes disadvantageous to them than would other Canadian politicians.  In the end, despite decades of discussion, debate and dissent, unanimous agreement between the federal and provincial governments proved impossible to secure and it was announced by Ottawa that regardless of that, the request would be made unilaterally to patriate the constitution from Britain.  Several provinces challenged that in the Supreme Court of Canada but the judges (in something of an echo of the prevailing view about the circumstance of the 1975 dismissal of an Australian prime-minister in 1975) ruled that provincial consent was not a legal necessity although “substantial consent” by the provincial assemblies was a longstanding constitutional convention.  As it turned out, with a small legislative tweak, the Canadian prime-minister was able to obtain the agreement of nine of the ten provinces, thereby presumably satisfying both spirit and letter.

In Westminster, a few MPs took advantage of the situation to do a bit of virtue-signaling and generally practice the politics of “warm inner glow” by voting against the Canada Act (1982) claiming to be concerned about Canada’s prior treatment of Quebec and its indigenous peoples.  The UK government however, although concerned about a couple of technical points, quickly passed the act and from that point, Canada became wholly independent, the position of Queen Elizabeth II as head of state an entirely personal relationship with the Canadian government with no connection to the government of the UK.  Presumably to try to show the people of Canada something had happened, the name of the Dominion Day national holiday was changed to Canada Day.

King George V with prime ministers at the 1926 Imperial Conference. Back row: WS Monroe (Newfoundland), JG Coates (New Zealand), SM Bruce (Australia), JBM Hertzog (South Africa) and WT Cosgrave (Irish Free State).  Front row: Stanley Baldwin (United Kingdom), King George V, Mackenzie King (Canada).

Creating some confusion, which they seem often to have enjoyed, the Colonial Office referred to all the Empire’s possessions as dominions (with a small d) while those with a capital D were the Dominions (at various times Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland, the Union of South Africa and the Irish Free State) proper.  Thus all Dominions were dominions but not all dominions were Dominions.  How the Foreign Office must have envied the pedantry.  

Dylan Thomas’ poem And Death Shall Have No Dominion recalls Romans 6:9 (King James translation) “death hath no more dominion”.

And death shall have no dominion.
Dead man naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan't crack;
And death shall have no dominion.
 
And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.

Fartsdumper

Fartsdumper (pronounced farst-hoump-ah)

In Norwegian Nynorsk & Norwegian Bokmål, the indefinite plural of fartsdump (masculine or feminine), a road hump, speed bump or speed hump.

Mid twentieth century: The construct was fart + -s- + dump.  Fart was from the Middle Low German vart (speed, velocity; movement, motion; transport, transportation, traffic), from the From Old Saxon fard (traffic; journey) from the Proto-West Germanic fardi, from the Proto-Germanic fardiz (journey, voyage).  In the higher Germanic, the definite singular was farten, the indefinite plural fartar & the definite plural fartane.  The -s- was the genitival interfix indicating that the former part is a characteristic of the latter.  Dumper was from the German dumpf ((of a sound) dull (pain also), hollow, muffled; a thud (dull sound)), a gradation from the Middle High German dimpfen (to smoke, fume) and it’s speculated it may ultimately be derived from the same source as the English dank.  In fartsdump (masculine), the definite singular is fartsdumpen, the indefinite plural fartsdumpar & the definite plural fartsdumpane.  In fartsdump (feminine), the definite singular is fartsdumpa, the indefinite plural fartsdumper & the definite plural fartsdumpene.  The alternative form is the synonym fartshump (and derivatives).

The English Dank is a curious one, the conventional etymology suggesting it dates from the late fourteenth century, from the Middle English danke (wet, damp; dampness, moisture), probably from the North Germanic and related to the Swedish dänka & dank (marshy spot), the Norwegian dynke (to moisten), the Icelandic dökk (pool), the Old Norse dǫkk (pit, depression; water hole), from the Proto-Germanic dankwaz (dark).  The alternative etymology traces it to the a West Germanic source such as Dutch damp (vapor) or the Middle High German damph, both ultimately from the Proto-Germanic dampaz (smoke, steam, vapor).  Dank is an adjective & noun, dankly is an adverb, dankness is a noun and danker & dankest are adjectives.  The noun plural is danks.  Dank’s niche in the language is unique but words associated with the idea include chilly, damp, humid, muggy, steamy, sticky, wet, clammy, dewy, dripping, moist, slimy & soggy.

In other languages the evolution differed.  In Modern Dutch, dank (gratitude, a showing or token of recognition; reward, recompense) is from the Middle Dutch danc, from Old Dutch thank, from the Proto-Germanic þankaz.  In German, dank (thanks to, because of) was cognate with danken and the Dutch dank (and related to the Latin grātia) while in Lower Sorbian it came to mean "tax, fine, levy, duty".  In one Germanic quirk, in Luxembourgish, dank evolved as the second-person singular imperative of danken (to thank), from the Old High German thankōn, from the Proto-Germanic þankōną and cognate with the German danken, the Dutch danken, and the English thank.

Humps & bumps

In Norway, this advises a speed hump is ahead and drivers must not exceed 30 km/h (19 mph).

The terms speed hump and speed bump are, by most, used interchangeably because few of us realize there’s a difference, both appearing as tiresome, planned obstacles placed in a road. However, to traffic engineers, there is a difference.  A speed hump is intended to slow traffic to a speed in a 10-20 mph (16-32 km/h) range and is used in high volume areas such as residential streets, school zones, bus stops, the approaches to pedestrian crossings and around hospitals.  The construction and installation techniques vary depending upon the dimensions of the hump and the material used but the objective is gradually to reduce the speed of traffic, thus minimizing both the occurrence of incidents and reduce severity of injury in those which happen.  In design, a speed hump is a compromise between its purpose the need (1) to avoid damage to vehicles and (2) ensure emergency service vehicles are not unduly impeded.  Speed Bumps are more aggressive intent, designed to reduce the speed of vehicles to as slow as 2 mph (3 km/h) and generally no more than 5 mph (8 km/h).  Rising at a more acute angle and usually higher than a speed hump, speed bumps are used in areas where vehicle and pedestrians (or animals) share the environment such as parking areas, concourses or inner city streets.  The core purpose is a shock which induces a driver abruptly and rapidly to reduce speed.

Flink Fartsdumper (Smart Speed bumps): In high-tech & law-abiding Scandinavia, the smart-speed bump seems admired, only transgressors suffering while the obedient in their Volvos cruise on, their serenity undisturbed.

Fart Kontrol in Denmark.  The Fart Kontrol signs advise motorists of enhanced speed monitoring by the police including speed cameras.

The Nordic nations seem well-advanced in the art and science of speed humps & bumps, something not surprising, Sweden especially notorious for its onerous (and enforced) road-rules.  The new generation of Scandinavian smart speed humps & bumps are part of an integrated system of traffic management which permits speed limits in a given place to be varied according to defined conditions (time of day, visibility, weather conditions, day of the week etc), the signage changing automatically or by intervention in response to a specific event (road damage, accidents etc).  All this is accomplished by a combination of robotic devices which use sensors, artificial intelligence (AI) and centralized or distributed monitoring centres where humans react to information passed dynamically by the AI.  Part of the system is the smart speed hump or bump, one of the features of which is that the devices can be designed to be both depending on need and indeed even cease to exist, becoming a flat structure not protruding from the road’s surface.  Manually or automatically thus, at any time, a road may change from one with a speed hump, a speed bump or no obstruction at all.  The use of sensors monitoring the speed of traffic allows a speed hump or speed bum to be raised in response to a vehicle travelling above the limit while remaining flat for those not offending, sinners thus punished while the virtuous proceed serenely and slowly onwards. 

This is an aspect of the surveillance society which is becoming pervasive, the integration of which with AI has implications both reassuring and ominous.  The developments are most obvious (and most discussed) in China’s (People’s Republic of China; the PRC) Social Credit System (unrelated to CH Douglas's (1879–1952) mysterious theory of political economy).  The Chinese system began essentially as an exercise in database matching with the intention of ensuring those with a history of bad debts weren’t able to obtain credit from other institutions.  From there it grew to the point where the combination of big-machine databases and facial recognition software can mean someone crossing a road without waiting for the “Cross” sign to appear, might find their “social credit” score debited.  Presumably, if one jaywalks once too often, there can be consequences although whether that will be a text message suggesting a closer attention to road rules or a knock on the door at 2am informing one that one is to spend the next week in a “re-education centre” remains to be seen.  To the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) the social credit system must seem admirable because, after all, anyone who waits for the “Cross” sign has nothing to fear and pedestrian injuries & fatalities should greatly be reduced.  A win-win system then.

In the West, the pressure to adopt systems which pivot off the possibilities offered by facial recognition and database matching will be irresistible.  Corporations like the idea that someone wandering around a shop should see and hear content as tailored to their buying habits as that which is delivered to their screens at home or in their pocket.  They’ll be interested too in whether someone walking into the shop was once convicted (or even accused) of a property offence such as theft (especially shop-lifting it’s presumed) so matching a corporate surveillance system to law-enforcement databases offers obvious efficiencies in loss-prevention.  In commerce, the attraction of AI is that such systems, whether revenue generating or loss-preventing, run at essentially marginal cost.  Thus a “success” rate, in terms of additional sales may need to be as little as 3% because 3% of a store’s total customer movement should be still a big number.  Politically, it may be more of a concern because the possible implications of agencies of the state knowing (and recording) what a citizen eats, drinks, reads & watches and where they go with whom and what they buy or do when they’re there, remains substantially still speculative.  The possibilities will however emerge as the systems, gradually (and not necessarily obviously) are rolled-out, history suggesting we’ll be told about (1) the benefits and (2) if we’re doing nothing wrong we have nothing to fear.

Fart kontrol in the age of climate change.

Melissa Carone & Rudy Giuliani before the Michigan House Oversight Committee, Lansing, Michigan, 2 December 2020.

In Scandinavia, Fartkontrol is a familiar and well-understood road-sign but in the English-speaking world, at first glance it might summon thoughts other than of traffic management.  When Rudy Giuliani (b 1944; Mayor of New York City 1994-2001 & Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) personal attorney since 2018) appeared at a hearing conducted by Michigan House Oversight Committee in Lansing on 2 December 2020, there were so many memorable moments, it’s perhaps unfair to focus one but Mr Giuliani’s inability to maintain fartkontrol was so emblematic of the event that it’s as well remembered as his appearance in the mockumentary Borat Subsequent Moviefilm (2020).  Helpfully the precise moments of interest may be determined by the expressions of distaste shown by Jenna Ellis (b 1984), an attorney then attached to the Trump team and sitting to Mr Giuliani’s left.  The hearing was held to investigate allegation of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election and focused both on aspects of the behavior of voters and the operations of electronic voting machines provided by Dominion Voting Systems.  Footage of the hearing provided some fun for viewers but the drama of the events of 6 January and more recently the coverage of the congressional committee investigating the involvement of others in the attempted insurrection diverted attention from what was in itself a serious matter.  That may soon change as the previously little-reported suit by Dominion (US Dominion Inc & Dominion Voting Systems Inc versus Fox Corporation & Fox Broadcasting (CA No N21C-11-082 EMD CCLD)) was recently cleared to proceed by the Superior Court in Delaware.  Dominion is, inter alia, suing Fox News for repeatedly broadcasting claims Dominion rigged and otherwise manipulated the 2020 election, even though it knew the claims to be demonstratively untrue.  Even if a final judgment doesn’t in quantum approach the US$1.6 billion headline damages Dominion have cited, the case may become interesting (1) as a marker on where the US mainstream media stands in relation to the First Amendment and (2) especially interesting if Fox is subject to discovery, the tantalizing prospect being the revelation of communications from Rupert Murdoch (b 1931; effective controller of News Corp & Fox News) himself.  Just what Mr Murdoch actually tells his editors to do and say has for decades been a matter of fascination among political junkies.

If Mr Giuliani’s inconsistent fartkontrol was a footnote, the appearance of his star witness was one of the better fifteen minutes of fame seen in recent years.  Ms Melissa Carone’s (b 1998) performance before the oversight committee was a smorgasbord of conspiracy theory, accusation and political polemic; of its genre, it was a tour de force.  Indeed, it seemed a star had been discovered and a career in politics or the theatre (it can be a fine distinction) seemed certain but unfortunately the Michigan Department of State recently disqualified the mercurial Ms Carone from contesting the Republican primary for a state Senate seat, the office saying she (and ten others who had nominated) had made false statements on an affidavit candidates were required to submit.  In the matter of Ms Carone, she had attested she had against her no unpaid fines for election law violations and all of her public campaign filings were up-to-date.  The department of state ruled this was not true and it was her second recent disqualification, the Macomb County Clerk & Register of Deeds having earlier barred her from participating in a primary for state representative.

Ms Carone knows a conspiracy when she sees and accused Republican election officials and the GOP leadership of plotting to keep her off the ballot.  “This is how our elected officials keep good candidates from getting elected” Ms. Carone said, adding that she was “…going to fight it. Even if I don’t end up on the ballot, my voice will be heard. I’m not going anywhere. I will still be exposing these establishment sellout RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in the Michigan GOP.”  The office of the Macomb County clerk denied any political motivation, saying the disqualification was because “…she basically perjured herself” and that it was in Michigan “a felony to make a false statement on affidavits like those signed by candidates.”

Rudy Giuliani.

Melissa Carone

Empire

Empire (pronounced em-pahyuhr (sometimes om-peer if affecting to speak of things historically French)).

(1) A group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire, Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

(2) As First Empire, the period of imperial rule in France under Napoleon Bonaparte, 1804-1815; as Second Empire, the period of Imperial rule under Napoleon III, 1852-1870 (a decadent period).

(3) A government under an emperor or empress.

(4) The historical period during which a nation is under such a government (often initial capital letter).

(5) Supreme power in governing; imperial power; sovereignty.

(6) Supreme control; absolute sway.

(7) A powerful and important enterprise or holding of large scope, especially one controlled by a single person, family, or group of associates.

(8) In horticulture, a variety of apple somewhat resembling the McIntosh.

(9) In fashion, of the style that prevailed during the first French Empire, in clothing being characterized especially by décolletage and a high waistline, coming just below the bust, from which the skirt hangs straight and loose (usually initial capital letter).

(10) As Empire State, a term for New York since 1834.

(11) In architecture and design, noting or pertaining to the style of architecture, furnishings, and decoration prevailing in France, emulated variously in various other places circa 1800-1830; characterized by the use of delicate but elaborate ornamentation imitated from Greek and Roman examples or containing classical allusions, as animal forms for the legs of furniture, bas-reliefs of classical figures, motifs of wreaths, torches, caryatids, lyres, and urns and by the occasional use of military and Egyptian motifs and, under the Napoleonic Empire itself, of symbols alluding to Napoleon I, as bees or the letter N (often initial capital letter).

1250–1300: From the Middle English empire (territory subject to an emperor's rule (and, in general "realm, dominion"), from the Anglo-French & Old French empire & empere (rule, authority, kingdom, imperial rule; authority of an emperor, supreme power in governing; imperial power), from the Latin imperium & inperium (a rule, a command; authority, control, power; supreme power, sole dominion; military authority; a dominion, realm) from inperare & imperāre (to command) from parāre (to prepare; to make ready; order).  The construct of the Latin imperare was in- (in) (from the primitive Indo-European root en (in)) + parare (to order, prepare) (from the primitive Indo-European root pere- (to produce, procure).  A doublet of empery and imperium.

In English, the early understanding of the word was defined substantially by the knowledge (however imperfect) of the Persian and Roman (especially the latter) empires of Antiquity and though never etymologically restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor", for entirely logical reasons it did tend to be used that way.  The phrase "the Empire" (which in the UK and the British empire almost exclusively implied "the British Empire" (dating from 1772)) previously would have been supposed to be a reference to the Holy Roman Empire.  Officially, the British Empire devolved into "The Commonwealth" in 1931 because of the constitutional implications of the Statute of Westminster (and the changing world view) but opinion is divided on when it really ended, most dating it from Indian independence in 1947 (when George VI ceased to be George RI (Rex Imperator (king-emperor)) and became George R) while others claim (less plausibly) that in a sense it endured until Hong Kong was handed back to China in 1997.  Nobody claims that still holding the Falkland Islands an empire makes.

Always a civilizing project, the Roman Empire stopped short of Ireland and Scotland.  One has to draw the line somewhere.

Despite the modern habit, etymologically, empire was never restricted to "territory ruled by an emperor" but has been used that way for so long a meaning-shift may have happened.  In political theory, an empire is an aggregate of conquered, colonized, or confederated states, each with its own government subordinate or tributary to that of the empire as a whole but history is replete with accidents and anomalies.  Japan’s head of state is an emperor although no empire exists and the most often quoted remark about the Holy Roman Empire has long been Voltaire’s bon mot that it was "...not holy, nor Roman, nor an empire".

Long pre-dating the era, the empire-line (sometimes called empire-silhouette) dress is most associated with the French First Empire (which lasted from 1804 when Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself Emperor, to his final defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815) and although the look endured longer than the political construct, beginning in the 1820s, skirts widened and waistlines lowered to an extent most were no longer identifiable as the style.  The look became linked to the First Empire because it was Napoleon's first Empress, Joséphine de Beauharnais (1763–1814) who popularized it in Europe and there are fashionistas who when speaking of the style, will pronounce it as a quasi-French om-pire.  In England, Emma, Lady Hamilton's ((1765–1815); mistress of Lord Nelson (1758-1805) and muse of the artist George Romney (1734-1802)) adoption of the style was much imitated, the cross-channel exchanges of fashion continuing uninterrupted even when a state of war existed between London and Paris.  The English or American fashions of this time tend respectively to be termed "Regency" (referring to the Regency of the Prince of Wales, 1811-1820) and "Federal" (referring to the decades immediately following the American Revolution).

Gisele Bündchen in Dior empire-line dress, Academy Awards Ceremony, Los Angeles, February 2005.

Empire-line dresses featured a waistline considerably raised above the natural level with skirts which vary from the slim and columnar to the swishy and conical.  In its pure form it was characterized by (1) a columnar silhouette without gathers in front, (2) some fullness over the hips, (3) a concentration of gathers aligned with a wide centre-back bodice panel and (4), a raised waistline which reached usually to just below the bust but (occasionally) as high as the armpits.  Mass-production of the design was possible only because the industrial revolution made available new fabrics and other materials at volume and an attainable cost.  Empire- line proved appealing to women without an ideal figure because, by adjusting the parameters of the various components, a seamstress could flatter a wide variety of body types, disguising and emphasizing as required, able to create also the illusion of greater height. 

The empire-line inherently needs a lot of fabric which offers designers the possibility of using bold patterns, especially florals, which can't be displayed to the same effect in styles with less surface area.

Traditionally, most clothing had relied on the shape of the human body but new forms of corsetry, including strong yet delicate shoulder straps to provide the necessary structural integrity, combined with materials such as mull, a  soft, sheer Indian white muslin, allowed designers to create wearable outfits in which the neoclassical influence was obvious, the silhouette imitating the Classical statutes of Antiquity.  Such constructions had before existed for the rich but they were heavy, hot, rigid, uncomfortable and very expensive.  Sadly, the relative freedom women enjoyed proved short lived, evolving by the 1820s into something less simple and notably more restrictive, the hourglass Victorian styles much more prevalent in high-fashion by the mid-nineteenth century, a trend which lasted until the First World War.  The ideas of empire-line were revived for the less-constricting clothing popular in the 1920s and, although coming and going, it’s never gone away and, being somewhat hippie in its look, gained a new following in the 1960s.

Empire-line wedding dresses (left to right) by Dana Harel, Savannah Miller, Two Birds & LoveShackFancy.  Although the design and structural details differ between these, all four can be reduced to the same mathematics.  The wedding dress business seems to be one part of the industry where blonde models seem not to enjoy their usual natural advantage, photographers preferring dark hair, better to contrast and define the edges of all that white fabric.  

Lindsay Lohan in empire-line dress, Paris, 2011.

Today, empire-line dresses are still often worn and the style gained a new audience from their used in the Mad Men television series, set in upper-middle class US society during the 1960s.  One place where they've long inhabited a stable niche has been the Western wedding dress where the technical aspects of the design, the fitted bodice, high waist, and loose-fitting skirt allow the creation of silhouette that’s flattering and forgiving for a wide range of body shapes, once a genuine selling feature for brides with child who, in less accepting times, wished to conceal the bump.  However, even though the empire- line is almost uniquely  ideal at shifting focus from the waistline, it can be cut in a way to complement the slender, delivering a cinched waist.  In either case, the same mathematics are at work, the goal being to elongate and define and by creating the visual effect of the narrowest point appearing just under the bust, it can either (1) trick viewers into seeing a longer torso, diverting attention from the midriff and hips or (2) emphasise the waistline of the truly slender, making it perfect also for the petite or short.

Deodand

Deodand (pronounced dee-uh-dand)

(1) In English law (prior to 1846), an animal or a personal chattel (the scope later extended) that, having been the immediate, accidental cause of the death of a human being, was forfeited to the Crown to be sold with the money gained applied originally to pious uses.

(2) In English law (prior to 1846), A fine paid to the Crown, equal to the value of a deodand, paid by the owner of the object and subsequently applied originally to pious uses.

1520–1530: From the late thirteenth century Anglo-French deodande, from the Medieval Latin deōdandum (a thing) to be given to God, the construct being the Classical Latin deō (to God (dative singular of deus (god)) + dand(um) to be given (neuter gerund of “dare to give”) from the primitive Indo-European root do- (to give).  Deus was from the primitive Indo-European root dyeu- (to shine and (in derivatives” “sky, heaven, god”).  Deodand is a noun; the noun plural is deodands.

That the doctrine of deodand was a medieval legal relic (the earliest recorded instances of use in England dating from the eleventh century) is not that remarkable because in that it was one of a number; what’s remarkable is it remained part of the common law until the mid-1800s.  The concept was first well documented in thirteenth century legal texts and historians have concluded this “semi-codification” reflected the earlier religious tradition which held an object which caused a death was “tainted” and should be removed from profane use.  In that, it inherited older notion from Roman civil law of noxae deditio (literally “surrender for the wrongdoing” and in English law written usually as “noxal surrender”), the construct being noxae (harm, injury, wrongdoing) + deditio (surrender, giving up).  Noxae deditio was a legal mechanism (in response to what would now be called a writ) with which the owner of an animal or slave (The Romans really did make a distinction) could avoid liability for delicts (wrongs) committed by them by surrendering the animal or slave to the injured party as an alternative to paying damages.  Intriguingly, at certain times, the doctrine was extended to sons (though apparently not daughters) in circumstances where an action was brought against a paterfamilias (the head of a household), on the basis he was held to be responsible for the son’s acts.  Literally, the son could be “handed over”, either until they attained statutory adulthood or for a specified period, depending on the damages assessed.  A similar idea was the Old English wergeld, from the Proto-West Germanic werageld, the construct being wer (man) +‎ ġield (payment).  It was a form of compensation paid by a transgressor to a victim, or (as “blood money) to the victim's family if the victim were dead (the quantum decided by social rank).  The concept is familiar in many societies and is sometimes formalized in Islamic systems using the Sharia Law where the victim’s family can be involved in determining not only how much blood money should be paid but also whether there should be a payment as an alternative to a death sentence.

What evolved in English common law was the rule under which, if a person was killed by an animal, vehicle, tool or other inanimate object, that object was declared a “deodand” to be forfeited to the Crown.  Reflecting the theological basis for this, notionally the surrender was “to God”, but quickly the standard practice became to appraise the value of the beast or object and levy a fine in that sum.  Although the documentary evidence is patchy, it appears originally the forfeited property (or cash from the fine) was devoted to pious uses such as alms (ie charity for the poor) or (as was the usual trend when a revenue stream was identified) ecclesiastical purposes such as building churches or stained glass windows.  Later (another trend being squabbles between church & state), deodans became a source of consolidated royal revenue.  The rationale was partly religious (atonement), partly superstitious (removing the dangerous object), and partly fiscal (Crown revenue).

The school bus scene: In Mean Girls (2004), had Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978)) been killed by the school bus, the vehicle would have been declared a deodand and forfeited to the state although the usual practice was for its value to be assessed and an order for a payment in that sum to be served on the owner.

It was a simple concept but because there was much variation in the circumstances in which a deodand could be declared, the case law reveals inconsistencies in the verdicts.  Were someone to be killed by being run over by a horse-drawn cart, depending on this and that, the deodand might be found to be the cart and horse, the cart or horse alone or even just the particular wheel which crushed the unfortunate deceased.  One of the reasons for the variance is that in many instances the matter was determined not by a judge or magistrate working from precedent but (at coroners’ inquests) by juries which would both define the deodand and assess its value.  Given that, on what appear to be similar facts (a sailor who drowned after being struck by a mast), the deodand might be found to be the whole vessel or merely the mast.  In such cases, the issue was which object (or part of an object) should be held to be the “guilty instrument” and that was a process not simple to define, things made more difficult still by the opinions of jury members being so diverse and prone to be influenced by the identity of both the victim(s) and the owner of the object(s).

Aftermath of the explosion of a locomotive’s steam boiler.  If reduced to scrap by the event in which someone died, the jury could assess the value of the object in its "pre-event" condition.

By the eighteenth century, deodands had become largely devices of reference in that actual confiscation of objects was rare with an assessment of their monetary value to set the fine to be paid the standard practice.  Lawyers, politicians and (especially) those in commerce were critical of the system as irrational and even then there were traces of what would evolve as the modern notions of negligence and responsibility; critiques of deodand came both from what would now be described as “the right” and “the left”.  Those who owned the objects which became lethal instruments argued it was unfair they be punished so severely for what were, however tragic, “mere accidents”, pointing out the system discouraged industrial enterprise while those advocating for victims pointed out it was the state which gained the proceeds of the fines while victims’ families (many of which had lost their sole breadwinner) gained nothing.  What finally brought about the end of deodand was it being overtaken by the industrial age in which deaths came routinely to occur in clusters.  It was the multiple fatalities in marine and train accidents (infamously the Hull Tragedy (1838) and the Sonning Cutting Disaster (1840)) which attracted press coverage and public debate; in each case a “certificate of deodand” was attached to the machinery and, given the cavalier attitude of railway operators towards safety, it was hardly surprising coroners’ juries had little hesitation in declaring a locomotive and its rolling-stock a deodand.  That was obviously an expensive threat to capitalism and the lobbying by these vested interest resulted in parliament abolishing deodands by the Deodands Act 1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c.62).

Tallahassee Democrat, 13 October 1991.

The Daytona Yellow 1969 Chevrolet Corvette ZL1 coupé is the rarest and most valuable C3 Corvette (1968-1982) made, the “other ZL1” a Monaco Orange Roadster having a less pure pedigree (although at auction in January 2023 it realized US$3.14 million.  The yellow ZL1 last changed hands in October 1991 when it was sold in a government forfeiture auction for US$300,000 (then a lot of money) after being seized by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency).

The Act however was part of a reform process and the early initiatives included the statutes which would by the mid twentieth century evolve into modern negligence and compensation law, the most significant of the early steps being the Fatal Accidents Act 1846 (Lord Campbell’s Act) which for the first time codified the idea of the “wrongful death claim” and permitted families to sue on this basis.  Although now largely forgotten, the 1846 act was a significant marker of the transition of English law from a medieval, semi-religious system of atonement to a modern, rationalized law of tort, product liability and compensation.

Echoes do however remain in certain legal doctrines of forfeiture (such as state seizures of the proceeds of crime) and the US practice of civil asset forfeiture does, at least in a philosophical sense, sometimes treat property as “guilty”.  The US law provides for property (cars, boats, money etc) connected with the commission of a crime to be seized by the state even if the owner, personally, wasn’t “guilty”; it’s a modern interpretation of the medieval view the object itself bore responsibility.  What this means is the legal rationale is structurally similar to what once was the religious justification: What once was “given to God” as expiation as atonement for sin translates now into deterrence as an expression of public policy (removing dangerous tools or preventing criminals from profiting).  As a kind of “legal fiction”, under both regimes the object is treated as if it possesses some kind of independent agency.  Intriguingly, as an administrative convenience, that idea survived in Admiralty Law under which vessels can in suits be “personified”, thus cases like “The SS <ship name> v. Cargo”, the model for civil asset forfeiture procedures in which the object is the defendant (such as “United States v. One 1969 Chevrolet Corvette”).

Building from Biblical tradition, the idea of independent agency had a curious history in the legal systems of Christendom and in Europe from the Middle Ages through the early modern period, animals could be put on trial (in both secular courts and ecclesiastical courts) for murder.  These trials followed legal procedures similar to those in which a human was the accused although, obviously, cross-examination was somewhat truncated.  The most commonly tried animals were pigs, simply because it wasn’t uncommon for them freely to roam in urban areas and attacks on babies and infants were frequent.  In Normandy in 1386, a sow was dressed in human clothing and publicly executed for killing a child while at Châlons in 1499, a sow and her six piglets were tried; the sow was executed for killing a man, while the piglets were acquitted due to “lack of evidence.”  Nor were the defendants exclusively porcine, bulls and horses occasionally executed for killing people and in ecclesiastical courts there are many records of rodents and insects being charged with damaging crops.  Presumably because every day of the week rodents and insects were killed just for “being guilty of being rodents and insects”, ceremonial executions wouldn’t have had much symbolic value so the usual result handed down was excommunication(!) or a demand (from God, as it were) the creatures vacate the fields in which they were consuming the crops.

Perpetually hungry weevils enjoying lunch in a granary.

Sometimes the ecclesiastical courts could be imaginative.  In the Italian region of Tyrol in 1713, the priests ordered the hungry weevils to leave the vineyards where they were such a plague but in compensation granted their occupation of a barren piece of land as an alternative habitat.  The reaction of the insects to the ruling would have been rather as King Cnut (better known as Canute, circa 990–1035; King of England 1016-1035) would have predicted but despite that, there’s no record of the weevils being held in contempt of court.  Regrettably, there's no generally accepted collective noun for weevils but weevilage (a portmanteau word, the blend being weevil + (vill)age) seems more compelling than Adelognatha (the scientific term referring to a group of Curculionidae (a family of weevils) characterized by a specific anatomical feature).  There was at least some theological basis for the ecclesiastical courts claiming entomological jurisdiction because in scripture it was written beasts are God’s creatures like all others and over them God granted dominion to man (Genesis 1:26-28 (King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611)):

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Bovine trial in progress, rendered as a line drawing by Vovsoft.

The principle was animals could be held accountable for causing harm and this was taken especially seriously when the harm caused was something like that of a crime a human might commit (like murder) and in the secular courts, if the victim was someone of some importance, the proceedings could involve defense lawyers, witnesses, and formal sentencing.  In the ecclesiastical courts, it was more symbolic or ritualistic: insects and rodents might be “summoned” but of course they never turned up so excommunication or other curses were invoked.  By the eighteenth century, the thinkers of the Enlightenment had prevailed and the idea of animals as moral agents was so ridiculed the practice of charging them was almost wholly abandoned although in certain circumstances an owner could be held liable for the damage they caused.  There was though the odd, rural holdout.  In Normandy in 1845 a sow was executed for killing a child (in the legal archives listed as the last “classic pig trial” (the last in the US held in New Hampshire in 1819)) and in Switzerland in 1906 a dog was sentenced to death for a similar offence (this believed to be Europe’s last “animal trial”).