Banner graphic for She-philosopher.com: Studies in the history of science, technology & culture

**  A second window aside called by the
She-philosopher.com Studies page, entitled
“California’s ‘Good Neighbor Fence Act of 2013’”  **

First Published:  20 May 2017
Revised (substantive):  12 May 2018

W I T H   C O M P L E T E   T E X T   O F   A L L

H O V E R   N O T E S

F O R   C A L L I N G   P A G E

#1 (of 22)

Botero pointedly made the personal political, blaming intemperance [...] for the downfall of empires — E.g., “When the soft ways of Asia and Greece reached Rome, they so delighted the martial people of that city that the spirit which had been unconquered by the sword was vanquished by pleasure, and, from being men, the Romans became effeminate, from being just rulers they became cruel murderers of their subject-peoples. Because each of them wished to live like a king, they sacked the cities committed to their rule, and thus on the one side valour was stifled by indulgence, while on the other the affection of the people was quenched by the violence of the governors: and from this the barbarians drew heart to enter the provinces and then to attack Rome itself.... Such is the nature of human greatness that at its very height it engenders the worms of self-indulgence and the rust of luxury which gradually devour it and bring it to nothing. The best example of this in our own time is the kingdom of Portugal, whose downfall was brought about not by the Moors but by the soft ways of the Indies. No situation is harder to remedy than this, for usually those who should remedy it are the first to be ensnared and to give themselves up to luxurious living; indeed those who are not made licentious by victory nor spoilt by prosperity nor turned vicious by the power to do evil, are rarer than white crows.” (Giovanni Botero, The Reason of State [Della Ragion di Stato, 1589; rev. 1598], Eng. trans. by P. J. and D. P. Waley, 1956, 70–1) ::

#2 (of 22)

Gregory IX — Pope Gregory IX (c.1170–1241). ::

#3 (of 22)

St. Raymond — Saint Raymond of Peñafort (1175?–1275). ::

#4 (of 22)

Emperor Justinian — Justinian I (482–565), Byzantine emperor (527–565). “Throughout much of his reign his troops were engaged in a defensive struggle against Persia in the east and a successful war against the barbarians in the west. Believing that they had lost their initial vigour, he hoped to revive the old Roman empire. His general, Belisarius, crushed the Vandals in Africa (533) and the Ostrogoths in Italy (535–553), making Ravenna the centre of government. His greater claim to fame lay in his domestic policy in which he was strongly influenced by his powerful wife, Theodora (c.500–548). He reformed provincial administration and in his Corpus juris Civilis he codified 4652 imperial ordinances (Codex), summarized the views of the best legal writers (Digest), and added a handbook for students (Institutes). A passionately orthodox Christian, he fought pagans and heretics. His lasting memorial is the Church of St Sophia in Constantinople.” (Oxford Dictionary of World History, ed. A. Isaacs and others, 2000, 333–34) ::

#5 (of 22)

yet to learn and which has yet — As I write this on 9/18/2016. ::

#6 (of 22)

compiled by Aaron Leaming and Jacob Spicer, 1758 — The first 18th-century compilation of the laws of New Jersey (enacted during the period 1703–1731, after East & West Jersey were reunited as a crown colony) was prepared by the speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, John Kinsey (1693–1750), and printed in 1732 by William Bradford, of Philadelphia.
   The next compilation to be printed covered the original laws passed by the New Jersey, East Jersey, and West Jersey assemblies under the government of the 24 proprietors, from 1682–1702, before New Jersey became a royal colony. This early record “was compiled by Aaron Leaming [1715–1780] and Jacob Spicer [1716–1765], under an Act of the Provincial Assembly, and published in 1758. It contains all the principal documents referring to the settlement and transfers of both East and West Jersey, with the acts of their respective Assemblies prior to the surrender of the government to Queen Anne.” (W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Governments, 1846, 87)
   By the time Leaming & Spicer’s compilation was reprinted in 1881, many of the original “ancient” legal documents — already rare and “only to be found in a few hands” by 1750 when the compilers began their work — were no longer extant, “tho’ in part incorporated in the essence of our Constitution.” As such, the original Leaming & Spicer collection continued to be of interest as a unique record of “the popular plans of government” of the founding proprietors, who “were wise and happy enough” in their 17th-century framing of “the natural rights of a reasonable creature,” “to hit upon that system which of all others is the most worthy pursuit of a rational being, namely, the security of the religion, liberties, and properties” of the immigrants who “settle[d] and transform[ed] New Jersey, with such great rapidity, from a savage wilderness to a Christian civilized country.... Civil and religious freedom and security being not only essential for the speedy settlement of a colony, but also for the happy government thereof....” (A. Leaming and J. Spicer, Grants and Concessions, Preface, n. pag.)
   Indeed, during the 17th century, New Jersey was marketed to prospective immigrants as superior to other colonies in North America and the West Indies precisely because of its early egalitarian political institutions, which “were so much more liberal in their character” than was the case elsewhere in the Anglo-American colonies. In meritocratic New Jersey, the “privilege of the people” was paramount. Propagandists such as George Scot, author of The Model of the Government of the Province of East-New-Jersey, in America; and Encouragements for such as Designs to Be Concerned There (Edinburgh, 1685) — himself a covenanter and “irreconcilable” who suffered multiple bouts of imprisonment in Scotland for attending conventicles and consorting with religio-political rebels and fugitives — were drawn to emigrate by “the blessings of civil and religious liberty” unique to early New Jersey (G. Scot, Model, 91). ::

#7 (of 22)

the one moiety — In legal or quasi-legal use during the 17th century, moiety meant “A half, one of two equal parts.” (Oxford English Dictionary::

#8 (of 22)

under pretence of guning — i.e., gunning. In the 17th century, a term used for “the act or practice of hunting game with guns.” (Oxford English Dictionary::

#9 (of 22)

guide to just social conduct — For example, in John Aubrey’s scribal publication concerned with educational reform, he grounds religious and moral instruction for “a young gentleman viz from the age of nine or ten years; till seventeen or eighteen” — as needed to maintain a civilized & just commonwealth — on the bible’s golden rule, “do as you would be done by” (Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31), citing the unethical pursuit of enclosure by contemporaries as an example of sinful behavior: “The first rule that children should be taught should be ‘do as you would be done to.’ ’Tis very short and easy to be understood: if you do not so, you are unjust, a sinner, wicked. This little rule is the basis of right reason and justice, and consequently all other virtues. For want of observing this rule we see how strangely and brutishly we live among one another.... Let them make observations of God’s judgements upon oppressors. For example, the gentlemen in Northamptonshire that depopulated [the land, as a result of their enclosures]: none of them have thriven. The like in Buckinghamshire....” (J. Aubrey, Idea of Education, ms. begun in 1669 and completed c.1684, transcribed and ed. by J. E. Stephens, 46) ::

#10 (of 22)

the Diggers — Led by the radical Puritan, Gerrard Winstanley (bap. 1609, d. 1676), the Diggers started seizing common land in Surrey during 1649–50, when food prices had risen sharply, and sharing it out. They called themselves the True Levellers, but were opposed by the Levellers (radicals seeking to level all differences of position or rank among men), who denounced the Diggers’ communistic attitude towards property.
   With the notable exception of the Leveller political theorist, Richard Overton (fl. 1640–1663), the Levellers (concentrated in urban areas) paid little attention to mounting grievances in the countryside caused by profiteering and enclosures of land subject to rights of common (i.e., rights to take the produce from land of which the right-holder is not the owner). Although penalized by statutes and royal proclamations from Tudor times, rural landlords profited significantly from their enclosures, and the practice continued.
   The enclosures and aggressive extension of seigneurial rights (over the right of commoning) were deeply unpopular, threatening the interests of wealthy and poorer tenants alike, which led to a great deal of social unrest, the best known being Kett’s Rebellion of 1549, which was violently suppressed. A popular quip of that era held that the sheep were now eating the men, as small farmers, peasants, and villagers lost both employment and tillage to the new grass enclosures where the gentry’s privileged sheep grazed.
   By the second half of the 18th century, enclosure by private Act of Parliament had “increased dramatically, and the General Enclosure Act of 1801 standardized the procedure. Enclosures were less unpopular in the 18th century, as they enabled farmers to introduce improvements in crops and breeding without reference to their neighbours.” (Oxford Dictionary of World History, 2000, 199) Nearly 4000 Enclosure Acts were passed between 1760 and 1844.
   Although the Diggers rejected the use of force, their settlements in Surrey were not tolerated, and were dispersed by the authorities in March 1650. ::

#11 (of 22)

the radical land reforms proposed by the Diggers — “The Diggers’ first manifesto, The True Levellers Standard Advanced, signed by Winstanley and fourteen others, appeared on 26 April [1649]. On a millennial account of divine history it built a particular historical application to post-revolutionary England. The earth had been created a common treasury in which all were to share equally. The Fall saw some enclosing the earth and excluding others, tyrants whose theft and implied murder made slaves of the majority. As long as they continued to work for others for hire, the slaves were complicit in their own slavery. The tyrants, however, were also oppressed in so far as their expropriation of others alienated them from creation right and common preservation. But the millennium approached and it was ‘the old world that is running up like parchment in the fire and wearing away’. More particularly, the [revolutionary] events of 1648–9 had promised to make the English a ‘Free People’ but oppression, destitution, and confusion were greater than ever. It was time to renew the foundations of the earth as a common treasury, freeing England from the legacy of the Fall and its particular consolidation in the Norman conquest. Essential to this restoration was that ‘the poor that have no land, have a free allowance to dig and labour the commons’. Begun on St George’s Hill [in Walton parish, adjacent to Cobham, where Winstanley and others first dug into the common land in April 1649, preparatory to sowing parsnips, carrots, and beans] was a restoration which would spread to ‘all the Commons and waste ground in England, and in the whole World’. These themes — the millennial context, the civil-war contract between parliament, army, and people, and the logic of a revolution which overthrew kingly government and declared the English a free people — remained constant.... Activism was justified by the direct command of God and the growing suspicion that neither parliament nor army would deliver on the promises of the revolution.” (ODNB entry for Gerrard Winstanley by J. C. Davis and J. D. Alsop, unpaginated) ::

#12 (of 22)

but by his consent — Relying on citizen & neighbor consent to ensure constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property has been a founding principle of democracy since the ancient Greeks: “Aristotle asserts that the ‘master art’ of politics has as its end ‘the good for man’ and used subordinate arts and sciences, such as rhetoric and economics, to achieve this all-encompassing purpose. Political science aims at ‘the highest of all goods achievable by action,’ generally agreed to be happiness. The Rhetoric and the Nicomachean Ethics [two texts written by Aristotle, c.350 BCE] concur that ‘the good’ is to be discovered in ‘that which is sought after by all.’ Certainly as power becomes entrenched, dependence upon persuasion and public support diminishes and the possibility of selfish interests dominating and tyranny resulting emerges. This potential necessitates law, or as Aristotle notes, ‘is why we do not allow a man to rule, but rational principle.’ In this presumed rational universe the ultimate legitimacy of the authority of those who ruled rested on the efficacy and wisdom of their efforts to realize the ideal of the art of politics. Rule by consent rather than force makes requisite the virtue of practical wisdom and the art of rhetoric; it involves persuasion on the basis of public values (at least, the values of those who could participate in public discussion), appeals to the ‘true opinion’ of the citizenry and the ethos of the society.” (Lois Self, “Rhetoric and Phronesis: The Aristotelian Ideal,” 136) ::

#13 (of 22)

the oft-cited Princeton study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page — “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, no. 3, September 2014, pp. 564–581).
   The entire article is freely available online; see the bibliographic citation on She-philosopher.​com’s Secondary Sources page (in the References section) for a link to the downloadable PDF. ::

#14 (of 22)

an out-of-control initiative process — There were 17 propositions on the ballot in California’s General Election on 11/8/2016, requiring a 223-page Official Voter Information Guide to explain the issues, of which I read every page, plus did additional research of my own, and am all too painfully aware that I still don’t grasp the full legal implications of my vote on each initiative. ::

#15 (of 22)

case-sensitive URL — When a Web address (Uniform Resource Locator or URL) is case-sensitive, capitalization matters, and capital letters must be used where indicated. For example, in the URL for this Web page, the “C” in California, plus the “AB” must be capitalized; all other letters may be input as lower case). ::

#16 (of 22)

the Roman Fasces, with an Ax in it — A bundle of rods bound up with an axe in the middle and its blade projecting. These rods were carried by the lictor, an officer whose functions were to attend upon a magistrate, bearing the fasces before him (as an emblem of the power and authority of the superior magistrates at Rome), and to execute sentence of judgement upon offenders. ::

#17 (of 22)

his Janua — I.e., Janua Linguarum Reserta [The Gates of Languages Unlocked], by Johannes Amos Comenius (Leszno, 1631).
   This was Comenius’s first great published success, printed while he was still living in Poland. “With the exception only of the Bible, Comenius’s Janua was the most widely circulated book on the continent in the second half of the [17th] century.” (B. Asbach-Schnitker, Introduction, lxviin121)
   Janua Linguarum Reserta “was the first of a graded series of texts that proposed a new way of teaching Latin. Comenius proposed shifting the entire emphasis from instruction in words to instruction in things — the things to which the words referred. Comenius wished to replace the previous emphasis on language as rhetoric with language as description. Bacon’s Great Instauration was a central text for him, and he acknowledged that his manner was Baconian. All teaching must be achieved, he argued, not from books and traditions but from things. This material emphasis, and the schemes in which he ordered it, were recognized by Baconians in England, who in 1641 persuaded Comenius to come and join them in a plan to create an institution to further their common aims.” (S. Alpers, The Art of Describing, 94) ::

#18 (of 22)

a comma in the Second Amendment — The Second Amendment (adopted on 15 December 1791) to the Constitution of the United States of America reads in full: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” ::

#19 (of 22)

Article V is clear — Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America reads in full: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” ::

#20 (of 22)

the Carolinas — “This considerable Province of Carolina” (named for Charles II) was originally “the most Southerly part of Virginia” — which, at the time of Sir Walter Ralegh’s claim to it, encompassed “that Tract of Land, reaching from Norumbega [Maine] to Florida” and from the Atlantic coastline to the Pacific coast of California. (Believing that the Pacific ocean lay on the other side of the Appalachian mountain range, Ralegh et al. had no idea what a large portion of the North American continent they laid claim to, calling all this virgin territory Virginia “in Honor of our Virgin-Queen Elizabeth.”)
   Carolina didn’t come into being until the late-17th century, when the crown separated it from Virginia, birthing it as a lord proprietary by way of “a Patent from His Majesty” on 24 March 1663. Henceforth, the new royal province became “that part of Florida which lies between twenty nine and thirty six Degrees and thirty Minutes of Northern Latitude: It is wash’d on the East and South, with the Atlantick Ocean; on the West with Mare Pacificum, or the South Sea; and on the North, bounds on Virginia,” and it “included some part of that Land which formerly belong’d to the said dissolv’d Company of Virginia.” (John Ogilby, America, 1st issue, 1670–1, 192, 295 & 195) ::

#21 (of 22)

the eight Proprietors — The eight men, including Shaftesbury, named by Charles II as joint proprietors (the “true and Absolute Lords and Proprietaries”) of the province of Carolina. On 24 March 1663, Charles II granted letters patent to Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon (1609–1674); George Monck, duke of Albemarle (1608–1670); William Craven, earl of Craven (bap. 1608, d. 1697); John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton (1663–1697); Anthony Ashley Cooper (1621–1683), Baron Ashley of Wimborne St. Giles, subsequently earl of Shaftesbury; Sir George Carteret (1610?–1680); Sir William Berkeley (1605–1677), governor of Virginia; and Sir John Colleton, a prosperous Barbados sugar planter, related to the duke of Albemarle. ::

#22 (of 22)

Landgraves and Casiques — Landgrave was a German term for a count with jurisdiction over a territory; while a casique (or cassock) was an American term used to describe a chief (or “prince” or “king”) of the aboriginal peoples of the West Indies and adjacent parts of America. Both terms were used in 17th-century Carolina to create an American nobility (ruling class) who occupied “a middle state between Lords and Commons” and sat in the upper house of parliament.
   Ogilby describes the unique sociopolitical hierarchy in the lord proprietary of Carolina, reorganized by Baron Ashley and John Locke in 1669, as follows: “Every County is to consist of forty square Plots, each containing twelve thousand Acres. Of these square Plots each of the Proprietors is to have one, which is to be call’d a Signiory. Eight more of these square Plots are to be divided amongst the three Noble-men of that County, viz. a Landgrave, who is to have four of them; and two Casiques, who are to have each of them two apiece; and these square Plots belonging to the Nobility, are to be call’d Baronies. The other twenty four square Plots, call’d Colonies, are to be the Possession of the People: And this Method is to be observ’d in the Planting and Setting out of the whole Countrey [of Carolina]; so that one Fifth of the Land is to be in the Proprietors, one Fifth in the Nobility, and three Fifths in the People.” (John Ogilby, America, 1st issue, 1670–1, 212) ::