Larry Temkin

Larry Temkin is an American philosopher specializing in normative ethics and political philosophy. His research into equality, practical reason, and the nature of the good has been very influential. His work on the intransitivity of the "all things considered better than"-relation is groundbreaking and challenges deeply held assumptions about value, practical reasoning, and the goodness of outcomes. His 1993 book "Inequality" was described by the Times Literary Supplement as "brilliant and fascinating," and as offering the reader more than any other book on the same subject.
Biography.
Temkin graduated number one with a BA-Honors Degree from the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1975, and received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University in 1983 under the supervision of Derek Parfit. He also studied at Oxford University in 1978-79. He began his professional career at Rice University, moving to Rutgers University in 2000. He has held Visiting Fellowships at the Australian National University, the National Institutes of Health, All Souls College (Oxford University), Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, and the National Humanities Center. Temkin is a committed teacher who has won eight major teaching awards. In 2011-2012, and is the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Distinguished Teaching at Princeton University in the University Center for Human Values. Temkin is currently the chair of the Rutgers University philosophy department.
This article describes Temkin's work on equality and on intransitivity and the nature of the good.
The nature of equality.
Most work on equality asks whether equality is desirable, and, if so, what kind of equality we should seek. In "Inequality", Temkin asks a more basic question: when is one situation worse than another with respect to inequality?
Sometimes the answer is obvious, but sometimes it is not. Consider, for instance, three situations: one in which many are well off and just a few are badly off, one in which many are badly off and just a few are well off, and one in which there is an equal number of well off and badly off people. The first situation may be one in which a minority has been singled out for mistreatment, making the inequality seem especially gratuitous or cruel. The second situation may be one in which a dominant elite oppresses and exploits the masses. And the third situation seems to feature the greatest deviations from pure equality. Other things being equal, it is hard to say which situation is worst with respect to equality. A case, it seems, can be made for any of the three.
Temkin uses such thought experiments to show that equality is not the simple notion it is often taken to be. Judgments of inequality's badness, he shows, turn on a host of considerations, such as how much deviation there is from pure equality, how gratuitous the inequality seems, and the extent to which individuals have an equality-based complaint. An individual's equality-based complaint, moreover, can depend on how she compares with the average person, the best off person, or all those better off than she; and, in addition, one might arrive at a judgment concerning the badness of an outcome’s inequality by adding individual complaints, focusing on the worst-off's complaints, or adding everyone's complaints, but giving special weight to larger complaints. In all, Temkin argues that at least eleven distinct aspects underlie egalitarian judgments.
Temkin also challenges the conventional view that equality is holistic (that it is concerned mainly with groups) and that it is essentially distributive. While inequalities between groups can be important, Temkin argues that, often, the proper object of moral concern is inequalities between individuals. And while equality is indeed a distributive principle, Temkin argues that what makes it distinctive is that it is essentially comparative – it expresses a fundamental concern for how individuals fare relative to each other. No other distributive principle, he argues, has that feature.
In all, Temkin mounts a case against the conventional view that equality is simple, holistic, and essentially distributive, and a powerful case for the view that it is complex, individualistic, and essentially comparative.
Luck egalitarianism.
Many contemporary egalitarians have been identified as luck egalitarians, believing, roughly, that it is bad when one person is worse off than another through no fault or choice of her own. Temkin argues that the egalitarian’s fundamental concern should not be with luck per se but with comparative fairness. His view is that, among equally deserving people, it is bad, because unfair, for some to be worse off than others through no fault or choice of their own. But, among unequally deserving people, it is not bad, because not unfair, for someone less deserving to be worse off than someone more deserving, even if the former is worse off through no fault or choice of her own.
To illustrate, egalitarians need not object if criminal John is worse off than law-abiding Mary, even if John craftily avoided capture and is worse off only because, through no fault or choice of his own, a falling limb injured him. In that case the effects of luck need not trouble egalitarians because they do not undermine comparative fairness.
On the other hand, egalitarians might well have reason to object if Betty injures herself saving a drowning child, and thus ends up worse off than others, even if the injury is a result of responsible free choice.
One might object that, on Temkin’s view, egalitarian concerns reduce to concerns about desert. But Temkin offers arguments suggesting that this is not so. First, on Temkin’s view, it is important that equally deserving people fare equally well, even if, in absolute terms, they are not getting what they deserve. Suppose that Fred and Martha both deserve to fare badly, and equally badly, but they both fare well, and equally well. That would be bad from the perspective of absolute desert but not from the perspective of comparative desert. From the perspective of absolute desert, but not from the perspective of comparative desert, it would be better if just one of them fared badly. So, Temkin shows that the concern for comparative fairness is not the same as the concern about absolute desert. Second, Temkin further argues that the concern about comparative fairness is distinct from the concern about comparative desert. Suppose that Susan is a really good person who chooses to give most of her income to the badly off, and that John is a less good person who permissibly chooses to spend his money on himself. If Susan predictably ends up worse off than John, this would be objectionable from the standpoint of comparative desert, since Susan is a morally more deserving person than John; but Temkin suggests that there may be no egalitarian objection to Susan’s being worse off than John, on the grounds that there may be no comparative unfairness in their relative positions, given that Susan autonomously chose to make herself worse off than John.
Welfarism and the leveling down objection.
Many reject egalitarianism because of the leveling down objection, which holds that there is no respect in which merely lowering someone from a higher to a lower level of welfare improves a situation, even if it increases equality. So, for example, it is argued that there is no respect in which putting out the eyes of the sighted would improve matters even though this would make everyone equally blind. If that is right, then equality would seem to lack intrinsic value.
Temkin defends egalitarianism against the leveling down objection. He argues that this objection derives much of its force from a widespread assumption – welfarism – according to which nothing matters morally except insofar as it impacts individual wellbeing. That view, Temkin argues, is counter-intuitive. It seems bad, after all, for sinners to fare better than saints even if there is no respect in which that is worse for the sinners or the saints. In general, Temkin argues that we value fairness and justice beyond the extent to which they are good for people. Welfarism, he writes, rules out impersonal ideals – those whose value does not lie wholly in their contributions to individual wellbeing – and many of our most important ideals, such as that of fairness, justice, knowledge, beauty, and truth are impersonal.
Of course, even if welfarism were false, it could still be the case that there is no respect in which leveling down the better off improves a situation. Temkin, however, thinks there is a respect in which this improves a situation – it does so with respect to equality. That, of course, does not mean that leveling down the better off would make things better all things considered. Equality, Temkin argues, is not all that matters, but it matters some.
Equality and priority.
Much recent work in political theory addresses whether egalitarianism should be replaced by prioritarianism. Prioritarians hold that an outcome’s goodness is a function of overall wellbeing across all individuals, with extra weight given to worse off individuals. This view first appeared under the name “the priority view” in Derek Parfit’s renowned 1991 article “Equality or Priority.” But the idea dates back to Temkin’s 1983 Ph.D. thesis, where it was presented under the name “extended humanitarianism.” And the word “prioritarianism” first appears in Temkin’s “Equality, Priority, and the Levelling Down Objection”.
Prioritarianism has great plausibility. Many are drawn to the idea that making improvements in the wellbeing of the badly off should take priority over making equal improvements in the wellbeing of the well off. Prioritarianism, moreover, avoids the leveling down objection. Temkin, however, argues that it would be a mistake to jettison egalitarianism altogether since only egalitarianism reflects a fundamental concern for comparative fairness. There is an important place for egalitarian considerations in our all things considered judgments, Temkin argues, in addition to considerations of priority.
Intransitivity and the nature of the good.
Beginning with his groundbreaking ‘Intransitivity and the Mere Addition Paradox,’ and culminating in his magnum opus, "Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals, and the Nature of Practical Reasoning", Temkin has given a series of powerful arguments that call into question deeply held assumptions about value and about the nature of practical reasoning that play a central role in philosophy and in decision theory. According to decision theory, rational preferences must satisfy four fundamental axioms: Completeness (requiring preferences over, or indifference between, any pair of outcomes), Independence (requiring that one’s preference between a given pair of options does not depend on what other options are available), Continuity (requiring that if one prefers A to B and B to C, then one is indifferent between B and some gamble in which A and C are the two possible outcomes), and Transitivity (requiring that if you prefer A to B and B to C, then you prefer A to C). Temkin's arguments have called into question each one of these fundamental axioms, and his recent manuscript can be seen as a systematic account of the ways in which these axioms fail in cases involving moral reasoning. Thus, in addition to shedding light on the complexities of the moral domain, it arguably constitutes the most thorough challenge to the standard formal theory of practical rationality.
The present article will focus on the challenges Temkin raises against transitivity, since this principle plays a fundamental and pervasive role not only in decision theory, but also in philosophical arguments and in our ordinary, informal practical reasoning. While this principle has a great deal of prima facie plausibility, Temkin has shown that we cannot consistently endorse this principle while retaining our other most deeply held beliefs about morality and rational choice.
Here is an illustration of the problem. Most people accept a position that Temkin calls the First Standard View (FSV), which holds, roughly, that an outcome in which some people suffer a burden would be better than an outcome where many more people suffer a slightly smaller burden. So, for example, other things equal, an outcome where some number of people suffered from a given illness would be better than one where far more people suffered from an illness that was almost as bad. Most people also accept a position he calls the Second Standard View (SSV), which holds, roughly, that an outcome where a number of people suffer an extremely severe burden would be worse than one where any number of people suffer a minor burden. For example, most believe that, other things equal, an outcome in which ten people are severely tortured for their entire lives would be worse than an outcome in which any number of people must listen to a mildly unpleasant pop tune.
And yet, as Temkin has shown, these two deeply held beliefs are incompatible with Transitivity, in an argument that owes much to the Repugnant Conclusion. For there could be a spectrum of burdens ranging from the very severe to the very mild, such that FSV applies when comparing outcomes involving burdens near each other on the spectrum, while SSV applies when comparing outcomes involving burdens at opposite ends of the spectrum. Thus, FSV tells us that outcome A, where 10 people are severely tortured for their whole lives, would be better than outcome B, where 30 people suffer a burden almost as bad as (perhaps being severely tortured all their lives except for Sunday afternoons when they can watch football); that B would be better than outcome C, where 90 people suffer a burden almost as bad as the burden suffered in B, and so on. Continuing in this way, transitivity will entail that A, an outcome where 10 people are tortured for their whole lives, is better than some outcome Z, where some very large number of people must listen to a mildly unpleasant pop tune once per month. But SSV denies this. Thus, one must reject FSV, SSV, or the Axiom of Transitivity; but none of these will be easy to give up.
According to Temkin's diagnosis of this paradox, FSV reflects the fact that sometimes we adopt an additive-aggregationist approach in evaluating and comparing different outcomes. That is, we judge the relative goodness of two outcomes by comparing them in terms of both the quality and number of benefits or burdens and adding them up. On the other hand, SSV reflects the fact that sometimes we adopt an anti-additive-aggregationist approach in evaluating and comparing different outcomes. That is, for some comparisons, we do not simply add up the benefits and burdens in the different outcomes, but instead pay attention to how the benefits or burdens are distributed in the different outcomes and, in particular, to the relative impact on people's lives that the benefits and burdens have. Temkin has shown, however, that if we apply one set of criteria for making certain comparisons, and another set for making others, then the Axiom of Transitivity will either fail, or fail to apply, across the different comparisons. In particular, if it is FSV that is relevant when comparing A with B, and B with C, and if it is instead SSV that is relevant when comparing A with C, then it will not be surprising if A is better than B, and B better than C, in terms of the criteria that are relevant for making those comparisons, but A is not better than C, in terms of the criteria that are relevant for making that comparison. Thus, Temkin has provided a plausible and powerful explanation of how failures of transitivity can arise when comparing various outcomes, in virtue of the different factors that can be relevant in comparing different outcomes.
Temkin has shown that the same logic that applies when comparing distributions of benefits and burdens across populations also applies when comparing such distributions within a single life. Thus, most believe that an analogue of FSV is relevant for comparing certain possible lives, but that an analogue of SSV is relevant for comparing others. For example, in some cases we accept an additive-aggregationist approach, agreeing that it would be better to live a life with a larger burden lasting for a certain duration, than a life with a burden almost as bad lasting much longer. But in other cases we reject an additive-aggregationist approach, holding, for example, that no matter how long we might live, it would be better to have to listen to one mildly unpleasant pop tune per month for any number of months, than two years of continuous excruciating torture. Two years of torture within a life is tragic. But many mildly unpleasant pop tunes spread out through time never amount to more than a nuisance; they simply do not add up in the way required to outweigh the tragic impact of two years of torture. And yet, as Temkin has shown, these two assumptions about how to evaluate possible lives lead to intransitivities similar to those considered above.
The kinds of argument Temkin gives against transitivity are very broad in their scope. For they will apply whenever the principles that are relevant, or the weight that we should assign to these principles, depends on which outcomes we are comparing. And Temkin has persuasively argued that the relevant principles do vary from comparison to comparison. Thus, there are some "narrowly person-affecting principles," as Temkin calls them, that apply only when one is comparing outcomes in which there is either partial or total overlap among the individuals they contain, whereas there are other principles, such as the principle of total utility, that apply when comparing outcomes containing wholly different populations. Since most people will want to give some weight both to kinds of principles, most people must acknowledge that which principles are relevant in making different comparisons depends on which outcomes are being compared. Temkin has shown, however, that once this kind of variability has been acknowledged, the threat of intransitivity looms.
One objection that has been made to Temkin’s arguments is that, simply as a matter of logic, "better than" could never be intransitive. Such critics often grant, however, that since context is relevant to our obligations, it could be that we ought to do A rather than B, when those are our only alternatives, and do B rather than C, when those are our only alternatives, and yet we ought to do C rather than A, when those are our only alternatives. Temkin has shown, however, that if the critics acknowledge this point about obligations, then it will be very difficult for them to maintain that the "better than" relation is transitive. For it is very plausible that acting rightly is good in itself, quite apart from the value of whatever consequences it may bring about. In order for this to create problems for the defender of transitivity, it need not be the case that, as Kant thought, the intrinsic moral worth of actions is more important than their consequences—it suffices that, when agents act rightly rather than wrongly, this fact has some intrinsic value, however small. Temkin shows that if we grant even this much, then it is very difficult to maintain the transitivity of the value of outcomes, since the intransitivity among our obligations to choose will infect the outcomes we are choosing among.
What these arguments show is that many of our deepest beliefs regarding how to assess the goodness of outcomes are fundamentally incompatible. In light of these arguments, it appears that, if we are to achieve consistency in our normative beliefs, then very serious revisions are required in our understanding of the good and of practical reasoning.
Works by Temkin.
Books
Articles


Peter Brookesmith

Peter Brookesmith (born 1946) is an English writer on paranormal topics, especially the belief in UFOs. He has appeared often in the "Fortean Times" as well as speaking at their UnConvention.


Robin Ramsay (editor)

Robin Ramsay (born 1948) is a Scottish author, and co-founder and editor of the magazine, "Lobster". Ramsay writes about politics and conspiracy theories. His books have been published by HarperCollins and Pocket Essentials. His writings have resulted in him receiving death threats from the fascist group Combat 18.
The eldest child of a food chemist, Ramsay was born in Edinburgh in 1948. He studied at Stirling University but left after a term and moved to London. He later took a degree at Hull University. During his time at Hull, he became interested in the John F. Kennedy assassination.
While investigating the case Ramsay met fellow Kennedy assassination enthusiast Stephen Dorril. Together they started a magazine about parapolitics. "Lobster" first appeared in September 1983 as a 24-page A5 magazine. Ramsay also draws on his research and writes a regular monthly column in the "Fortean Times".
Conspiracy theories.
Although Ramsay's magazine Lobster includes articles on conspiracy theories, and he has written a book on the subject, Gareth Mclean writing "The Scotsman" newspaper, says that Ramsay "hates conspiracy theories", quoting him as saying "The term 'conspiracy theory' is used by various intellectual establishments to dismiss people like me. It's irritating but there's nothing you can do about it."
Personal.
Ramsay is the eldest child of a food chemist father and housewife mother.
"Guardian" journalist Robert McCrum describes Ramsay as "an extrovert, fast-talking Scot with jack-of-all-trades experience in alternative journalism, jazz music and the theatre".
In July 1988, Ramsay made an extended appearance on the Channel 4 discussion programme "After Dark", alongside Merlyn Rees, H. Montgomery Hyde and others.


Gogol Center

The Gogol Center, Russia’s leading avant-garde theater is a multi-use arts complex in Moscow, featuring movies, music concerts, a discussion club, and performances by Russian and foreign directors on several stages. The Center is noted for its stagings of contemporary Russian Dramas and a lobby featuring neon-lit mirrors shaped like famous directors. and as part of recent news related to Russian State censorship of the arts.
The Center's has recently hosted dance companies including SounDrama and Studio Seven as part of an experimental artist in residence program specifically committed to art that "does not limit itself with any genre boundaries and constantly strives to reflect Modern Art in the most relevant way."
The Center's writer and dramaturge, Valeriy Pecheykin, is a regular contributor to the Russian LGBT magazine "Kvir", author of the plays "My Moscow" (2008), "Net" (2009), "Lucifer" (2008), "Russia, Forward!" (2011), "A Little Hero" (2014), screenplay co-author for Pavel Lungin's "The Conductor" (Russia, 2012).
Kirill Serebrennikov, the artistic director of the Gogol Center, is professor (of acting and direction) at the Moscow Art Theatre School. His productions were presented at the Wiener Festwochen and the Avignon Theatre Festival. His films have been screened at the Cannes Film Festival, Locarno Film Festival, Rome Film Festival, and the Warsaw International Film Festival, where his film "Yuri's Day" received the Grand Prix.
History.
In February 2014, Moscow’s Gogol Theatre reopened as the Gogol Center with a season that included performances of Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol and Hamlet by William Shakespeare
In May 2017, Russia’s Investigative Committee ordered police to raid the Center. The Center's Directory, Kirill Serebrennikov was detained for questioning. On 23 May, police attributed the cause of the raid and detention of its Director to an investigation of embezzlement of budget funds.


Saint Genet

Saint Genet, Actor and Martyr () is a book by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre about the writer Jean Genet, especially on his "The Thief's Journal". It was first published in 1952. Sartre described it as an attempt "to prove that genius is not a gift but the way out that one invents in desperate cases." Sartre also based his character Goetz in his play "The Devil and the Good Lord" (1951) on his analysis of Genet's psychology and morality. Sartre has been credited by David M. Halperin with providing, "a brilliant, subtle, and thoroughgoing study of the unique subjectivity and gender positioning of gay men".


Foundation of Light

The Foundation of Light (Previously called the "SAFC Foundation") is a Registered Charity in the United Kingdom, and is the independent charitable foundation of professional football club Sunderland A.F.C. It is the biggest football charity in the UK.
It was founded on 6 September 2001 by Sunderland chairman Bob Murray. The charity's patron is Sophie, Countess of Wessex and the Chief executive officer is Lesley Spuhler OBE.
History.
In 1988, Sunderland took part in the 'Community Programme in Professional Football’, a scheme aimed at encouraging links between football clubs and their local communities. This became the 'Football in the Community' initiative in the early 1990s, which Sunderland were involved in from the beginning.
In September 2001, Sunderland chairman Bob Murray announced the separation of Sunderland's charitable and community work from the mainstream club activity, andt the independent SAFC Foundation was created. The foundation was initially supported with funding from Sunderland A.F.C., Northern Rock and the Coalfields Regeneration Trust.
The Foundation's main charitable aim is to:Advance the education (including the social and physical training) of children and young persons attending schools and clubs in the area, through the use of football and other sports activities as educational tools and thereof to provide facilities for meetings, lectures and classes for the benefit of such young children and young persons. Within a year, the Foundation had a staff of 70 who engaged with school children in 280 schools, predominantly in Sunderland and County Durham. Initially, classrooms within the Academy of Light were used for the Foundation, as well as two mobile double-decker buses containing specialist classrooms. The custom-built "Centre for Light" opened in 2004, a £1.6m learning facility built within the Stadium of Light. The centre included five learning areas supporting up to 120 visiting children per day.
The Foundation regularly undertakes various fund-raising activities. In 2011, it collaborated with Durham Cathedral on a 'Carols of Light' event. The event was produced by Tim Rice and included music performances from Thomas Allen, former Animals member Alan Price, and Sunderland based band The Futureheads. Readings were performed by SAFC Foundation Trustee and former player Niall Quinn, in addition to other sports and media celebrities including journalist Kate Adie, and presenter Steve Cram.
In 2012, the SAFC Foundation was rebranded as the Foundation of Light.
In 2015, the Foundation was granted permission to open a free school next to the Stadium of Light. The Sunderland Centre for Opportunity (SCOO) would offer opportunities for vulnerable children who struggle in mainstream education.
In September 2018, the Beacon of Light opened, and became the new official home of the Foundation of Light. The £20m, five-storey building, which sits alongside the Stadium of Light, includes indoor sports courts, indoor and outdoor artificial turf pitches, as well as classrooms and learning spaces.
After purchasing the club in May 2018, Sunderland chairman Stewart Donald joined the Foundation of Light board of trustees on 11 October 2018.
Financials.
In 2017, the Foundation of Light raised £11.1m and spent £4.1m. It had £17.8m in assets and £5.5m in liabilities. There were 130 employees and 42 volunteers. Over 300,000 people have been helped by the Foundation since it was created.
Board of Trustees.
The following people are on the board of trustees:


Metropolitan Police Clubs and Vice Unit

The Clubs & Vice Unit was an Operational Command Unit of London's Metropolitan Police which provided advice and practical support to other units in the Metropolitan Police concerning the policing of nightclubs, vice and obscene publications.
History.
Established in 1932 as the 'C' Division Clubs and Vice Unit, the unit later became better known as the ‘Clubs Office’ and was based at West End Central Police Station.
Historically, the unit dealt primarily with prostitution, later introducing nightclubs, gaming and casinos. During the 1960s and with improved technology its focus had moved onto criminal activity, including drugs, criminal control of clubs and brothels and the obscene publications industry.
The base in Vine Street was requisitioned to become the Aliens Registration office in August 1939, so the unit was temporarily closed. It reopened in October in a secret meeting in a public house in Leicester Square for officers to take instructions and collect their expenses. In 1941, the Unit moved onto the 3rd floor of the new West End Central Police Station. This location, near Soho Division, was key as Soho has been the most famous red light district in the United Kingdom since the mid 19th century.
During the Second World War the vice scene in the west end of London thrived due mainly to the number of overseas soldiers based in England, many of whom were visitors to Soho. The proprietors of unlicensed clubs in Soho were breaching licensing laws but these also became a haven for prostitution and organized crime. The Clubs officers performed covert operations to tackle these problems.
Various legislation has affected the work and direction of the unit over the years, when the Street Offences Act came into force in 1959 the majority of prostitutes left the street, practically overnight, for fear of imprisonment and the fine for living off immoral earnings which increased.
The Obscene Publications Act 1964 brought extra responsibilities when the unit were given the task of enforcing the act. As a result, obscenity became a new part of their terms of reference.
The unit reached its lowest ebb in the early 1970s when chronic allegations of corruption came to a head with the detailed exposure in 1972 of systematic payments by pornographer James Humphreys led to seventeen policemen, including DCI George Fenwick, head of the obscene publications squad; his direct superior DCS Bill Moody; Cmdr Wallace Virgo, head of the Serious Crime Squad, in overall charge of the unit; and Cmdr Kenneth Drury, head of the Flying Squad. As the ensuing corruption investigations widened, the obscene publications squad was replaced in its entirety with a new group of officers drawn from the uniformed branch, and in all over 20 detectives were dismissed or required to resign. When the cases ultimately came to trial in 1977 the presiding judge Mr Justice Mars-Jones summarised those involved as having engaged in "corruption on a scale which beggars description".
As a result of this corruption, officers attached to Clubs were changed to predominantly uniformed officers who were thought to be less corrupt than their CID counterparts. There was also a rotation system where officers were posted to Clubs for a maximum of 12 months and then returned to their police stations. In practice, some returned within a matter of weeks.
New challenges have arisen from the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003 (with the potential for 24-hour drinking) and the Gambling Act 2005 (with significant deregulation of gaming). With new legislation expected that covers the possession of "extreme obscenity" the work of the Clubs and Vice unit continues apace.
In 2014 the unit was merged into the Mets Human trafficking command and the focus on clubs and vice was reduced.
Role.
The Clubs and Vice unit was split into five sections:
The Clubs Unit is split into three teams: the Proactive Licensing team, Proactive Crime team and the Gaming team. All three units' primary responsibility is to generate intelligence led operations against organised criminals who use licensed premises to supply illegal drugs and gaming establishments to commit gaming fraud. They also support BOCUs in tackling licensed premises associated with serious violence and disorder.
The Obscene Publications Unit targets people who manufacture and distribute obscene material through shops, mail order, complex distribution networks and the Internet. Particular attention is focused on the most extreme and/or exploitative material.
The Taskable Unit assists BOCUs with offences occurring on the street such as kerb crawling, street prostitution and the advertising of brothels in public phone boxes, known as "carding". It also provides resources to other units within Clubs and Vice.
The Vice Unit provides a centre of investigative excellence to monitor London's off street prostitution industry and in so doing protect the most vulnerable adult and child prostitution victims and seek to investigate and prosecute those who exploit them. Emphasis is placed on rescuing trafficked and coerced victims. The unit also provides support and guidance to borough officers who come into contact with these offenders and victims.
The Intelligence Unit provides field intelligence for the proactive teams. The unit includes a dedicated Source team; Counter Terrorism and Promoters focus desks and the Financial Investigation Unit.


Mucedorus

A Most pleasant Comedie of Mucedorus the Kings Sonne of Valentia, and Amadine the Kinges daughter of Aragon, commonly called Mucedorus, is an Elizabethan romantic comedy, first performed around 1590 and regularly revived until the Restoration. It was one of the most performed plays of its age, and 16 quarto editions were published between 1598 and 1668 making it the most widely printed play from the time. It was performed for both Queen Elizabeth and King James I. A revised and expanded version was published in 1610 with additional scenes.
"Mucedorus" has been attributed to William Shakespeare in whole and in part, but these theories are generally not accepted by Shakespeare scholars. It is generally classified as apocryphal and not part of the main Shakespearean canon. Other proposed authors have included George Peele, Robert Greene, and Thomas Lodge. Greene's "James IV" (c. 1590) and Peele's "Old Wive's Tale" (1595) belong to the same genre.
Synopsis.
A prologue was added to the play when it was performed for James I.
The play opens with an induction that consists of a meta-theatrical flyting between the allegorical personifications Comedy and Envy. Envy declares that he will turn this pleasant comedy into a tragedy. Comedy challenges Envy to do so and claims that mirth will triumph in the end.
The scenes usually labelled as act one, scenes one and two were new additions to the text with its Jacobean revision. In these scenes, the Prince of Valencia, Mucedorus, having heard that Amadine, the daughter of the king of Aragon, is extraordinarily beautiful, bids farewell to his friend Anselmo, revealing to him his plan to disguise himself in order to pursue her. Anselmo offers him the costume of a shepherd in which he has previously performed in a masque. Mucedorus disguises himself, swears Amselmo to secrecy, and departs. The second additional scene introduces the clown of the play, Mouse. He enters having fled from feeding his master's horse, frightened by a bear, or "some devil in a bear's doublet" (1.2.3). In his attempt to escape it, he advances backwards, only to trip over the bear and flee in terror.
The original version of the play began with Segasto, who is bethrothed to Amadine, running in terror, swiftly followed by Amadine herself, from a bear that chases them across the stage. Segasto abandons Amadine, but she is rescued by Mucedorus, who appears wielding a sword and the bear's head. She thanks him and invites him to the court of Aragon.
Upon Amadine and Mucedorus's arrival, Segasto becomes envious of Mucedorus, a lowly shepherd who is now honoured in court for his bravery. Segasto thus asks his friend, Tremelio, to kill Mucedorus, which Tremelio agrees to do, but Mucedorus dispatches him quickly. Mucedorus is brought before the King and sentenced to death for killing Tremelio, but Amadine reveals to the King that it was Mucedorus who saved her from the bear. The King spares Mucedorus's life, but Segasto falsifies a directive banishing Mucedorus from the kingdom. Amadine and Mucedorus declare their love for each other and decide to leave the kingdom together.
While waiting to meet up with Mucedorus later in the nearby woods, Amadine is captured by Bremo, a wild man, to be his bride. Mucedorus, finding that Amadine has disappeared, disguises himself again as a hermit and is captured by Bremo as well. Mucedorus convinces Bremo that he and Amadine must be taught how to fight so that they may defend themselves when Bremo is not around to protect them. Once Bremo gives Mucedorus a sword, Mucedorus kills him and sheds his disguise as the hermit and becomes the shepherd again. Segasto, who had been searching the forest for the lost couple, finds Amadine and Mucedorus. Amadine declares her love for Mucedorus, and Segasto decides to relent. Mucedorus now reveals that he is actually the Prince of Valencia.
Upon learning of these events, the King approves of the marriage between Mucedorus and Amadine, and the play ends with all the characters leaving to celebrate. The characters Envy and Comedy return to the stage, with Envy claiming that he can still defeat Comedy. As the two fight, they recognise the monarch in the audience (either Queen Elizabeth or King James) and declare that both comedy and tragedy serve the throne.
Source and genre.
Modern scholarship suggests a date for the play's origin c. 1590. Individual critics have considered The "Arcadia" of Sir Philip Sidney (one of whose characters is named Musidorus) as a source for the play, and have studied its relationship to pastoral and folktale forms, and to traditional mummers' plays, Medieval theatre and chivalric romances, and the Italian Commedia dell'arte.
"Mucedorus" is an early romantic comedy. It often elicits humour through rapid transitions between comedy and tragedy. For example, when Bremo is killed, there is only one line reflecting on his death before the play returns to the romantic plot. Most of the characters in "Mucedorus" are stock expectations for the genre, offering little depth or originality. Mouse's deafness is a play on the stock comedic fools who often wilfully twist a speaker's words.
Printing history.
"Mucedorus" was the most frequently reprinted play prior to the Restoration, with 17 quarto texts surviving before the end of the 17th century.
Staging history.
"Mucedorus" was performed by strolling players as late as the eighteenth century. One such performance, at Witney in Oxfordshire on 3 February 1653 (new style), saw a number of the audience killed and injured when the floor collapsed under the weight of the crowd. A Puritan preacher considered the accident a sign of God's displeasure with play-acting.
Relationship to Shakespeare.
Q3 (1610) of "Mucedorus" claims that it was in the repertoire of the Globe Theatre: A/Most pleasant/Comedie of Muce-/dorus the Kings sonne of Valen-/tia, and Amadine the Kinges/daughter of Aragon./With the merry conceites of Mouse./Amplified with new additions, as it was/acted before the Kings Maistie at/White-hall on Shroue-/sunday night./By his Highnes Seruantes vsually/playing at the Globe./Very delectable, and full of conceited Mirth./Imprinted at London for William Iones./dwelling neare Holborne Conduit/at the signe of the Gunne./1610./ Starting with this same Q3 and continuing through all subsequent editions, the text of the play is augmented with six additional passages, which are plainly not the work of the original author. Some early critics considered Shakespeare as a potential author of these additions rather than the original play – though even this view is not regarded with favour by the modern scholarly consensus.
The play was assigned to Shakespeare in Edward Archer's play list of 1656, published in his edition of "The Old Law"; it was also bound together with "Fair Em" and "The Merry Devil of Edmonton" in a book labelled "Shakespeare. Vol. I" in the library of King Charles II.


The Puritan

The Puritan, or the Widow of Watling Street, also known as The Puritan Widow, is an anonymous Jacobean stage comedy, first published in 1607. It is often attributed to Thomas Middleton, but also belongs to the Shakespeare Apocrypha due to its title page attribution to "W.S.".
Date and authorship.
"The Puritan" probably dates from the year 1606. Some of its incidents are drawn from a contemporary work called "The Merry Conceited Jests of George Peele", which attributes to the writer George Peele a number of tricks and jokes that can be found in previous popular literature. It contains an allusion to an almanac that specifies 15 July as a Tuesday, which was true only of 1606 in the first decade of the 17th century (although the author may not have intended it to be accurate). And the play's interest in corporal oaths may be related to the demands for oaths of allegiance from Catholics following the Gunpowder Plot.
"The Puritan" was entered into the Stationers' Register on 6 August 1607, under the title "The Puritan Widow". It was published in quarto format before the end of the year by the printer George Eld, now under the title "The Puritan, or, The Widow of Watling Street". The title page of the quarto states that the play was performed by the Children of Paul's, one of the boys' acting companies of the era, and attributes its authorship to "W. S." These initials were first identified with William Shakespeare by Edward Archer in his 1656 play list, published in his edition of "The Old Law". "The Puritan" was later added to the second impression of the Shakespeare Third Folio (1664) by publisher Philip Chetwinde, bringing the play into the Shakespeare Apocrypha.
The modern scholarly consensus rejects the identification of "W. S." with Shakespeare. The obscure Jacobean dramatists Wentworth Smith and William Smith have been proposed as alternative candidates, but solely on the strength of the common initials. However, most studies of the play consider the true author to have been Thomas Middleton, and this is supported by stylistic analysis. It is included in Oxford University Press's 2007 "Collected Works" of Middleton.
Synopsis.
Act I.
Scene 1: A garden behind Lady Plus' house
The opening scene introduces the family of Lady Plus, her son Edmond, and her daughters Francis ("Frank") and Moll. The family is of Puritan orientation. They have just returned from the funeral of Lady Plus' husband, and are accompanied by Sir Godfrey Plus, the dead man's brother. Lady Plus is vocal and demonstrative in her mourning, but two of her children, Edmond and Moll, are notably cool and cynical about their father's death. Sir Godfrey, with a cool and pragmatic spirit of his own, urges Lady Plus to consider remarrying, but she is appalled at the idea so soon after her husband's funeral. Lady Plus asks Edmond why is not weeping at his father's funeral. Edmond excuses himself by saying he is afraid of being mocked by his old schoolmates. In a bid to avoid the pain suffered by her grieving mother, Francis kneels and forswears marriage. Moll kneels too, but in an aside she says that she would never dream of forgoing marriage for her father's sake. In fact, she is very eager to get married as soon as possible. Everyone exits except Edmond. Left alone on stage, Edmond bids his father an unsentimental farewell. He makes plans to run his affairs following his father's example—in other words, he will cheat others ruthlessly and seek to please himself above all.
Scene 2: A street
The second scene introduces another set of characters, the play's rogues and con-men. George Pieboard is a poor and cynical scholar, reduced to living by his wits to survive. He is accompanied by a destitute, discharged soldier named Peter Skirmish. (Pieboard is the character based on George Peele—"peel" and "pieboard" being synonymous terms for the tool bakers use to move their wares into and out of their ovens.) Pieboard and Skirmish discuss the sorry state they have been reduced to. As an antidote to their poverty, Pieboard suggests that they work together to con Lady Plus, with Pieboard posing as a fortune teller and Skirmish posing as a conjurer (wizard). At the end of the scene, the pair witness another friend, Captain Idle, being taken to prison. They follow to learn the charges and to see what they can do.
Scene 3: A street
The two sets of characters, Puritans and scoundrels, begin to make contact in the third scene. Corporal Oath, another cashiered soldier, encounters three of Lady Plus' servants, Frailty, Simon St. Mary Overies, and Nicholas St. Antlings. Amid some comic back-and-forth about Puritan hypocrisy and the Corporal's bad breath, it is revealed that Nicholas St. Antlings is a kinsman of Captain Idle. At the scene's end, Nicholas and the Corporal also head off to the Marshalsea Prison to learn the Captain Idle's fate. (St. Antlings and St. Mary Overies are two London parishes that were centres of Puritan activity in the early 17th century. The Puritan preacher William Crashaw took offence at the play's satire against Puritans, and preached a sermon on the subject in 1608.)
Scene 4: Idle's cell in the Marshalsea Prison
Pieboard and Skirmish visit Captain Idle in prison. Idle tells them that he has been imprisoned for robbery. He fears that he will be hanged. Pieboard promises to do everything in his power to see that Idle is set free. Nicholas and Corporal Oath enter. Idle—a man who holds Puritans in very low esteem—is not happy to see his kinsman, Nicholas. Corporal Oath insists that Nicholas could prove useful. Pieboard suggests a scheme whereby Nicholas could help to get Idle out of jail. According to Pieboard's plan, Nicholas should steal his master's expensive chain (an ornament worn around the neck) and hide it in the garden. When his master (Sir Godfrey) becomes upset at the loss of the item, Nicholas should tell him that he has an imprisoned kinsman (Idle) who has a supernatural ability to find things. If events transpire according to Pieboard's designs, the master will then spring Idle from prison, Idle will "find" the chain in the garden, and everybody will be happy. Nicholas agrees to follow Pieboard's scheme. He exits. As part of another piece of his scheme, Pieboard instructs Skirmish and the Corporal to fake a fight in front of Lady Plus' home that evening. Pieboard also notes that he has to be careful when walking about in public because he faces the threat of being arrested as a result of unpaid debts.
Act II.
Scene 1: A room in Lady Plus' house
Speaking to herself, Moll looks forward to marrying her suitor, Sir John Pennydub, the son of a wealthy farmer. A servant enters and tells Moll that Pennydub has come to visit her. Moll is happy that Pennydub has managed to get into the house without alerting her mother's attention. Pennydub enters and asks Moll for a kiss. Moll kisses him. Lady Plus enters with Sir Godfrey. Moll and Pennydub exit to avoid being seen together. Sir Godfrey continues to encourage Lady Plus to remarry. Lady Plus will hear none of it. Sir Oliver Muckhill (suitor to Lady Plus), Sir Andrew Tipstaff (suitor to Francis) and Sir John Pennydub (suitor to Moll) enter. Lady Plus scorns them, assures them that she and her daughters will never marry, and tells them to leave. As the gentlemen make their exit, Sir Godfrey whispers that he will do everything in his power to convince Lady Plus to change her mind. Pieboard enters, posing as a fortune-teller. Sir Godfrey exits. Lady Plus' daughters, Francis and Moll, enter. Pieboard tells Lady Plus that her husband's soul is in purgatory (Puritans rejected purgatory as an invention of the Pope, used to increase his power and extort money from believers.) Lady Plus is sceptical of Pieboard's claims. To prove his supernatural abilities, Pieboard makes a series of predictions: 1) Lady Plus' brother-in-law, Sir Gregory, will lose something valuable (remember that Pieboard arranged for Nicholas to steal Gregory's chain in 1.4); 2) There will be some bloodshed resulting in a death in front of Lady Plus' door (remember that Pieboard instructed Skirmish and Corporal Oath to stage a fight in front of Lady Plus' home); 3) Lady Plus and Francis will go mad and run naked in public; and 4) Moll will be struck dumb. The women are horrified by these predictions. Pieboard tells them that, if the first two predictions—the ones he has rigged—come true, there are measures the women can take to avoid going mad or being struck dumb: the two women who have forsworn marriage (Lady Plus and Francis) should get married as soon as possible, and the daughter who is in a hurry to get married (Moll) should remain single. The women exit, deeply troubled. Pieboard congratulates himself on his wit. He says that, to validate his "prophesy" about a death at Lady Plus' door, he will give Corporal Oath a sleeping potion that will make it seem as though he is dead.
Scene 2: A garden
Nicholas says that he has managed to steal Sir Gregory's chain.
Act III.
Scene 1: The street before Lady Plus' house
Corporal Oath and Skirmish stage a sword fight in front of Lady Plus' house. Oath pretends that he has been wounded in the leg. Lady Plus' servants witness the entire ordeal. A pair of officers arrest Skirmish and carry Oath off to get medical attention.
Scene 2: An room in Lady Plus' house
Lady Plus is convinced that Pieboard is a true fortune-teller now that his first "prophesy" (bloodshed at the door) has come true. Sir Godfrey enters, angry because he cannot find his chain. Following Pieboard's scheme (from 1.4), Nicholas tells Godfrey that he has an imprisoned kinsman (Idle) who has a supernatural ability to find lost items. Godfrey says he will arrange Idle's release.
Scene 3: A street
The sergeants Puttock and Ravenshaw arrest Pieboard for outstanding debts owed to his landlady. Pieboard tells the sergeants that he was on his way to collect five pounds from a Gentleman for a masque he has just written. He promises that, if they allow him to go to the Gentleman's house to collect the money, he will pay off all of his outstanding debts and give them whatever money remains of the five pounds. The sergeants agree to accompany Pieboard to the Gentleman's house.
Scene 4: A gallery in a Gentleman's house
Pieboard takes Puttock and Ravenshaw to the home of a wealthy Gentleman he does not know. When the Gentleman comes to the door, Pieboard pulls him aside, quietly explains his predicament, and begs to be admitted into the house so he can escape out the back door. Pleased by Pieboard's wit, the Gentleman loudly invites him inside to be paid. Pieboard and the Gentleman exit. Pieboard and Ravenshaw wait in the gallery and make plans for how they will spend the money they think they are about to receive. After a while, the Gentleman re-enters and tells the sergeants that Pieboard left out the back door long ago. The sergeants curse their luck and vow to see Pieboard rot in prison if they can ever lay hands on him again.
Scene 5: Idle's cell in the Marshalsea Prison
Pieboard visits Idle in prison and tells him that he will have to perform a phony "conjuring ceremony" to find Sir Godfrey's chain. Sir Godfrey enters with Edmond and Nicholas. Pieboard poses as a fortune-teller and Idle poses as a conjurer. Sir Godfrey tells Idle that his release has been secured and promises a large reward if Idle is able to find the chain. Idle says that he will perform a conjuring ceremony to find the chain on the following day.
Act IV.
Scene 1: A room in Lady Plus' house
Afraid of being struck dumb now that Pieboard's "prophesies" have come true, Moll tells Pennydub that she cannot marry him. Pennydub tells Moll that his father has just died and left him a considerable inheritance. Eager to get her hands on the money, Moll decides to ignore the prophecy and become Pennydub's wife.
Scene 2: Another room in Lady Plus' house
Sir Oliver Muckhill and Sir Andrew Tipstaff visit Lady Plus and Francis. Lady Plus is angry with the suitors for daring to present themselves again so soon after she told them to go away, but her attitude toward them seems to have softened now that Pieboard's first two "prophesies" have come true. She orders Francis to kiss Tipstaff and tells Muckhill that she has changed her mind and now intends to marry. Muckhill is overjoyed to hear this news. Tipstaff tempts Francis with promises of the extravagances she can expect to receive if she will become his wife. A servant enters and tells Lady Plus that Sir Godfrey and the "conjurer" will arrive shortly. The suitors exit. Lady Plus moves to an adjoining room. Sir Godfrey enters with Nicholas, Idle, Pieboard and Edmond. Idle says that the room is perfect for a conjuring ceremony. Frightened by the prospect of encountering a demon, Godfrey, Nicholas and Edmond retire to and adjoining room and plan to observe the ceremony through a keyhole. Idle recites some magical-sounding mumbo-jumbo. A touch of convenient thunder rumbles in the sky. Godfrey is frightened and impressed. Faking the voice of a demon, Pieboard asks the "conjurer" what he wants. When the ceremony is over, Idle calls Godfrey back into the room and tells him that the demon has dropped his chain in the garden. Godfrey, Lady Plus and Nicholas all run to the garden to collect the chain. Edmond enters. Fully convinced that a demon has just visited the house, he imagines that he can smell brimstone and inspects the hangings for signs of fire damage. Idle casts a "spell" to make Edmond invisible. To test his "invisibility", Edmond walks up to Pieboard and tweaks his nose. Pieboard pretends that he cannot see Edmond at all. Sir Godfrey enters. He is extremely happy to have his chain back. Convinced that he is invisible, Edmond strikes Godfrey across the face. Godfrey promises to whip Edmond as punishment for his impudence. Edmond is surprised that his "invisibility" has worn off. Godfrey hugs Idle and thanks him for helping to recover the chain. Lady Plus says that, if she must marry, she will marry Idle, whom she describes as a worth captain and man of wit. (At this point, the action transfers to the street in front of Lady Plus' house, but there is not a formal scene break). Officers enter carrying Corporal Oath's coffin (he is assumed to be dead as a result of the "wound" Skirmish supposedly gave him in 3.1; in fact, he is merely sleeping deeply under the effect of Pieboard's sleeping potion). Other officers lead Skirmish in handcuffs—he is on his way to be executed as punishment for "murdering" Oath. Pieboard claims that he has the power to raise Oath from the dead. The officers tell him to go ahead and try. Oath wakes up. Everyone is very impressed. The officers agree to set Skirmish free—he is no longer guilty of murder because Oath has come back to life. Godfrey calls for a banquet to celebrate the day's miracles. Francis announces her intention to marry Pieboard.
Act V.
Scene 1: The street before Lady Plus' house
The big wedding day has arrived. Lady Plus will marry Captain Idle, and Francis will marry Pieboard. Edmond says that he is looking forward to having Idle as a father-in-law and Pieboard as a brother-in-law. Pieboard and Idle enter. Pieboard asks Edmond to get the musicians drunk.
Scene 2: The street before Lady Plus' house
Sir John Pennydub goes to Moll's window. He asks her to admit him to her room, but she refuses.
Scene 3:. A room in Sir Oliver Muckhill's house
Skirmish talks with Sir Oliver Muckhill and Sir Andrew Tipstaff. Skirmish has told Sir Oliver the details of Pieboard's schemes—he apparently feels that Pieboard has abused him and wants revenge. Sir Oliver says that he has a prestigious friend (the "Nobleman") who will convince Lady Plus that Pieboard and Idle are rogues.
Scene 4: A street, a church appearing
The Nobleman (Sir Oliver Muckhill's friend) confronts Lady Plus before the weddings are set to commence. With Skirmish's help, he reveals the details of Pieboard's schemes. Sir Godfrey fires Nicholas for stealing his chain. Lady Plus announces that she will marry Muckhill, Francis will marry Tipstaff, and Moll will marry Pennydub. Pieboard and Idle make their escape, none the worse for wear. The play ends on a note of festivity.


Andreas Urs Sommer

Andreas Urs Sommer (born July 14, 1972) is a German philosopher of Swiss origin. He specializes in the history of philosophy and its theory, ethics, philosophy of religion, and Skepticism. His historical studies center on the philosophy of Enlightenment and Nietzsche, but they also deal with Kant, Max Weber, Pierre Bayle, Jonathan Edwards, and others.
Career.
Andreas Urs Sommer studied philosophy, theology and German literature in Basel, Göttingen and Freiburg. He obtained his doctorate at Basel University in 1998, and received his "Habilitation" in Greifswald in 2004. He was a visiting research fellow at Princeton University in 1998/99 and a fellow at the University of London in 2000/01.
In 2008 Sommer became responsible for the "Nietzsche-Kommentar" of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. He was also appointed the director of the Friedrich-Nietzsche-Stiftung in Naumburg (Saale). In 2011 he became a professor for philosophy at the University of Freiburg.
Sommer also publishes in the field of numismatics.


Ian Henning

Ian Henning (1905–75) was the second McCaughey Professor of French at the University of Sydney.
Early life and education.
Henning was born Ian Allan Ramie Henning on 14 June 1905 in Waverley, New South Wales. His parents were Henry Herbert, an inventor, and Amy Ethel ("née" Stacey) Henning.
Ian Henning studied successively at Bondi Superior Public School, Chatswood Primary School and Sydney Boys’ High School. Completing his Leaving Certificate in 1922, he won a Lithgow Scholarship No. 1 for proficiency in French and German and enrolled in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Sydney in the following year.
He studied French under Professor G. G. Nicholson and Gladys Marks, and German under the Australian poet, scholar and literary critic Christopher Brennan.
In 1926 he was awarded a French Government scholarship and travelled to Paris to undertake postgraduate studies at the Sorbonne. His thesis, supervised by Fernand Baldensperger, was on "De l'Allemagne" by Madame de Staël. Having completed a Doctorat de l’Université de Paris (with a "mention très honorable"). The thesis was published in 1929 by the Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion.
Academic career.
Returning to Australia in 1929, Henning worked for one year as acting lecturer in French at the University of Sydney. When that post came to an end, he applied for a lectureship in French at the Victoria University College, Wellington, New Zealand.
He resigned after two years and returned to Australia to experience a "period of stagnation and contraction during the Depression years", during which he survived by working on several occasions as an acting lecturer in French at the University of Sydney. In December 1945 Henning was appointed as the McCaughey Chair of French which Professor G. G. Nicholson had vacated after many years in that position.
During the 1950s Henning would periodically take his French teaching to the wider Australian public outside the university walls, such as by offering lectures on French poetry at The Poetry Society and on "aspects of modern language teaching" to the N.S.W. Association of University Women Graduates and staging a "well balanced" production of Giraudoux's "The Trojan War Will Not Take Place".
He retired in December 1970. He was succeeded in the McCaughey Chair by Ross Chambers.
Legacy.
Henning found himself professor at a time of "huge expansion of student and staff numbers" in Sydney University's French department. Kenneth Dutton has argued that Henning, although being shy and apparently aloof, was a "full of genuine concern for his students" who formed an entire generation of French scholars", many of whom would later occupy senior positions in universities "in Australia and overseas".
Henning is regarded by some as a "clone" of his predecessor, Professor Nicholson. Dutton has claimed that, although Henning continued to insist on translation of a major component of French studies, he did not (unlike Nicholson) see it as a "mental discipline" in which precise expression would lead to precision in thought. For Henning, it was an "exercise in understanding, highlighting through the consideration of various possible translations the very difficulty (...) of expressing ‘exactly’ in one language what has been written in another. While strongly supporting the "end role" of language teaching as the appreciation of great literature, he "believed that such understanding could be based only on mastery of the nuances of the language itself".
Personal life.
On 8 November 1946 Henning married Patricia ("Pat") Anne Massie. They had two sons, Robert (born 1949) and Christopher (born 1954).
Henning died on 6 October 1975.


Task appropriate processing

In the domain of prospective memory, task appropriate processing refers to the overlap between processing operations required to perform an ongoing task and the processing operations required to perform the prospective memory task. Task appropriate processing is characterized by a concurrent overlap that occurs within the test phase of a prospective memory test. Prospective memory tasks also provide the opportunity for sequential overlap between the learning and test phase. This can be considered as similar to transfer-appropriate processing in retrospective memory.


Naked Is the Best Disguise

Naked Is the Best Disguise: The Death and Resurrection of Sherlock Holmes () is a 1974 book by Samuel Rosenberg speculating on alleged hidden meanings in the works of Arthur Conan Doyle.
Rosenberg also examines the influence of Conan Doyle's writings on other works, especially James Joyce's "Ulysses". The book argues for a surprising relationship between the Sherlock Holmes stories and Nietzsche, Oscar Wilde, Dionysus, Christ, Catullus, John Bunyan, Robert Browning, Boccaccio, Napoleon, Racine, Frankenstein, Flaubert, George Sand, Socrates, Poe, General Charles George Gordon, Melville, Joyce's "Ulysses," T. S. Eliot, and many others.
The title comes from lines in William Congreve's "The Double Dealer" (1694).
It alludes to Rosenberg's premise that Conan Doyle left clues throughout his works, revealing his innermost hidden thoughts.
Rosenberg's book was received with disdain by Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts and scholars in the 1970s. It is recognized as the first book of literary criticism about Doyle to appear in print; many other more respected works have followed.


Caroline Joan S. Picart

Caroline Joan S. Picart is a Filipino-born American academic who has written and edited numerous books and anthologies on philosophy and cultural studies, especially horror film. She is also a lawyer and had a radio show, "The Dr. Caroline (Kay) Picart Show". In 2011, she received the Lord Ruthven Award.
Personal life.
Picart was born in Nueva Vizcaya, Philippines. Her father, Robert, has a Filipino-French-American ancestry, and her mother, Anarose, a Filipino-Chinese-Spanish background. She was active during the 1986 People's Power Revolution that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos. Picart has drawn from this experience in several of her published works.
Professional life.
Picart graduated with a B.S. in Biology in 1987, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the Ateneo de Manila University in 1989, while teaching as a university lecturer in Zoology, Philosophy and Astro-Physics at both the Ateneo de Manila University and the San Carlos Pastoral Formation Complex. She was the first Filipina recipient of the Sir Run Run Shaw Scholarship at Christ's College, Cambridge, and graduated with an M.Phil from the Department of History and Philosophy of Science as the Wolfson Prize Winner in 1991. After teaching at Yonsei University's Foreign Language Institute from 1992 to 1993, in 1996 she completed her Ph.D. in Philosophy, with doctoral minors in Criticism and Theory, from Pennsylvania State University, before she completed a post-doctoral summer seminar with Cornell University's School of Criticism and Theory in 1999.
Picart has written, co-authored or co-edited 16 books on philosophy and literature, film, cultural studies, law and its interdisciplinary connections, as well as numerous scholarly and popular journal articles.
In the U.S., Picart was an adjunct professor at Florida Atlantic University-Davie from 1996 to 1997, and accepted a Senior Fellowship from the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire in 1997, and was assistant professor in philosophy at Wisconsin Eau-Claire from 1997 to 1999. From 1999 to 2000, she was assistant professor at St. Lawrence University. From 2000 to 2008, she was at Florida State University, where she was tenured in 2004. In 2009 she began studying law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.
Picart's radio show, "The Dr. Caroline (Kay) Picart Show", in nine months of airing, was picked up, in excerpted form, by 59 radio stations, and had an estimated listenership of over two million.


Magritte Award for Best Editing

The Magritte Award for Best Editing (French: Magritte du meilleur montage) is an award presented annually by the Académie André Delvaux. It is one of the Magritte Awards, which were established to recognize excellence in Belgian cinematic achievements.
The 1st Magritte Awards ceremony was held in 2011 with Matyas Veress receiving the award for his work in "Mr. Nobody". As of the 2020 ceremony, Damien Keyeux is the most recent winner in this category for his work in "Mothers' Instinct".
Winners and nominees.
In the list below, winners are listed first in the colored row, followed by the other nominees.


Rictameter

A rictameter is a nine-line syllabic structure typically used in poetry. The lines start at two syllables, incrementing upward by two to ten in the fifth line and ending with the same two syllable word as the first line.
Because this form involves a fixed syllabic count, it is a natural accompaniment with haiku and other fixed-syllabic poetry forms.
Created in the early 1990s by two cousins, Jason D. Wilkins and Richard W. Lunsford, Jr., for a poetry contest that was held as a weekly practice of their self-invented order, The Brotherhood of the Amarantos Mystery. The order was inspired by the Robin Williams movie "Dead Poets Society".
The first examples of the rictameter form to be made public were submissions made by Jason Wilkins to the website www.shadowpoetry.com in 2000. These are the first two poems created by both Jason D. Wilkins and his cousin, Richard Lunsford, Jr.
Satin
As your lips are
Pressed to mine as velvet
Soft and full with rounded sweetness
Two gentle petals alive with the night
Misted in the summer beauty
Of rains that shower love
'Pon your lips of
Satin
submitted by Jason D. Wilkins
Treasure
Placed in your view
So close but out of reach
Torturous to all your senses
For they each cry aloud to possess it
Their desires forever unquenched
For the things some want most
They cannot have
Treasure
submitted by Richard W. Lunsford, Jr.


Mark Pellegrino

Mark Ross Pellegrino (born April 9, 1965) is an American actor of film and television. He is best known for his work as Lucifer in "Supernatural", Paul Bennett in "Dexter", Jacob in "Lost", Bishop in "Being Human", and Deputy Bill Standall in "13 Reasons Why". He also recurred in the role of Clayton Haas in the ABC thriller "Quantico".
Career.
Pellegrino appeared in season 7, episode 3 of "The X-Files" in November 1999. In 2001, he played an incompetent hitman in David Lynch's critically acclaimed "Mulholland Drive".
Pellegrino starred as Rita's abusive ex-con former husband Paul on Showtime's "Dexter"; and later as Lucifer on "Supernatural" and as the mysterious near-immortal Jacob on ABC's "Lost". He has appeared on the television series "Northern Exposure", "ER", "Without a Trace", "NYPD Blue", "", and "Knight Rider".
He played the "Blond Thug" who stuffs The Dude's head down the toilet and drops his bowling ball, breaking the floor tile, in the cult film "The Big Lebowski". He was featured in "National Treasure" as the background FBI agent known as Agent Johnson. In 2005, Pellegrino appeared in the Academy Award winning film "Capote", playing murderer Dick Hickock.
Among his numerous cable and network television show roles, he portrayed terrorist bomber Bobby James on "The Beast".
In March 2009, Pellegrino was cast on the ABC series "Lost" for an appearance in the final episode of Season 5, to play the role of the mysterious Jacob. Although the press release for the episode refers to his character simply as "Man No. 1", the episode revealed that Pellegrino portrayed Jacob, a mysterious character pivotal to the show's plot.
On June 26, 2009, it was also announced that Pellegrino was cast in a recurring role as Lucifer in the fifth season of the CW series "Supernatural." He played a recurring role in the seventh season, and a main role in seasons 12 and 13. He played a main role in season 14 as Nick, Lucifer's vessel, and was a special guest in season 15.
He portrayed the vampire "Bishop" in the SyFy horror series "Being Human" in the first season, and also reprises the role in season 2 and 3 as both flashbacks and hallucinations.
In 2015, Pellegrino joined the ABC thriller series "Quantico" playing the recurring role of FBI Deputy Director Clayton Haas.
Pellegrino also was featured as a voice actor in the 2018 hit game "Far Cry 5" as Jacob Seed, one of the antagonists of the game, as his first role in a video game.
Personal life.
An Italian-American, Pellegrino was born in Los Angeles, California. He is an adherent of Objectivism, a philosophy created by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand. Though Pellegrino considers libertarianism to be the closest to his political views, he also considers it to be an anarchist political ideology. Thus, he has distanced himself from this ideology and described himself solely as an Objectivist, stating that he sees a place for government in society. He has described his political views, instead, as classical liberalism, and has also described himself as a radical capitalist. He is married to Tracy Aziz and is the stepfather of her daughter Tess and son Misha.
Pellegrino is an atheist.
Pellegrino is a co-founder of The American Capitalist Party.


Locrine

Locrine is an Elizabethan play depicting the legendary Trojan founders of the nation of England and of Troynovant (London). The play presents a cluster of complex and unresolved problems for scholars of English Renaissance theatre.
Date.
"Locrine" was entered into the Stationers' Register on 20 July 1594 and published in 1595 in a quarto issued by printer Thomas Creede. Individual scholars have proposed dates for the play from the early 1580s on; many have favored a date c. 1591, based on the play's links with other works of the era. It has been argued, for example, that "Locrine" borrows from the "Complaints" of Edmund Spenser, published in 1591, and from "The Complaint of Elstred," a poem by Thomas Lodge, written c. 1591, that circulated in manuscript before its first printing in 1593. The question of the play's date is complicated by the question of its authorship; if Charles Tilney was the play's author (see below), it must date prior to Tilney's death in 1586.
Authorship.
The title page of the 1595 quarto advertised the play as "Newly set foorth, overseene and corrected, / By W. S." An identification of "W. S." with William Shakespeare apparently led to the play's inclusion among the seven works that Philip Chetwinde added to the second impression of his Shakespeare Third Folio in 1664 – which in turn led to the inclusion of "Locrine" in the Shakespeare Apocrypha. The play's stiff, formal verse is un-Shakespearean – but the extant text of "Locrine" does show evidence of revision. Some commentators have accepted the possibility that Shakespeare might have performed a revision – while others have rejected the idea. The authorship of the original play has been assigned to several dramatists of the era, with George Peele and Robert Greene being the two most common candidates. In 2020, authorship attribution specialist Darren Freebury-Jones provided the most exhaustive examination of the play's linguistic and prosodic habits, concluding that Greene is the play's most likely author.
A manuscript note found in a copy of the 1595 quarto, and apparently by Sir George Buck, who was Master of the Revels under King James I from 1609 to 1622, states that his cousin, Charles Tilney, was the author:
(The note is trimmed along its right edge, obscuring some words.) Samuel A. Tannenbaum disputed the authenticity of the note, claiming it was a forgery, probably by John Payne Collier, but it has been demonstrated that the handwriting is genuine. If Charles Tilney wrote the play, it must date before his 1586 execution for participation in the Babington Plot. There is no evidence, however, that Charles Tilney did any dramatic writing, other than his alleged connection with "Locrine."
Sources and influences.
For the subject of his play, the author of "Locrine" drew upon a legendary pseudo-history of the founding of Britain. Just as Virgil, in the "Aeneid," credited the founding of Ancient Rome to exiles from a defeated Troy, so later English writers such as William Caxton and Raphael Holinshed, adapting the medieval pseudo-history of the Welsh-Norman author Geoffrey of Monmouth, credited another band of Trojan exiles for the foundation of a British realm. It was this fanciful origin myth, applied to the English rather than the Brythons, that provided the foundation for "Locrine" (Locrinus in Geoffrey's "Historia Regum Britanniae"). The author also drew material from the "Mirror for Magistrates."
The revenge tragedies of Seneca were a major influence on "Locrine." In addition to the poetry of Spenser and Lodge noted above, critics have pointed to links with the contemporary dramas of Christopher Marlowe, Thomas Kyd, Robert Greene and George Peele. Links with contemporary plays and playwrights can be, and have been, variously interpreted as evidence of influence or evidence of common authorship.
"Locrine" and "Selimus".
"Locrine" shares a complex inter-relationship with another anonymous play of its era, "Selimus," first published in 1594. The commonalities between the two plays involve parallels of plot elements and shared verbal expression and prosodic structure. The majority of scholars who have considered the problem judge the author of "Selimus" to have borrowed from "Locrine" – though a minority has favored the opposite conclusion. The common features in the two plays have led some critics to suppose that they are the work of the same author; but since both plays are anonymous and their authorship is disputed, the connection between the two dramas obscures as much as it enlightens.
Synopsis.
Following the Senecan model of revenge tragedy, each of the play's five acts is preceded by a Prologue that features Atë, the ancient Greek goddess of folly and ruin. In each, Ate introduces and explicates a dumbshow; the play's five dumbshows feature symbolic figures and animals, or personages of classical mythology. In the first, an archer kills a lion; the second shows Perseus and Andromeda, and the third, a snake stinging a crocodile. The fourth dumbshow features Hercules and Omphale; the final dumbshow depicts Medea's murder of Jason and Glauce. Ate returns for a sixth and final appearance at the play's conclusion.
The opening scene of the play proper shows the aged Brutus, the leader of the Trojans in Britain, before his courtiers, including his three sons, Locrine, Camber, and Albanact. Brutus knows he is dying, and attempts to order the kingdom's affairs; among other points, he decrees that Locrine marry Guendoline, the daughter of his loyal general Corineus. The scene ends with Brutus's death. Locrine obeys his father's behest and marries Guendoline.
Meanwhile, the invading Scythians arrive for their incursion into the British Isles, led by their king Humber, with his wife Estrild and their son Hubba. Subsequent scenes depict a back-and-forth combat between Trojans and Scythians. When his apparent victory turns to sudden defeat, the Trojan prince Albanact commits suicide; Albanact's ghost appears through the remainder of the play, calling for revenge. The Trojans are eventually victorious. Estrild, the Scythian queen, is captured and brought to the Trojan court, where Locrine quickly falls in love with her. Corineus warns his royal son-in-law to remain faithful to Guendoline. Locrine does not follow this advice, though he sequesters Estrild in a subterranean hideaway for seven years. Once Corineus dies, Locrine brings his affair into the open; Guendoline's brother Thrasimachus vows revenge.
The defeated Humber has been living in seclusion and grinding privation for seven years since his defeat; when he kills himself, the ghost of Albanact exults. Corineus's ghost also appears to witness Locrine's fate; defeated in battle by the forces of Guendoline and Thrasimachus, Locrine and Estrild commit suicide, and their daughter Sabren eventually drowns herself. Guendoline has her husband buried royally, next to his father, but consigns Estrild to an obscure grave.
The play's comic relief is provided by a coterie of clown characters, Strumbo, Trompart, and Dorothy. Strumbo the cobbler marries Dorothy, but is impressed into the army along with his servant Trompart, to fight the Scythians. Strumbo survives battle by counterfeiting death:
Later Strumbo has an encounter with Humber, just before the latter's suicide. Strumbo is prepared to feed the starving Humber, but is frightened away by Albanact's ghost.


Richard Grathoff

Richard Helmut Grathoff (1934–2013) was a phenomenologist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Sociology at Bielefeld University, Germany. Born on August 30, 1934, in Unna, Westphalia, Germany, he received his PhD from the New School for Social Research in 1969 after studying under Aron Gurwitsch, Thomas Luckmann and Peter L. Berger. Influenced by Charles Sanders Peirce, Edmund Husserl and Alfred Schutz, his work has included research in the topics of milieu and life-world ("Lebenswelt") and contemporary social theory. He died in Oerlinghausen, Germany on November 10, 2013.