text:
The School for Scandal

The School for Scandal is a comedy of manners written by Richard Brinsley Sheridan. It was first performed in London at Drury Lane Theatre on 8 May 1777.

Act I
Scene I: Lady Sneerwell, a wealthy young widow, and her hireling Snake discuss her various scandal-spreading plots. Snake asks why she is so involved in the affairs of Sir Peter Teazle, his ward Maria, and Charles and Joseph Surface, two young men under Sir Peter's informal guardianship, and why she has not yielded to the attentions of Joseph, who is highly respectable. Lady Sneerwell confides that Joseph desires Maria, who is an heiress, and that Maria desires Charles. Thus she and Joseph are plotting to alienate Maria from Charles by putting out rumours of an affair between Charles and Sir Peter's new young wife, Lady Teazle. Joseph arrives to confer with Lady Sneerwell. Maria herself then enters, fleeing the attentions of Sir Benjamin Backbite and his uncle, Crabtree. Mrs. Candour enters and ironically talks about how "tale-bearers are as bad as the tale-makers." Soon after that, Sir Benjamin and Crabtree also enter, bringing a good deal of gossip with them. One item is the imminent return of the Surface brothers' rich uncle Sir Oliver from the East Indies, where he has been for sixteen years; another is Charles' dire financial situation.

Scene II: Sir Peter complains of Lady Teazle's spendthrift ways. Rowley, the former steward of the Surfaces' late father, arrives, and Sir Peter gives him an earful on the subject. He also complains that Maria has refused Joseph, whom he calls "a model for the young men of the age," and seems attached to Charles, whom he denounces as a profligate. Rowley defends Charles, and then announces that Sir Oliver has just arrived from the East Indies. Oliver has instructed them not to tell his nephews of his arrival so that he may “make some trial of their dispositions.”

Act II
Scene I: Sir Peter argues with his wife, Lady Teazle, refusing to be "ruined by [her] extravagance." He reminds her of her recent and far humbler country origins. Lady Teazle excuses herself by appealing to "the fashion", and departs to visit Lady Sneerwell. Despite their quarrel, Sir Peter still finds himself charmed by his wife even when she is arguing with him.

Scene II: At Lady Sneerwell's, the scandal-mongers have great fun at the expense of friends not present. Lady Teazle and Maria arrive; Lady Teazle joins in, but Maria is disgusted. So is Sir Peter, when he arrives, and rather breaks up the party with his comments. He departs, the others retire to the next room, and Joseph seizes the opportunity to court Maria, who rejects him again. Lady Teazle returns and dismisses Maria, and it is revealed that Lady Teazle is seriously flirting with Joseph – who doesn't want her, but cannot afford to alienate her.

Scene III: Sir Oliver calls on his old friend Sir Peter. He is amused by Sir Peter's marriage to a young wife. Their talk turns to the Surface brothers. Sir Peter praises Joseph's high morals but Sir Oliver suspects that he might be a hypocrite.

Act III

Scene I: Rowley describes his plan for Sir Oliver to visit each of the brothers incognito to test their characters. Sir Oliver will disguise himself as their needy relative Mr. Stanley, and ask each for his help. Rowley also brings in the "friendly Jew" Moses, a moneylender who has tried to help Charles, to explain Charles' position. Moses mentions that he is to introduce Charles to yet another moneylender ("Mr. Premium") that very evening. Sir Oliver decides (at Sir Peter's suggestion) that with Moses' assistance, he will pose as Premium when visiting Charles while still intending to visit Joseph as Stanley.

Sir Peter is left alone and when Maria enters, he tries to convince her to marry Joseph expressing him as a worthier match than Charles, whom she favours. When she is not persuaded, he threatens her with "the authority of a guardian". She goes, and Lady Teazle enters asking her husband for two hundred pounds. Sir Peter and Lady Teazle argue again, and conclude that they should separate.

Scene II: Sir Oliver (as Mr. Premium) arrives with Moses at Charles' house. While they are waiting in the hall, Trip, the servant, tries to negotiate a loan on his own account from Moses. Sir Oliver concludes that "this is the temple of dissipation indeed!"

Scene III: Charles and his raucous guests drink heavily and sing merry songs, as they prepare for a night of gambling. Charles raises a toast to Maria. Moses and "Premium" enter, and Sir Oliver is dismayed at the scene. Charles does not recognise his long-lost uncle. Charles frankly asks "Premium" for credit, noting that Sir Oliver (whom he believes is in India) will soon leave him a fortune. "Premium" discounts this possibility, noting that Sir Oliver could live many years, or disinherit his nephew. He asks if Charles has any valuables of his own to sell for immediate cash. Charles admits that he has sold the family silver and his late father's library, and offers to sell "Premium" the family portrait collection. "Premium" accepts, but Sir Oliver is silently outraged.

Act IV
Scene I: Charles goes on to sell all of the family portraits to "Premium", using the rolled-up family tree as a gavel. However, he refuses to sell the last portrait, which is of Sir Oliver, out of respect for his benefactor; Charles will not sell it even when "Premium" offers as much for it as for all the rest. Moved, Sir Oliver inwardly forgives Charles. Sir Oliver and Moses leave with Rowley entering shortly after, and Charles sends a hundred pounds of the proceeds for the relief of "Mr. Stanley", despite Rowley's objection.

Scene II: Sir Oliver, reflecting on Charles's character with Moses, is met by Rowley, who has brought him the hundred pounds sent to "Stanley." Declaring "I’ll pay his debts, and his benevolence too", Sir Oliver plans to go meet his other nephew in the person of Stanley.

Scene III: Joseph, anxiously awaiting a visit from Lady Teazle, is told by a servant that she has just left "her chair at the milliner's next door" and so has the servant draw a screen across the window (his reason: "my opposite neighbour is a maiden lady of so curious a temper"). On her entrance, Joseph forswears any interest in Maria, and flirts in earnest with Lady Teazle, perversely suggesting that she should make a "faux pas" for the benefit of her reputation. The servant returns to announce Sir Peter, and Lady Teazle hides in panic behind the screen. Sir Peter enters and tells Joseph that he suspects an affair between Charles and Lady Teazle (due to the rumours spread by Joseph and Lady Sneerwell). Joseph hypocritically professes confidence in Charles' and Lady Teazle's honour. Sir Peter confides his intention to give his wife a generous separate maintenance during his life and the bulk of his fortune on his demise. He also urges Joseph to pursue his suit with Maria (much to Joseph's annoyance, as Lady Teazle is listening behind the screen).

Charles's arrival is announced. Sir Peter decides to hide, and have Joseph sound Charles out about his relationship with Lady Teazle. He starts behind the screen, but sees the corner of Lady Teazle's petticoat there already. Joseph "confesses" that he is not as virtuous as he seems: "a little French milliner, a silly rogue that plagues me" is hiding there to preserve her own reputation. Sir Peter then hides in the closet.

Charles now enters and Joseph questions him about Lady Teazle. Charles disclaims any designs on her, noting that Joseph and the lady seem to be intimate. To stop Charles, Joseph whispers to him that Sir Peter is hiding in the closet, and Charles hauls him forth. Sir Peter tells Charles he now regrets his suspicions about him. Charles passes off his comments about Joseph and Lady Teazle as a joke.

When Lady Sneerwell is announced, Joseph rushes out to stop her from coming up. Meanwhile, Sir Peter tells Charles about the "French milliner". Charles insists on having a look at her and flings down the screen as Joseph returns, discovering Lady Teazle. Charles, very amused, leaves the other three dumbstruck individuals. Joseph concocts an explanation for Sir Peter of why he and Lady Teazle are together. But she refuses to endorse it and admits that she came to pursue an affair with Joseph; however, having learned of Sir Peter's generosity, she has repented. She denounces Joseph and exits, and the enraged Sir Peter follows as Joseph continues trying to pretend innocence.

Act V
Scene I: Sir Oliver (as Mr. Stanley) now visits Joseph. Joseph, like Charles, does not recognise his long-lost uncle. He greets "Stanley" with effusive professions of goodwill, but refuses to give "Stanley" any financial assistance, saying he has donated all his money to support Charles. "Stanley" suggests that Sir Oliver would help him if he was here, and that Joseph might pass on some of what Sir Oliver has given him. But Joseph tells "Stanley" that Sir Oliver is in fact very stingy, and has given him nothing except trinkets such as tea, shawls, birds and "Indian crackers". Furthermore, Joseph has lent a great deal to his brother, so that he has nothing left for "Stanley". Sir Oliver is enraged, as he knows both statements are flat lies – he sent Joseph 12,000 pounds from India. He stifles his anger, and departs amid further effusions. Rowley arrives with a letter for Joseph announcing that Sir Oliver has arrived in town.

Scene II: At Sir Peter's house, Lady Sneerwell, Mrs. Candour, Sir Benjamin, and Crabtree exchange confused rumours about the Teazle affair. Sir Benjamin says Sir Peter was wounded in a swordfight with Joseph Surface, while Crabtree insists it was a pistol duel with Charles. When Sir Oliver enters, they take him for a doctor and demand news of the wounded man. At that moment Sir Peter arrives to prove the report wrong, and orders the scandalmongers out of his house, with Rowley entering shortly after at hearing Sir Peter's raised voice. Sir Oliver says he has met both of his nephews and agrees with Sir Peter's (former) estimate of Joseph's high character, but then acknowledges with laughter that he knows the story of what happened at Joseph's with the closet and screen. When he leaves, Rowley tells Sir Peter that Lady Teazle is in tears in the next room, and Sir Peter goes to reconcile with her.

Scene III: Lady Sneerwell complains to Joseph that Sir Peter, now that he knows the truth about Joseph, will allow Charles to marry Maria. They plot to use Snake as a witness to a supposed relationship between Charles and Lady Sneerwell, and she withdraws.

Sir Oliver arrives. Joseph takes him for "Stanley" and orders him out. Charles arrives and recognises "Premium". Despite the identity confusion, both brothers want the man out before Sir Oliver comes. As Charles and Joseph try to eject their incognito uncle, Sir Peter and Lady Teazle arrive with Maria and Rowley, ending Sir Oliver's pretence. Sir Oliver, Sir Peter, and Lady Teazle together condemn Joseph, but Sir Oliver forgives Charles because of his refusal to sell Sir Oliver's picture and his generous aid to his uncle "Stanley". Maria, however, declines to give Charles her hand, citing his supposed involvement with Lady Sneerwell. Joseph now reveals Lady Sneerwell. Charles is baffled, and Rowley then summons Snake. Snake, however, has been bribed to turn against Sneerwell, so her lie is exposed. After Lady Teazle tells her that she (Lady Teazle) is withdrawing from the School for Scandal, Lady Sneerwell leaves in a rage, and Joseph follows, supposedly to keep her from further malicious attacks. Charles and Maria are reconciled. Charles makes no promises about reforming, but indicates that Maria's influence will keep him on a "virtuous path". The concluding line assures the audience that "even Scandal dies, if you approve."

Epilogue
The humorous epilogue, written by George Colman the Elder, is to be "Spoken by Lady Teazle." It portrays her as somewhat regretful of leaving country domesticity for London society, and includes an elaborate parody of a famous speech in Shakespeare's Othello.

Revisions and variant versions

Various editions of the play exhibit several relatively minor textual differences. One reason is that Sheridan revised his text repeatedly, not only prior to its first production, but afterwards.

In its earliest stages, as detailed by Thomas Moore, Sheridan developed two separate play sketches, one initially entitled "The Slanderers" that began with Lady Sneerwell and Spatter (equivalent to Snake in the final version), and the other involving the Teazles. He eventually combined these and with repeated revisions and restructuring arrived at substantially the play that we have today.

The play did not appear in an authorised edition during Sheridan's lifetime, though it was printed in Dublin in 1788 from a copy that the author had sent to his sister.

Because, as one recent editor has put it, "The School for Scandal is the most intractable problem Sheridan set his editors", editions of this play can vary considerably. For example, the Penguin Classics edition gives a text based on the 1821 edition of The Works of the Late Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan published by Murray, Ridgeway, and Wilkie, but states that it has "been emended from earlier manuscripts" and gives a detailed listing of these emendations.

The prefatory material to the Project Gutenberg text of the play acknowledges that "Current texts may usually be traced, directly or indirectly", to the 1821 edition, but presents a far different text based on a manuscript in the author's hand.

In the Project Gutenberg text's version of I.1, Lady Sneerwell's accomplice is her cousin Miss Verjuice, not the socially inferior Snake (who appears only in V.3). Here is the opening of the play as given in that text (in which the editor has retained the original spelling and punctuation of Sheridan's manuscript found at Frampton Court):

LADY SNEERWELL at her dressing table with LAPPET; MISS VERJUICE drinking chocolate LADY SNEERWELL. The Paragraphs you say were all inserted: VERJUICE. They were Madam—and as I copied them myself in a feigned Hand there can be no suspicion whence they came. LADY SNEERWELL. Did you circulate the Report of Lady Brittle's Intrigue with Captain Boastall? VERJUICE. Madam by this Time Lady Brittle is the Talk of half the Town—and I doubt not in a week the Men will toast her as a Demirep. LADY SNEERWELL. What have you done as to the insinuation as to a certain Baronet's Lady and a certain Cook. VERJUICE. That is in as fine a Train as your Ladyship could wish. I told the story yesterday to my own maid with directions to communicate it directly to my Hairdresser. He I am informed has a Brother who courts a Milliners' Prentice in Pallmall whose mistress has a first cousin whose sister is Feme [Femme] de Chambre to Mrs. Clackit—so that in the common course of Things it must reach Mrs. Clackit's Ears within four-and-twenty hours and then you know the Business is as good as done.

Sheridan later deleted Verjuice and gave Snake most of her lines, as reflected in the 1821 edition and those editions that follow it. Here is the opening in that text:

Lady SNEERWELL'S House. Discovered Lady SNEERWELL at the dressing-table; SNAKE drinking chocolate. Lady Sneer. The paragraphs, you say, Mr. Snake, were all inserted? Snake. They were, madam; and as I copied them myself in a feigned hand, there can be no suspicion whence they came. Lady Sneer. Did you circulate the report of Lady Brittle's intrigue with Captain Boastall? Snake. That's in as fine a train as your ladyship could wish. In the common course of things, I think it must reach Mrs. Clackitt's ears within four and twenty hours; and then, you know, the business is as good as done.

This is a significant difference, and some editors and performers have preferred the manuscript version that includes Miss Verjuice. However, the cast list of the first production of the play in 1777 has no "Miss Verjuice" listed, showing that the change Sheridan made to combine her part with Snake's predates the premiere.

Another example of strictly verbal differences between the two texts can be found in II.1, where the Project Gutenberg text has Lady Teazle rather more pointed in suggesting that Sir Peter can oblige her by making her his "widow" (only implied by her in the 1821 text, leaving him to fill in "My widow, I suppose?" and her to add "Hem! hem!"). Also, in Crabtree's recitation of the imaginary duel between Sir Peter and Charles Surface (V.2), the shot of Sir Peter bounces off a "little bronze Pliny" in the older version, but the bust is changed to one of "Shakspeare (sic)" in the 1821 text. Many other slight differences of a few words here and there can be found throughout the play (though these do not impact the plot the way that the deletion of Miss Verjuice does).

Reception
The School for Scandal has been widely admired. The English critic William Hazlitt was particularly effusive in his praise of Sheridan's comedies in general ("everything in them tells; there is no labour in vain" ) and of this play in particular:

"The School for Scandal is, if not the most original, perhaps the most finished and faultless comedy which we have. When it is acted, you hear people all around you exclaiming, "Surely it is impossible for anything to be cleverer." The scene in which Charles sells all the old family pictures but his uncle's, who is the purchaser in disguise, and that of the discovery of Lady Teazle when the screen falls, are among the happiest and most highly wrought that comedy, in its wide and brilliant range, can boast. Besides the wit and ingenuity of this play, there is a genial spirit of frankness and generosity about it, that relieves the heart as well as clears the lungs. It professes a faith in the natural goodness as well as habitual depravity of human nature."

Edmund Gosse called the play "perhaps the best existing English comedy of intrigue", while Charles Lamb wrote that "This comedy grew out of Congreve and Wycherley", but criticised "sentimental incompatibilities" even while admitting that "the gaiety upon the whole is buoyant."

Samuel Barber composed his first full orchestral work as an overture programmed for the play.

On the other hand, the play has also been criticised for some hints of anti-Semitism, specifically "the disparaging remarks made about moneylenders, who were often Jewish." It is true that the moneylender Moses is portrayed in a comparatively positive light, but the way he is described (as a "friendly Jew" and an "honest Israelite" by Rowley in III.1) suggest that he is in some way to be considered an exception to Jews in general; also, his own usurious business practices as stated to Sir Peter are clearly less than exemplary (e.g., his statement "If he appears not very anxious for the supply, you should require only forty or fifty per cent; but if you find him in great distress, and want the moneys very bad, you may ask double" [III.1]). It may be significant that in Johann Zoffany's portrait of Robert Baddeley as Moses, we find that "Under his arm Moses holds a rolled parchment of the Surface family tree that is used as an auction hammer, and he seems to be ticking off pictures in the catalogue", although in the play Careless is the auctioneer in the relevant scene (IV.1) and Moses has a relatively minor role.

It is notable that at least one 21st-century production (Los Angeles, 2004) has "sanitized most of what could be deemed as anti-Semitic content" by changing references to "Jews" and "Jewry" to "moneylenders"—a practice that a reviewer termed "PC-ification" of the play. Another production, by the Seattle Shakespeare Company in 2007, reportedly did not tamper with this aspect of the text and was commended by a reviewer for "the courage to face the script's unsavory side."

Another criticism that has been made of the play involves the characterisation. A writer in the 19th century periodical Appletons' Journal states that

"The great defect of The School for Scandal – the one thing which shows the difference between a comic writer of the type of Sheridan and a great dramatist like Shakespeare – is the unvarying wit of the characters. And not only are the characters all witty, but they all talk alike. Their wit is Sheridan's wit, which is very good wit indeed; but it is Sheridan's own, and not Sir Peter Teazle's, or Backbite's, or Careless's, or Lady Sneerwell's."

The style of the play has also made it at times a problematic work to make effective in today's theatre. In appraising a 1999 staging of Sheridan's comedy at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, Minnesota, one critic found the "staunchly orthodox production" to be lacking, commenting that

"Sheridan's satirical bite, which is as venomous as Molière's and as quick as Wilde's, comes not from epigrammatic flourishes, but from the subtle undermining of Georgian social mores... In this realm, gossip is a form of social control, wielded by the essentially impotent elite to force conformity among their peers"

Another reviewer in Variety noted of a 1995 production starring Tony Randall as Sir Peter Teazle that Sheridan's play was "such a superbly crafted laugh machine, and so timeless in delivering delectable comeuppance to a viper's nest of idle-rich gossipmongers, that you'd practically have to club it to death to stifle its amazing pleasures" – before claiming that this is precisely what the production being reviewed had done.

But in the hands of a talented director and cast, the play still offers considerable pleasure. A New York production of 2001 prompted praise in The New York Times for being "just the classy antidote one needs in a celebrity-crazed world where the invasion of privacy is out of control, but the art of gossip is nonexistent."

Film and television adaptations
The play has been adapted to film numerous times.

In 1923, the silent British film The School for Scandal was produced and directed by Bertram Phillips. It starred Basil Rathbone, Frank Stanmore and Queenie Thomas.

The 1930 film The School for Scandal was the first sound adaptation of the play. The film is presumed to be lost.

The first television adaptation aired over the BBC May 19, 1937. Greer Garson starred. BBC-TV again produced the play in 1959.

In 1975, WNET/13 New York, in association with KTCA St. Paul-Minneapolis, broadcast a production by the Guthrie Theater Company adapted by Michael Bawtree.

Original actors
These appeared in "The School for Scandal" 8 May 1777 at The Drury Lane Theatre in London
 * John Palmer – as Joseph Surface
 * Frances Abington – as Lady Teazle
 * William 'Gentleman' Smith – as Charles Surface
 * Jane Pope – as Mrs Candour

Later notable actors

 * It is recorded that Jane Austen, who was said to be a fine actor, had played the part of Mrs Candour in 1812 in a private production with great aplomb.
 * The 1975 PBS Great Performances video directed by Michael Langham and Nich Havinga (made from the production at the Tyrone Guthrie Theatre the previous year) featured Larry Gates as Sir Oliver Surface, Kenneth Welsh as Charles Surface, Bernard Behrens as Sir Peter Teazle, Patricia Conolly as Lady Sneerwell, Ivar Brogger as Snake, Barbara Bryne as Mrs. Candour, Mark Lamos as Sir Benjamin Backbite, and Blair Brown as Lady Teazle.
 * John Gielgud played Charles Surface in a legendary season at the Queens Theatre in 1937 and repeated the role under his own direction in a 1963 Broadway production.
 * Real life couple Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh played Sir Peter and Lady Teazle in a production of the play at the New Theatre as part of the Old Vic Company. The production also starred Peter Cushing and Terence Morgan.
 * Donald Sinden as Sir Peter Teazle, Marc Sinden as Charles Surface, Googie Withers as Lady Sneerwell, directed by John Barton, Haymarket Theatre (transferred to the Duke of York's Theatre) in 1983 and then was chosen as the British Council's 50th anniversary tour of Europe in 1984.

title: The School for Scandal


text:
Talk:Denarius

We need at least a brief article on as (currency) or something like it; the current article on as that this one links to goes to several different topics, none of which seem remotely related. Wesley 20:22, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
 * Done. See As (coin). M123 14:27, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

WORD MEANING
dinar COMES FROM THE GREEK WORD DINARION wich means something like GIVE-

text -Monetary unit. Dinar is derived from the Greek "dinarion" and the Latin "denarius." During the early Islamic period, it was a type of gold coin. Currently it serves as the currency Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Tunisia, and parts of the former Yugoslavia

LINK: http://www.answers.com/topic/dinar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.56.140 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC) the german wikipedia with the name roots - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denarius

Origin of the Denarius
I've seen a lot of websites citing the wikipedia page attributing the first strike of the Denarius in 211 B.C., but all my classical references point to the first minting taking place five years before the first Punic War at 269 B.C., so I've gone through and corrected this error and cited references where previously there were none. Scribeofargos (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry to say that the references you cite are all very old and no more liable. See instead Michael Crawford (Roman Republican coinage) for a more modern approach. Or, better, Rudi Thomsen, Early Roman Coinage. A Study of the Chronology (ERC). 1957-1961.
 * Or, for a less academic point of view, Wayne G. Sayles: Ancient Coin Collecting III: The Roman World-Politics and Propaganda. Just three books between hundreds.
 * 268 (or 269) BC is founded on an interpretation of Natural History by Pliny the Elder (xxxiii, 42-4) which fixes this date writing: Argentum signatum anno urbis CCCCLXXXV, Q. Ogulnio C. Fabio cos., quinque annis ante primum Punicum bellum.
 * The problem is that archeological founds in Urbs (I mean of course Roma) and in other hoards (see Thompson M., Mørkholm O., Kray C. M. (eds): An Inventory of Greek Coin Hoards, 1973) show that in these period  we (Romans) were still using pre-denarius coins (Didrachms). The 211 BC is fixed after the Morgantina hoard, where archeologist founded roman denarii melted in the burning of this city, dated 211 BC.

I hope I'm clear. Sorry for my mistakes.
 * --Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

p.s. RRC on Google books -- Carlo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlomorino (talk • contribs) 13:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Daily Wage Value
I think I take issue with saying that the average American day laborer earns 180 US$ a day - that would be an hourly wage of 22.5 $/hr assuming a standard 8 hour work day. Median yearly income in 2003 was $40,668 (according to the US census), which works out to about 19.5 $/hr. But that includes everyone (including doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other high-paying jobs), not just "day laborers". I think it's probably safer to say that the average day laborer earns up to twice minimum wage - which means they max out at $82/day. just my 2 cents worth YggdrasilsRoot 14:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It might be worth taking that part out entirely. Readers in Finland, Australia, or Japan probably aren't helped by the comparison - but they can compare the US$20/day wage to their own countries wage scales through a simple currency conversion (what? They only made 12,522 floobles a day!?!) - Vedexent 14:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree take it out, the comparrison is missleading, as the wealth distribution, currencys issued (US has no Gold or Silver coins) culture and technologies are different. I would a best compare with 3rd world countries like Rwanda, Laos or Bolivia than america for wages.

Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 02:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The US does have a $1 coin containing 1 troy ounce of silver, minted in 1986. According to this, $1 1986 USD is worth $0.561 2005 USD. This does make alot of assumptions, namely that $1 is the worth of 1 troy ounce of silver and not just put in the coin to give it a value.

 * Also, checking some silver exchange websites, 1 denarius, being worth to 31.1 grams of silver or 1.097 ounces, is worth roughly $13.20 as of August 15, 2006. This would be a far more reliable estimate, though the silver market fluctuates so its hard to get a more accurate estimate.

 * And bringing in a less reliable estimate, 1981 US Strategic Stockpile coins of 1 troy ounce of silver run from $14 to $15. Given the information presented, it is my opinion that a denarius was the very, very rough equivalent of an American $10 or $20 bill.--2ltben 03:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * So that would make it about 20 Australian dollars, this is not a good anallysis as it is very hard to judge wages over time as most of the historical information from the roman period is not there. Enlil Ninlil 05:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Not the wages, but the value of the coin itself. However, one assumption made is that the coin was worth the value of the silver bullion itself. Unfortunately this isn't the case. I think a better answer would lie in analysis of costs, not wages. Much information is known on the costs of Roman goods, which can be compared with the goods of later civilizations, ones that would be far easier to reach an equivalency with. England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, or, particularly, Byzantium.--2ltben 20:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Cost would be good, but we dont know how much an Amphorae would cost to produce or sell, most of the knoledge is sketetal at best. Even the metal content of the denarius was redused from Augustus (about 95%) to the Antonines debased, but still it is the best we can do so we should change it for the better. Enlil Ninlil 05:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Seems to me that someone was confusing grams with grains when they did their calculation. The conventional silver content of an ancient denarius was about 1 dram, or an eighth of an ounce. In Charlemagne's time, the silver content of a denarius was set at one twentieth of an ounce. These coins were quite small then, similar to a dime. Rwflammang 16:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really think it needs to be removed, It has no relevance. Wages are different in every country, now its saying daily wage is $58 in the U.S, but in Australia it is more like A$160. In essence it is crap. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

coin size
What's the size of these coins? Furthermore, why do they look deformed? Were they that irregular shape when minted? --euyyn 21:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The coins went on weight as indicated, the size and shape wasnt that important. They would have been made by hand, so the shapes would be different. Enlil Ninlil 09:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, the size could be not important, but they surely had a size! Say... as a hand? As a present day coin? Smaller? What about the irregularities? Were them originally irregular or were them deformed due to some squashing? --euyyn 23:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no one answer, for some when they were stamped they would have been deformed as sometimes the dies were not properly place on the metal flan, but they would have made them as round as possible, others maybe squashed. And weight is not that consistant, they were reoughly 4.5 grams but may vary between 3.9-4.7 depending on coin. Enlil Ninlil 05:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I saw some in an exposition a few months ago and had the impression they were quite small, something about half and euro coin (they were visible only through a lens, so I couldn't have an exact measure). Is it right? --euyyn 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Each edition varies in size and technique in production. Some were struck roughshod in remote areas to pay the armies and debts in the provinces. A great many denarius were struck by the most advanced means available in the Roman Empire of the respected tim. In my own personal collection, I have Early Roman Republic silver denarius roughly 15mm and Late Roman Empire denarius as large as 23mm (heavily debased with other metals other than silver). Scribeofargos (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really a question of size, but I was wondering what the opposite face of this coin looked like. I realize that there were many versions of the coin over the ages, but was the reverse face blank, or was it always identical to the facet shown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.162.53 (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What did the Denarius represent?
I read or heard that it represented a day's wage. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

 * This is an over simplification. The Denarius was the principal silver coin among the Romans and was originally equal to ten asses before the long period of devaluation. It's assumed that the first Denarius were struck to simplify military payments and foreign compensation, ( 1 coin vs 10 coins to be carried on campaigns as pay for soldiers, plus silver was a more desirable metal in foreign countries ), but even in the days of the Early Roman Republic, different types of soldiers received different compensation (Pay Grades). Scribeofargos (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Virtually the same
"the Slovenian word denar and the Catalan word diner all meaning money, are also derived from Latin "denarius". The currency unit in the Republic of Macedonia, the denar, is closest in name to the Latin denarius."

So, they are spelled the same, I'm betting they are pronounced the same, so, tell me, how can the Macedonian version be closer? MihaS (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Closer, because the official money in Macedonia are called Denari (denarius> plural:Denarii) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Etymology
I read: "The word "Denarius" is derived from the Greek word: δηνάριον (meaning "to give")"..."

This is meaningless: δηνάριον is coming from the Latin denarius. BTW in Greek to give is διδομι and the root is –δο–, nothing to do with the Latin deni ("in number of ten") which has the same root of en. "ten" and ger. "zehn".

Denarius is a Latin term indicating the tenth of a series, and in this case mean 10 asses, the original value of this coin, as indicated from the X which is in the first issues.

--Carlo Morino aka zi' Carlo 14:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation
As much I remember my latin from high school, pronunciation annotated in article is quite wrong and anglicized. I think it should be denarius (plural: denarii ).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Denarius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060612105049/http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear/s3272.html to http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear/s3272.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151128174101/http://www.tulane.edu:80/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm to http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Denarius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tulane.edu/~august/handouts/601cprin.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904162907/http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ekondrat/Octavian3.html to http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~ekondrat/Octavian3.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Value in Modern Terms
I know the whole effort is a bit futile but I've been trying to reconcile some sources. The article previously read: "Classical historians often say that in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire (~27 BC) the daily wage for an unskilled laborer and common soldier was 1 denarius (with no tax deductions) or about US$2.80 in bread." This was originally "$28" until changed by an editor who considered it a miscalculation. The source which is cited estimates $20 during the Roman republic and at the time of Caesar (d. 44 BC). I get the impression that there may have been another source which hasn't been given.

Meanwhile, some New Testament-oriented sources say it's "sixteen or seventeen cents", which I as far as I can tell was calculated in the early 19th century at the latest. 17 cents from 1800 is apparently about $3.24 in 2016.

The events of the New Testament (~4 BC–33 AD; potentially written 70 AD or later) are mostly post-Augustus (d. 14 AD) and apparently "From the time of Augustus [the value of the denarius] decreased as its weight was diminished by the use of bronze. In time it was valued at only one-eighth of its original value, in effect a useless bronze monetary unit." So I was thinking the estimates could be roughly consistent, depending on how fast it was devalued, and I should change the unsourced estimate of $2.80 in pre-Augustan times back to $20.

However, one of the Bible-y sources references the denarius changing from 10 to 16 asses which happened in 141 BC, and says the 17 cents estimate is of the denarius before this change. However, since it's kind of old and I don't know where the estimate originally comes from anyway I've decided to just ignore it until someone comes up with a better idea. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC) ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Plural of 'As'
The article might be improved by using the Latin plural assēs, rather than asses, to avoid confusion. See As (Roman coin). (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Denarius


text:
John Leslie

John Leslie may refer to:

United Kingdom

 * Sir John Leslie (physicist) (1766–1832), Scottish mathematician and physicist
 * John Leslie (TV presenter) (born 1965), Scottish former television presenter
 * John Leslie (bishop of Clogher) (1571–1671), Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland bishop
 * John Leslie (bishop of Kilmore, Elphin and Ardagh) (1772–1854), Church of Ireland bishop
 * John Leslie (cricketer, born 1888), English cricketer and British Army officer
 * John Leslie (footballer) (born 1955), English footballer
 * John Leslie (politician) (1873–1955), British Labour Party Member of Parliament for Sedgefield
 * Sir John Leslie, 1st Baronet (1822–1916), Conservative Member of Parliament for Co. Monaghan, Ireland
 * Sir John Leslie, 2nd Baronet (1857–1944), Irish landowner and soldier in the British Army
 * Sir John Leslie, 4th Baronet (1916–2016), officer in the Irish Guards
 * John Leslie, 1st Duke of Rothes (c. 1630–1681), Scottish nobleman
 * John Leslie, 6th Earl of Rothes (1600–1641), Scottish nobleman
 * John Leslie, 10th Earl of Rothes (1698–1767), British Army officer
 * John Leslie, 11th Earl of Rothes (1744–1773), Scottish nobleman
 * John Leslie (priest) (1868–1934), Dean of Lismore
 * Shane Leslie (Sir John Randolph Leslie, 3rd Baronet, 1885–1971), Anglo-Irish soldier and writer
 * John Leslie of Parkhill, involved in the murder of Cardinal David Beaton in 1546
 * John Leslie, Lord Newton (1595-1651) Scottish judge and soldier killed at the Siege of Dundee

Other places

 * John A. Leslie (born 1940), Canadian philosopher
 * John A. Leslie (Canadian politician), former Ontario MPP for York East
 * John Leslie (1919—2016), former patron of Gippsland Art Gallery, Australia
 * John Leslie (cricketer, born 1814), Irish cricketer and barrister
 * John Leslie (director) (1945–2010), American porn actor, director and producer
 * John Leslie (rugby union) (born 1970), New Zealand rugby union footballer who played for Scotland
 * John Robert Leslie (academic) (1831–1881), Irish academic associated with Trinity College Dublin

title: John Leslie


text:
Talk:Testicle cuff

History
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away, a piece on testicle cuffs was posted to a forum by a "Mr. Odie" on h2g2. It has since been removed by BBC management. This version has been substantially modified, to the extent of being almost completely rewritten, by Martin. Any remaining parts of the original are used here under fair use.

A Thought on content
I am not at all keen on having a section that says "Warning" in a wikipedia article, or a section that attempts to offer advice. Encylopaedias are neutral point-of-view devices. I look at the heroin page, and although it clearly states the potential harms of the drug, it does not advise me to be careful or offer me wisdom as to what to do if I do choose to take the drug. I intend not to draw similarities between heroin and testicle cuffs, but instead to point out that wikipedia is not an advice manual to life, (--Tompagenet)

 * (cutting in) I agree - it needs some rewording to make sure that it's giving facts, rather than giving advice. However, factual dangers do need to be highlighted.

and the current state of the article (especially before some of the editing I and others have partaken in) made testicle cuffs to look like something of a laughing matter - the devices that perhaps some social deviant might use. I strongly feel that wikipedia should not be making judgements on people's behaviour of this fashion, be they implicit or explicit. Tompagenet 13:49, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * *shrug* I don't think this article is making any judgements. BDSM literature almost always contains warnings, and much contains humour, so I don't see that there's a problem here. Martin 18:50, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I must say I can't speak for BDSM literature, and I'm happy to bow down if this is what people consider more appropriate (in which case someone with more experience should decide on this article), but an encylopaedia should almost certainly not be humerous - I don't think that we should be using the style and conventions of BDSM literature, even when writing those topics that are on BDSM subjects. Tompagenet 23:52, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I dunno - why can't an encyclopedia be funny? Sure, it's not an encyclopedia's purpose, but if it's a handy by-product... what's the loss? Martin

 * Because what is funny to one person is frequently not to others. I don't personally engage in BDSM practices, but I know many others do - and I don't think writing articles that attempt to be flippant or humorous about a topic means that it will be a totally NPOV. Tompagenet

 * Hmm... OK, I see your point. I'll try to keep a more somber frame of mind in the future. Martin 20:19, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please for the love of god, someone make a better picture. 72.69.86.55 09:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Source or Remove
''Historically, testicle cuffs may have been used by the slave traders of Western Africa, as a means to subdue newly-captured males. In processions to markets, the males were bound to each other in single-file formation, usually by the hands, with ankle manacles in place. The testicle cuffs extended between the legs, and each man was connected to the next by a rope between their genitals. These tight metal bindings on their scrotums were to ensure that a quick pace was kept, for if a man were to stop walking the rope would pull and cause quick, sharp pain in the genital region.'' doesn't sound vaguely historical, source it or I'll remove it. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, feck it, googling "testicle cuff + slaves -wikipedia" doesn't give any hits, this is off. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

this entire article is a joke and fails verifiability in every way

Images
The images -- while perhaps the funniest thing I have ever seen on Wikipedia -- really detract from the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. They really should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.140 (talk)

 * I'm not utterly confident in the notability of this article itself, but I'd agree that the images are definitely unencyclopedic. (However, they are hilarious.) Jodamn 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Removing images. Zazaban 23:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This content, under 'Dangers' is removed, pending sourcing.

Using testicle cuffs can prove extremely painful, even dangerous as they restrict the movements of the scrotum that would usually protect the testicles in case of trauma to the area. Cuffs can cause the skin around this area to become sore if worn for prolonged periods (longer than a few hours). With time, even soft and/or fluffy cuffs can cut into the scrotum if applied too tightly, possibly even causing damage to the testicles or spermatic cords themselves.

It should not need to be stated that attempting to hang or otherwise restrain people by such devices could cause rather serious internal injuries. Even so, scrotal suspension (see http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Suspension) is a possibility for those willing to endure the intensity and possible damage resulting from such feats.

All the dangers associated with physical restraint apply to the use of testicle cuffs. See also safe, sane and consensual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkalweit (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Testicle cuff


text:
The Leopard Man's Story

"The Leopard Man's Story" is a short mystery story by Jack London. It was first published in the August 1903 issue of Leslie's Weekly and, in 1906, included in Moon-Face and Other Stories.

Plot summary
The "Leopard Man", a saddened leopard trainer who bore visible scars on his arms and whose personality diametrically opposed his daring profession, tells a tale of a "lion-tamer who was hated by another man" to the narrator. The unnamed man, who hated the lion-tamer, attended every performance in hopes of watching the lion crunch down on his tamer during his "big play", sticking his head in the lion's mouth. Finally, one day he witnessed it.

After pointing out the patience of such a task, the Leopard Man jumped to a story about De Ville, a small "sword-swallowing and juggling Frenchman" known for his quick temper. De Ville struck fear in all but one, 'King' Wallace, a lion-tamer known for sticking his head in the lion's mouth. One day, De Ville caught Wallace looking at Madame de Ville, his wife. Despite warnings about De Ville's temperament, Wallace, while feeling belligerent one day, pushed De Ville's head into a paste bucket. Calm, De Ville cleaned himself off and nothing transpired between the two for several months.

At a San Francisco show, the Leopard Man, looking for his pocket-knife, oversaw Wallace and the rest of the tent occupiers, except for De Ville who glared with hatred at Wallace, watching a quarrel between some trapeze artists. Still watching the events, the Leopard Man noticed De Ville, with his handkerchief drawn, walk past Wallace and feign wiping sweat off his face.

During his performance, Wallace cracked his whip and put his head inside the mouth of Augustus, his preferred lion. With Wallace's head in his mouth, Augustus' jaws clamped together. After the event, the Leopard Man went over to smell Wallace's head and sneezed. De Ville had placed snuff in his hair; Augustus had sneezed.

title: The Leopard Man's Story


text:
Talk:Hephaestion

Untitled
Did Alexander shave the maNes of all the army horses, or did he shave all of the maRes? I think it must be difficult in the extreme to give even one mare a whole-body shave.

You're right Patrick!! Funny typo, though... Muriel Gottrop 09:10, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This was my first wikipedia article. Muriel G 14:33, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How much of Plutarch was used for this article? I could be wrong, but isn't the historical accuracy of Plutarch often called into question? My history teacher usually spoke of him as someone who could tell a ripping good story but embelished like it was going out of style. Lizzie 05:33, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Enough and combined with Lane Fox's recent biography. Is there any sentence or part of the article that you consider inacurate? [[:pt:Usuário:Muriel Gottrop|muriel@pt]] 23:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lover quotes
I think the two quote at the bottom--one lengthy and one short--are a bit heavy handed on the whole "alexander and hephaestion were lovers" argument. I think something so disputed shouldn't be shown as being so definitively correct.

--Commander Cool, part deux 08:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Whether or not that is true, it has been proven that Alexander set great store by Hephaestion, and some would say treated him better than a brother. They might not have been lovers, but could have been in love none the same.

Do not be so naive. Read the full measure of Alexander's quotes and you know it's very clear they were homosexual lovers. It might be uncomfortable for the religious right to consolidate Alexander with their image of leadership, but this does the historical record evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.39.181 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alexander and Hephastion's joint sacrifice to Achilles and Patroclus, respectively, is pretty telling. Achilles' and Patroclus' relationship in the Illiad is an ambiguous mix of traits that you could ascribe to a lover or a close friend, but a level hand would read it as some of both. Bisexuality in greek culture was pretty common, not that they thought of it in modern terms, and neither Phillip the II nor Alexander practiced monogamy. Alexander and Hephastions' relationship strikes me as very similar to that of their heroes, i.e. it probably had sexual elements, but definetley wasn't the only aspect of their relationship. Alexander's reaction to Hephastions' death also seems telling, anecdotally Alexander wept and clung to Hephastion's corpse until his officers dragged him off of it. I don't know how true that ancedote is, but Hephastion's elaborate funeral seems like concrete evidence that Alexander loved him dearly. I don't really see how they couldn't have been lovers. Heilingetorix (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Important question
Where did his body actually end up for burial? I have a source (Persian book) from Iran's National Heritage Organization saying that this (and another destroyed twin lion statue standing opposite to this one) were built by the orders of Alexander in Hamedan in remembrance of Hephaestion, when being buried.

Can anybody verify this?--Zereshk 20:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * See http://www.liminalityland.com/arrian.htm  Hephaestion was cremated. What was the custom back then? To bury the ashes or to scatter them to the four quarters of the world?  According to the website above, he was cremated at Babylon. P0M 06:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Then that makes this lion just a monument I guess.--Zereshk 02:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily. If the ashes were taken closer to home to be buried, the lions might have marked the spot.P0M 08:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So is Hephaestion's tomb in Babylon? It's kind of confusing. I wonder if the lion is just a monument like what Zereshk said. XEclipsex 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Most likely the Lion's of Hamedan are merely the first of many monuments that were said to have been comissioned by Alexander at Hephaistion's death. Alexander himself died only eight months after Hephaistion so all other commisions were most likely cancelled, including the funeral games, which we are not sure ever took place.  Only one Lion remains now but the entertaining thing is that to this day, the women of the region still smear jellies on the lion in hopes of bearing children and Hephaistion has "finished his life as a symbol of fertility" as Robin Lane Fox addresses in his biography.MDMORGA (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The lover question
This article slightly tiptoes around and at other parts completely ignores the question if Alexander the Great and Hephaestion were lovers. I think it should be at least considered even if left slightly open-ended for those that dont want to hear the truth. Gayheroes.com gives citations about Alexander and Hephaestion's relationships from the same sources used in this article. Which leads me to believe someone didn't want to honor the possible truth. Never edited an article before but would be willing if more qualified individuals don't.

 * I see that someone has already altered the introductory text to include your question. I would move that the citation requirement be dismissed as this statement "perhaps also the lover of" does not imply finality, it merely addresses a wide-spread speculation. Hulamoth 00:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Despite what you believe, Hulamoth, if the controversy exist, it should be added at least as a controversy, not censored into oblivion because you and certain historians believe its speculation. 190.161.198.196 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Despite what the gay community wants to fabricate, there's still no conclusive evidence that Alexander or Hephaestion were homosexuals. - jag7211

 * The question of Alexander's homosexuality is not a classical discussion, merely a more recent fascination of modern historians. However, homoeroticism was very common in Greek and Macedonian culture, though most men had grown out of this shortly after reaching eighteen years.  Many of Alexander's generals and confidants have been accredited to having male lovers.  Therefore, I believe that while we do not have any concrete evidence of sexual consumation in a relationship between Hephaistion and Alexander you can not rightly dismiss this issue altogether.  It seems unjustified to not mention this theory in the article, not tip toeing around, but seriously discussing the topic.  Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman has written several accounts to this and how Hephaistion's death affected Alexander and most likely the conquerors own death.  I commend the author of the article for the outstanding amount of information presented here, but since Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman is cited so frequently, I suggest you re-read her work and give serious consideration to expanding on the subject of a possible homoerotic relationship between the two.  Again, this is not a cry for more recognition on this subject on behalf of the 'gay community' as I am very straight in my sexual orientation, I only wish that you explore ALL areas when you have already expanded on so much of Hephaistion's life. MDMORGA (talk) 05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I thank the writer for interesting comments, but I wonder where you get the idea that Reames-Zimmerman is cited frequently in the text, as she is not cited at all in the new version of the article - published since late November 2007? Unlesss you mean that since she is not quoted at all, I should re-read AND add her ideas to this article? As it is, I think Hephaistiosn's and Alexander's possible homosexual relationship have already been explored and suggested by using more primary sources than Reames-Zimmerman - as well as been related in the text. I'm not sure how this could be expanded in any sensible way without using late, second- or third-hand sources? It would be interesting to discuss this, though. Did you have anything special in mind, considering expanding the article? - AlexandersArmy (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)EaCalendula on behalf of AlexandersArmy

I am wondering if MDMORGA is talking about the first version of this page, and not the new one? Because the new one considers in great depth the 'possible homoerotic relationship' between the two. If MDMORGA scrolls down to Section 3, 'Relationships', she will see it. As her comments are dated 19th February 2008, it may be thought that she is talking about the new version - published November 2007, as EaCalendula says - and with regard to the new version, her comments simply don't make sense. Not only is the relationship covered in depth, it considers the differences between Athens and Macedon, and does not fall into the 'most men had grown out of it' -type generalisation. Furthermore, Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman is not cited or quoted at all in the new version - although she had been in the old version - the new one prefers to use the ancient sources as much as possible. To say "It seems unjustified to not mention this theory in the article, not tip toeing around, but seriously discussing the topic." when about a quarter of the article discusses this very topic, seems rather unjustified in itself. 80.229.177.2 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Fiona Courtney, Alexander's Army

I have something to say about Alexander, the Great. His story with Hephaestion is extremely similar to that of the Jewish king, David, and his companion in trust and love, Johnathan. I believe in such a trust and love between men, and I sincerely believe that the love between these two men was platonic, more as a brotherhood than a sexual union. That sort of love resides today; men still have "best friends" and "buddies". These are those (in some cases) that you tell your secrets and dreams. Alexander was a great king, and Hephaestion was a great general and loyal friend. I would weep bitterly for the loss of my longest friend also. Such a man that would not should see himself as callous. Jathrop on behalf of Alexander and Hephastion.

I take issue with the assertion that Hephaestion as a sexual partner was white-washed from the main extant sources. Plutarch, who wrote roughly the same time as Arrian, had no problem discussing men and their lovers--see Lysander, Agesilaus, etc. His portrayal of such relationships is hardly negative, and I struggle to see how one would arrive at the conclusion the article presents. Moreover, Quintus Curtius Rufus, also writing around the same time, mentions Bagoas the eunuch as Alexander's lover (though he is alone in doing so). Clearly he didn't feel it was taboo to write of such things, either. Neither did Aelian, a century or so later.

Finally, I question the citations of Robin Lane Fox's works. I enjoy RLF's style and prose, but I question his veracity in many counts--in his works about Alexander and of the Greeks and Romans in general. First, extremely broad statements like "Dorians were expected to be openly homosexual" fail on several different levels. The first, and most obvious, is the exclusivity that "homosexual" implies: a person that engaged in, and enjoys, sexual consummation with both sexes can hardly be called homosexual--just like a person who willingly engages in, and enjoys, sexual consummation with both sexes can hardly be called heterosexual.

Secondly, saying anything about the "Dorians" as a whole community ignores the fact that the Dorian people were socially and culturally diverse at least since the purported "return of the Heracleidae", whom they allegedly served under. Argives, Lacedaemonians and Messenians hardly conformed to the same model of state or custom, much like Macedon itself was in many ways at odds with not just Greeks in general, but other Dorians as well. In that sense, it is a stretch indeed to pigeon-hole Macedonians according to customs attributed by Plato on Cretans, who themselves different from other Dorians, due to some perceived socio-cultural Doric solidarity.

I would strongly urge that the article's primary contributors re-think the argument behind Hephaestion's relationship with Alexander--or, at the very least, re-think the approach they use for arguing it.

Respectfully, Phoebus Americanos (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to use the term "homosexual" in the context of Ancient Greece. Sexual relationships between men were an accepted and ordinary part of that culture and were in no way in opposition to marriage to a woman (which was expected of high ranking men). Men who were not attracted to men were considered odd. There is no doubt among scholars that Alexander (and other elite men) would have had sex with men and that their emotional attachment to such friends—often called brothers—were of more consequence than their attachment to wives. Women were seen as incapable of providing such a relationship, as they were not believed to be men's equals in capability, education, or training.

(Bringing David and Jonathan into the discussion only makes the problem worse and the argument less persuasive.)

As it stands, the discussion of Alexander's sexuality in this article is unscholarly, based on personal belief and 21st-century attitudes. Support for those opinions comes from a cherry-picked source that is an outlier, not mainstream scholarship. If the article is to provide reliable information, as an encyclopedia article should, it must be changed. As it stands, it's obviously misleading and of little use.

The author clearly cares about the subject and has put a lot of work into writing the article. I urge the author to correct these errors about sexuality so as to make that care and hard work result in a solid Wikipedia entry. KC 02:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

I attempted to edit out some of the more egregious "discussion of Alexander's sexuality in this article is unscholarly, based on personal belief and 21st-century attitudes." I think it is a step in the right direction, however the whole section needs a rewrite and that's beyond me atm.

General article changes
I, and a few others, who are interested in Alexander the Great and his times, and thus also in Hephaistion, noticed this article, and found it interesting and informative. We also thought that by using a broader range of sources, it would be possible to expand it and provide a more in-depth portrait of Hephaistion. So we found it worthwhile, some time ago, to start putting together a refurbished article, which we propose to publish here in a few weeks. It will incorporate almost all of what is already mentioned, but will also be longer and contain more detail. We've strived to utilise a variety of sources and to be as historically accurate as possible. We hope that it will live up to our intentions; namely to provide more information about an interesting historical figure, and we hope it will be well recieved.

Ea,

on behalf of AlexandersArmy 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So, it took a few months reather than a few weeks, but here it is at last. It wasn't possible to keep the original headers in a meaningful way, but I hope it doesn't break any links. As for now I only out-commented the old text (as recommended for major changes), but it will be removed in a few days.

AlexandersArmy (talk) 13:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Very nicely done. Gingervlad (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Very nice of you to say so :)

AlexandersArmy (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories
I'm a little perplexed here, so maybe somebody can help me out. I notice over at the bottom of Alexander The Great's page, there is no category for his sexuality like there is for Hephaestion here - "LGBT people from Greece." Since there isn't one on Alexander's page, I take that to mean that he was not "LGBT," but "Straight." Doesn't Alexander deserve a category for his sexuality as well? He should have one - something like, "Straight people from Greece." Oh, but wait a minute.... if he wasn't "Gay," then how could Hephaestion have been "Gay?" You can see the resulting confusion people might have when viewing both pages. If Alexander the Great isn't considered to have been "Gay," then Hephaestion should probably be marked with the same category name. You'll admit that the way it is now is very conflicting? HaarFager (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect anybody would respond to this. HaarFager (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 * You expected wrong, my friend! I'm not too keen on using modern terminology to describe sex practices from another culture and era. The greeks never classified themselves as 'gay' or 'straight' depending on the sex of their partners. If I'm going to go off Aristophanes (and I shall) then Greek sexuality is a continuum from receptive to penetrative. This scale of receptive vs. penetrative is also a scale of feminine vs. masculine - basically women are going to be the most receptive (and womanish) partners and gay tops are going to be the most penetrative (and manly) partners. It's homoerotiscism, yeah, but I'd resist the urge to slap modern acronyms on it. Heilingetorix (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Tanais or Iaxartes?
The river Tanais is referred to in the article as being in Sogdiana. As Tanais is the ancient name of Don River (which is in European Russia), there must be an error, the correct river being possibly Iaxartes (Syr Darya).--Jeanambr (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121201104158/http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html to http://greek-art.livejournal.com/27202.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hephaestion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622213938/http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html to http://myweb.unomaha.edu/~mreames/Hephaistion/dissabst.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060511123604/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/wcd/Hephaestion

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The marble head of Hephaestion
User insists on restoring the photo of two marble heads exhibited side by side in the Getty Museum and allegedly representing Alexander and Hephaestion. The same head of Hephaestion is already shown in the foreground at the very beginning of the article. If the two heads were part of a single work of art showing Alexander and Hephaestion alone intent on doing anything together, the reproduction of both photos might make sense with reference to their special friendship. But this is not the case: for, according to the Getty Museum, the "head of Hephaistion, broken from a full-length statue, was originally part of a multi-figured group, which might have depicted a sacrificial scene" (cf here). This being so, the double reproduction of the same head of Hephaestion seems to me only a pretext to expose this caption, recently edited by the same user, which reads: "(left) Alexander and (right) Hephaestion: Both were connected by a tight man-to-man friendship". Considering that the entire article and in particular the section on 'Relationships' where the photo is shown, already treat in detail and from all points of view the much questioned friendship between the two, without even omitting "Alexander's yielding to Hephaestion's thighs" when referred to by ancient sources, in my view such a caption would much better fit a scandalmongering popular history booklet than an encyclopaedia as Wikipedia is supposed to be.--Jeanambr (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

 * Since I did not receive any answer, I have removed the photo.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Too much repeating
This article repeats information a lot, making everything overly bloated, so I'll try to generally reorganize and keep things concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagabondo (talk • contribs) 22:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Following the above, User:Bagabondo has repeatedly edited the article. In some cases he/she improved it, for example by highlighting the spurious nature of a quote from Diogenes of Sinope (previously only alluded to). In other cases, however, he/she removed sourced information, basing his edits on such arguments as: - "Aelian is quoted for support to a historical claim while Aelian was not a historian. Also, Fox's quote on the Dorians appears to be purely speculative conjecture, I cannot find any corroborating statements that such expectations were common among the Dorians beyond some historians believing them to be the source of later Hellenic rites, but even then that is conjecture ..."; - "I removed the part from Chugg on the death of Hephaestion, since its only his interpretation of an event, not any additional historical information ..."
 * In my opinion, these are obviously personal speculations (or, in Wikipedian terms, original research) which cannot support the deletion of sourced citations. I have consequently intervened as follows: 1. I restored all sourced information; 2. I added, when necessary, further sources; 3. I moved the spurious Diogenes quotation further below in the section from its previous "first place", thus following the appropriate suggestion Bagabondo made in one of his/her edit summaries.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 * I agree with your changes. I made a lot of revisions based on how dismayed I was first reading the article - it appeared/appears to be phrased more like an argumentative essay rather than a neutral article. Maybe it’s just a matter of how the information is organized rather than excising sourced citations. In any case, thank you for reining in my initial edits. Bagabondo (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Many thanks to you too! Both for your edits and for your friendly attitude. Cheers. --Jeanambr (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Assumptions on the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion
User:37.245.46.162 and User:2.48.57.58 have twice removed some statements (which I hadn't originally entered myself and which had remained in the article for almost 15 years), claiming that it is "stuff which fails verification" and that "none of this is sourced".

The removed statements report the existence of two historical assumptions about the characteristics of the possible sexual relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion: whether it was a simple teenage love soon dropped, or the typical short-lived Athenian-style same-sex relationship between an older person and a younger.

Immediately below, the article states that "the former assumption" is shared by writers of fiction such as Mary Renault and the film director Oliver Stone, and in particular by the modern historian Paul Cartledge, of whom a textual quotation is reported, with the precise bibliographic reference.

Regarding the latter assumption, the article reports a passage from Aelian (and then, in the footnote, also refers to a slightly different passage from Plato), also in this case with precise bibliographic references.

The anonymous users removed all the initial part about the double assumption, then tampered with the quote from Cartledge making it meaningless, and finally also removed the quotes from Aelian and Plato altogether. What remains seems to me to lack logical coherence with what precedes and what follows.

I therefore suggest that the anonymous users' edits should be reverted or, if absolutely necessary, that the whole question of the two assumptions be reformulated in a logically coherent way, avoiding tampering with or deleting the textual quotations already present, unless proven inauthentic. Jeanambr (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification on facts
The part that mentions Alexander referring to Hephastion as "He too is Alexander" Arrian claims he has doubts about its authenticity I do wonder if it's worthwhile including that for better clarification that it may be literary fiction. Finnders2207 (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hephaestion


text:
Bibliomania

Bibliomania can be a symptom of obsessive–compulsive disorder which involves the collecting or even hoarding of books to the point where social relations or health are damaged.

Bibliomania is not to be confused with bibliophilia, which is the (psychologically healthy) love of books, and as such is not considered a clinical psychological disorder.

Description
One of several unusual behaviors associated with books, bibliomania is characterized by the collecting of books which have no use to the collector nor any great intrinsic value to a genuine book collector. The purchase of multiple copies of the same book and edition and the accumulation of books beyond possible capacity of use or enjoyment are frequent symptoms of bibliomania. Bibliomania is not a psychological disorder recognized by the American Psychiatric Association in its DSM-IV.

Bibliomaniacs are characterized as those who are obsessed with books so much so that they will go to extreme measures to obtain the books they want. Often bibliomaniacs will have multiple copies of the same book in different editions and varying conditions. Bibliomaniacs affect the buying and selling of books with their obsessive nature and have greatly increased the price of buying rare books.

History
The term was coined by John Ferriar (1761–1815), a physician at the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Ferriar coined the term in 1809 in a poem he dedicated to his bibliomanic friend, Richard Heber (1773–1833). In the early nineteenth century, "bibliomania" was used in popular discourse (such as in periodical essays and poems) to describe obsessive book collectors.

In 1809, the Reverend Thomas Frognall Dibdin published Bibliomania; or Book Madness, a work described by literary critic Philip Connell as "a series of bizarre rambling dialogues which together comprised a kind of dramatized mock pathology, lavishly illustrated and, in the second edition, embellished with extensive footnotes on bibliography and the history of book collecting." The "symptoms" displayed by the bibliomaniacs in Dibdin's work include "an obsession with uncut copies, fine paper or vellum pages, unique copies, first editions, blackletter books, illustrated copies, association copies, and condemned or suppressed works".

In the late nineteenth century, book collections and collectors of note were given regular coverage as curiosities.

Holbrook Jackson was to follow the work of Ferriar and Dibdin later in the work The Anatomy of Bibliomania.

Bibliomania became quite popular during the Regency era as the desire for first edition copies of books drove prices to unobtainable levels. Because of this, bibliomaniacs made a significant impact on the sales of rare or older books in such a way that it has never truly recovered.

People with bibliomania

 * Stephen Blumberg, who was convicted of stealing $5.3 million worth of books.
 * Sir Thomas Phillipps, 1st Baronet (1792–1872) suffered from severe bibliomania. His collection, which at his death contained over 160,000 books and manuscripts, was still being auctioned off over 100 years after his death.
 * Rev. W.F. Whitcher was a 19th-century Methodist pastor who, after having stolen and rebound rare books, would assert they were rare "finds" from local booksellers.
 * Lord Charles Spencer (1740–1820), a world renowned book collector who drove the bidding for a first edition copy of The Decameron to £2,260 at the auction of the family library of Roxburghe.

Depictions in fiction

 * Peter Kien, the protagonist in Auto-da-Fé by Elias Canetti. Kien's obsession with his personal library leads to the destruction of his marriage, his happiness, and ultimately the library itself.
 * Yomiko Readman, the protagonist in Read or Die, is an introverted bibliomaniac, often preferring the company of books over people.
 * Don Vincente, a fictional Spanish monk who was suspected of stealing books from his monastery, and later murdered nine people so he could steal their books.
 * Leisel Meminger, the protagonist in The Book Thief, is a nine-year-old who steals a grave digger's handbook, beginning her obsession with books.
 * The 2016 Psychological Horror manga "Bibliomania", written by Orval (Oobaru) and illustrated by Macchiro, is about a young girl's obsession with books. She is trapped in a magical book and must traverse it in order to escape.

title: Bibliomania


text:
Boldness

Boldness is the opposite of shyness. To be bold implies a willingness to get things done despite risks.

For example, in the context of sociability, a bold person may be willing to risk shame or rejection in social situations, or to bend rules of etiquette or politeness. An excessively bold person could aggressively ask for money, or persistently push someone to fulfill a request.

The word "bold" may also be used as a synonym of "impudent"; for example, a child may be punished for being "bold" by acting disrespectfully toward an adult or by misbehaving.

Boldness as a philosophical virtue was admired by the ancient Greeks.

Boldness may be contrasted with courage in that the latter implies having fear but confronting it.

Description
In behavioral ecology, the shy⟷bold continuum is studied as it exists in humans and certain other species. Shyness and boldness represent "a propensity to take risks". Bold individuals tend to become dominant, revealing a correlation between boldness and social dominance.

title: Boldness


text:
USS Juneau

Three ships of the United States Navy have been named USS Juneau, after the city of Juneau, Alaska:

 * USS Juneau (CL-52) was an Atlanta-class light cruiser commissioned February 1942 and sunk eight months later in the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
 * This "Juneau incident" is particularly notable for the loss of the five Sullivan brothers
 * USS Juneau (CL-119) was a Juneau-class light cruiser, commissioned 1946, active in the Korean War, and scrapped in 1962
 * Juneau-class cruiser, a USN light cruiser class, a modification of the Atlanta class
 * USS Juneau (LPD-10) was an amphibious transport dock, commissioned in 1969 and decommissioned in 2008

title: USS Juneau


text:
Joe Lockhart

Joseph Patrick Lockhart (born July 13, 1959) is a spokesman and communications consultant, best known for being the 21st White House Press Secretary from October 5, 1998 to September 29, 2000, during the administration of U.S. President Bill Clinton. Previously, he had worked as press secretary for several Democratic politicians, including Walter Mondale, Paul Simon, and Michael Dukakis. Following his work as press secretary in the Clinton administration, he was an advisor to John Kerry during his 2004 presidential campaign. He subsequently founded and became managing director of the communications consulting firm The Glover Park Group, worked for Facebook from 2011 to 2012, and was executive vice president of communications and public affairs for the NFL from 2016 to 2018.

Early life and career
Born in The Bronx, Lockhart is the son of Ann Teahan and Raymond Lockhart, a longtime NBC producer associated with The Huntley–Brinkley Report and special-events coverage. He grew up in Suffern, New York. In 1978 he moved to Washington D.C. to attend Georgetown University where he received a BA in History. In 1980, he worked on Jimmy Carter's presidential reelection campaign.

He was press secretary for the 1984 presidential campaign of Walter Mondale, then worked for Paul Simon in the Senate. Stints with ABC and CNN followed, then the presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis in 1988. He moved to Robinson, Lake, Lerer & Montgomery with Mike McCurry, then back to ABC when they hired his (former) wife and colleague from the Mondale campaign, Laura Logan.

Another stint with NBC covering the Romanian Revolution in 1989 preceded his first on-air job with Sky News reporting on the Gulf War and then business. Private practice with Robinson, Lake followed, where he handled publicity for the Al Nahayan family during parts of the BCCI scandal.

Clinton presidential campaign and the White House
At a time when Lockhart was considering working for AOL, Mike McCurry recruited Lockhart back into politics, and he joined the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign. He served as the campaign spokesman and, following President Clinton's successful reelection, as Deputy Press Secretary to McCurry. After standing in for him on occasion to brief the press, Lockhart eventually succeeded McCurry and delivered his first briefing as Press Secretary on October 5, 1998.

Lockhart handled the press during Clinton's impeachment and the 2000 Camp David Summit.

After the White House
Lockhart was brought on to the John Kerry presidential campaign as a senior advisor in September 2004.

On September 8, 2004, CBS News aired a controversial report on presidential candidate George W. Bush's military record. The authenticity of the Killian documents used in that report are under scrutiny. In the course of the next few days, it was discovered that Joseph Lockhart, then senior advisor to presidential candidate John Kerry, had made a phone call to Texas National Guard officer, Bill Burkett on September 4, 2004. Lockhart stated later that an unnamed female CBS producer asked him to contact Burkett. Lockhart has denied that the call with Burkett had anything to do with the National Guard issue.

Lockhart co-founded the consulting firm The Glover Park Group, becoming its Managing Director.

In June 2011, he joined Facebook as the head of the company's corporate, policy and international communications team. Not wanting to relocate to the company's headquarters in Menlo Park, California, he left the company in October 2012.

On February 15, 2016, Lockhart was introduced as the new executive vice president of communications and top public relations official for the National Football League; he left the job after the 2018 Super Bowl to spend time with his family.

Personal life
Lockhart was previously married to Laura Logan, Deputy Press Secretary for John Glenn's 1984 presidential run and a longtime ABC News producer. In 2013, Lockhart married Giovanna Gray. They divorced in 2022.

In 2016, it was announced that President Obama and his family planned to rent Lockhart's Kalorama home after he left office. It was later revealed that the Obamas purchased the house from Lockhart in May 2017, saying that it made sense to own the property since they would remain in Washington D.C. for at least two more years.

title: Joe Lockhart


text:
Power forward

The power forward (PF), also known as the four, is one of the five traditional positions in a regulation basketball game. Traditionally, power forwards have played a role similar to centers and are typically the second tallest player on the court. When on offense, they typically play with their backs towards the basket. When on defense, they typically position themselves under the basket in a zone defense or against the opposing power forward in man-to-man defense. The power forward position entails a variety of responsibilities, including rebounding, screen setting, rim protecting, and scoring.

Many power forwards are noted for their mid-range jump-shot, and several players have become very accurate from 12 to 18 ft. Earlier, these skills were more typically exhibited in the European style of play. Some power forwards, known as stretch fours, have since extended their shooting range to include three-point field goals.

In the NBA, power forwards usually range from 6' 8" (2.03 m) to 6' 11" (2.11 m) while in the WNBA, power forwards are usually between 6' 0″ (1.83 m) and 6′ 3″ (1.91 m). Despite the averages, a variety of players fit "tweener" roles which finds them in the small forward or center position depending on matchups and coaching decisions. Some power forwards, such as Draymond Green and even 6' 5" (1.96 m) P. J. Tucker, have played at the center position, possessing the skills, but lacking the height that is usually associated with the position.

Power forwards who have been inducted in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame include Karl Malone, Lauren Jackson, Vern Mikkelsen, Tina Thompson, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Webber, Kevin Garnett, Dolph Schayes, Kevin McHale, Charles Barkley, Dennis Rodman, Elvin Hayes, Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas, Dave Debusschere, and Tim Duncan.

title: Power forward


text:
Mike McCurry (press secretary)

Michael Demaree McCurry is best known for having served in Bill Clinton's administration as the nation's 20th White House Press Secretary. He is a Washington-based communications consultant and is associated with the firm Public Strategies Washington, Inc. He is also active within the administration of the United Methodist Church, serving as a lay delegate to the Church General Conference and on various denominational boards. From 2009 to 2017, he co-chaired the Commission on Presidential Debates. Born in Charleston, South Carolina, he was educated at Princeton University and Georgetown University.

Education and early career
McCurry was born in Charleston, South Carolina, and raised in the San Francisco Bay Area. He attended San Carlos High School on the San Francisco Peninsula from 1969 to 1971 and then transferred to Ravenswood High School in East Palo Alto, where he graduated in 1972. During his senior year in high school, McCurry served as Governor of the California Junior State, a student-run mock government that today is better known as the Junior State of America.

McCurry earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton University in 1976 and a Master of Arts degree from Georgetown University in 1985. He began his political career as press secretary to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources, as well as press secretary to Senator Harrison A. Williams from 1976 to 1981. Between 1981 and 1983, he served as press secretary to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

From 1988 to 1990, McCurry served as director of communications for the Democratic National Committee, and served as press secretary for the presidential campaigns of John Glenn (1984), Bruce Babbitt (1988), and Bob Kerrey, (1992), as well as the 1988 vice-presidential campaign for Lloyd Bentsen.

Prior to serving in the White House as press secretary to Clinton, McCurry served as spokesman for the Department of State from 1993 to 1995, as well as chief spokesman for Warren Christopher.

Post-Clinton career
McCurry serves on numerous boards or advisory councils for organizations including Share Our Strength, the Junior State of America Foundation, Children's Scholarship Fund, the Wesley Theological Seminary, United Methodist Communications and the White House Historical Association. He is co-chairman of the Commission on Presidential Debates.

He once responded to the Taco Liberty Bell incident by saying that the federal government was also "selling the Lincoln Memorial to Ford Motor Co. and renaming it the Lincoln-Mercury Memorial". He was well respected by the press corps during his tenure, but his honesty and competency were not always appreciated by his colleagues. In 1998 he expressed doubts about Bill Clinton's fitness to remain in office.

Starting May 2005, McCurry was a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post; as of November 2008, however his most recent contribution was dated May 2006. In December 2008, McCurry wrote "How my party found God" for The Daily Beast. In the biographical blurb with the column, it was reported that he was a graduate student at Wesley Theological Seminary.

McCurry is a partner at the influential Washington, D.C.-based government relations firm Public Strategies Washington, Inc. In 2006, in his position as co-chairman of Hands Off the Internet, he lobbied against Internet regulations in the controversial network neutrality debate.

On April 15, 2009, it was announced that McCurry and George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer would both work as temporary media aides to Conservative Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper. The two aides were enlisted by the PMO to elevate Harper's and Canada's profiles with American news outlets.

In a later round of the network neutrality fight, in 2011, McCurry came out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/Protect IP Act, representing them as a way to combat online theft. In an opinion piece in Politico on the subject, which drew a favorable comment from the MPAA, McCurry said the new proposals addressed concerns of past critics.

On June 15, 2011, McCurry and Arts + Labs co-chair Mark McKinnon sponsored the "CREATE -- A Forum on Creativity, Commerce, Copyright, Counterfeiting and Policy" conference with members of Congress, artists and information-business executives.

title: Mike McCurry (press secretary)


text: Talk:William Powell

title: Talk:William Powell


text:
Dee Dee Myers

Margaret Jane "Dee Dee" Myers (born September 1, 1961) is an American political analyst who served as the 19th White House Press Secretary during the first two years of the Clinton administration. She was the first woman and the second-youngest person to hold that position. Myers later co-hosted the news program Equal Time on CNBC, and was a consultant on The West Wing. She was the inspiration for fictional White House Press Secretary C. J. Cregg. She is also the author of the 2008 New York Times best-selling book, Why Women Should Rule the World. In 2020, she joined the Gavin Newsom administration as Senior Advisor to the Governor and Director of the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development.

Personal life
Margaret Jane Myers was born in 1961 at Quonset Point in North Kingstown, Rhode Island, to Stephen and Judy Myers. Her nickname, "Dee Dee", originated when her sister could not pronounce "baby".

Myers spent most of her formative years in Valencia, Santa Clarita, California. Her father was a Navy aviator who completed two tours of duty in the Vietnam War, and her mother worked as a real estate agent.

Myers is a graduate of William S. Hart High School and Santa Clara University (1983).

Myers met her husband, Todd Purdum, the national editor for Vanity Fair, former White House correspondent, and Los Angeles bureau chief for The New York Times, during the 1992 presidential campaign. The couple, who married in 1997, have two children, Kate and Stephen, and live in Los Angeles, California.

Political career
Myers' career in political communications began shortly after graduating from college, taking a full-time role on the 1984 presidential campaign of Walter Mondale. She later served as a field representative for California State Senator Art Torres, and as assistant press secretary in the office of Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley and on his 1986 campaign for California governor. She was also a spokesperson for Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential bid and Dianne Feinstein's 1990 California gubernatorial campaign, and served as campaign manager for Frank Jordan's 1991 run for San Francisco mayor.

Clinton years
Myers joined Bill Clinton's presidential campaign team in 1991 and, following the 1992 presidential election, was named Clinton's first White House Press Secretary, a role she held from January 20, 1993, to December 22, 1994. She was the first woman to serve in that position, as well as being the second-youngest overall, having taken the job at the age of 31. Myers is sometimes cited as the youngest-ever White House Press Secretary; however, Ron Ziegler, Richard Nixon's press secretary, was 29 when he assumed the role in January 1969.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Myers earned a reputation for her "humour and patience" in handling the White House press corps, often delivering "quick one-liners" while issuing daily press briefings. Until September 1994, when she was given the title of Assistant to the President, she held the lesser title of "deputy assistant" and had a lower salary than previous White House Press Secretaries. She also lacked consistent access to Clinton's inner circle. This was frequently noted in news coverage about Myers throughout her term, and is addressed in her 2008 book, Why Women Should Rule The World.

Post-White House career
After the Clinton administration, she became a political analyst and commentator, appearing on television and speaking at events on politics and the media.

Television and popular culture
In May 1995, Myers became the co-host of political talk show Equal Time on CNBC. She initially hosted the show opposite Mary Matalin, and later opposite Bay Buchanan. In 1997, she was the winning contestant on an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy!, beating Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. Myers has also appeared as a guest on other television programs, including The Today Show, Charlie Rose, and ABC's Nightline. She also appeared as herself in the 1997 Robert Zemeckis film, Contact.

Writer Aaron Sorkin recruited Myers to serve as a consultant and script advisor on the Emmy Award-winning TV series The West Wing, beginning in 1999. The character of C. J. Cregg (played by Allison Janney), the White House Press Secretary on the series, was partially inspired by Myers. News articles have also reported that she may have served as the basis for the character of Daisy Green in the novel and film Primary Colors, played by Maura Tierney.

Commentator
Myers has contributed to Vanity Fair since July 1995, originally as a Washington editor, and since 1997 as a contributing editor. She is the author of the 2008 New York Times best-selling book Why Women Should Rule The World, about women taking on positions of leadership and her own experiences in the White House. Her writings have also appeared in a number of other publications, including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Time, The Washington Post, O: the Oprah Magazine, Politico, and The Huffington Post. Since leaving the White House, Myers has also been invited to speak at numerous events, usually on the topics of women's issues, the media and politics. In 2011, she became a brand ambassador for Jones New York's Empower your Confidence campaign, and appeared as a model in advertisements for the brand.

Public affairs consulting
Myers joined The Glover Park Group in September 2010, as a managing director of public affairs. Her role at the firm involves consulting with clients on communications strategy, marketing and reputation management. In January 2013 she was the spokeswoman for Paula Broadwell during the Petraeus scandal.

Corporate communications
In September 2014, Myers became the head of corporate communications at Warner Bros. She departed from this position in February 2020.

title: Dee Dee Myers