text:
R. Budd Dwyer

Robert Budd Dwyer (November 21, 1939 – January 22, 1987) was an American politician. He served from 1965 to 1971 as a Republican member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and from 1971 to 1981 as a member of the Pennsylvania State Senate representing the state's 50th district. Dwyer then served as the 70th state treasurer of Pennsylvania from January 20, 1981, until January 22, 1987, when he killed himself during a live press conference.

During the early 1980s, Pennsylvania discovered that its state workers had overpaid federal taxes due to errors in state withholding before Dwyer's administration. A multimillion-dollar recovery contract was required to determine the compensation to be given to each employee. In 1986, Dwyer was convicted of accepting a bribe from Computer Technology Associates, a California-based company, to award them the contract. He was found guilty on 11 counts of conspiracy, mail fraud, perjury, and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, and was scheduled to be sentenced on January 23, 1987. On January 22, Dwyer arranged a news conference in the Pennsylvania State Capitol Building in Harrisburg, during which he fatally shot himself with a .357 Magnum revolver in the presence of reporters. Dwyer's suicide was live broadcast to many television viewers in Pennsylvania.

All posthumous appeals made by Dwyer's lawyers on Dwyer's behalf were denied, and his convictions were sustained. Along with Barbara Hafer and Rob McCord, Dwyer is one of three former Pennsylvania State treasurers to be convicted of corruption since the 1980s.

Early life and education
Dwyer was born on November 21, 1939, in St. Charles, Missouri. He graduated in 1961 with an A.B. in Political Science and Accounting from Allegheny College in Meadville, Pennsylvania, where he was a member of the Beta Chi chapter of Theta Chi Fraternity. After earning a master's degree in education in 1963, he taught social studies and coached football at Cambridge Springs High School.

Pennsylvania Assembly
A Republican, Dwyer became active in politics. He was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives from the 6th district (although seats were apportioned by county before 1969) in 1964 and was reelected in 1966 and 1968. In 1970, while still a State Representative, Dwyer campaigned to become a Pennsylvania State Senator for the Senate's 50th district, and won. Soon after his victory he resigned as Representative and was sworn in as Senator in January 1971.

Pennsylvania Treasurer
After being elected two additional terms in 1974 and 1978, Dwyer decided to try for a statewide office and in 1980 campaigned for and won the office of Pennsylvania Treasurer that had been held by Robert E. Casey (not to be confused with Governor of Pennsylvania Robert P. Casey) since 1976. He campaigned for a second and last term in 1984 and won reelection, defeating Democratic nominee and former auditor general Al Benedict.

According to Dwyer, his Treasury administration "…transformed the Department from a financial antique into one of the most modern in the nation, earning and saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year..."

Bribery investigation and conviction
From 1979 to 1981, before Dwyer was state treasurer, public employees of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania overpaid millions of dollars in Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes (FICA). As a result, the state required an accounting company to determine refunds for its employees. Dwyer awarded the no-bid $4.6 million contract to Computer Technology Associates (CTA), a California-based company, owned by John Torquato Jr., a native of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on May 10, 1984.

During early 1984, Dennis Schatzman, deputy comptroller of Pittsburgh Public Schools, noticed financial discrepancies in the CTA contract, and wrote to Pittsburgh school officials regarding these. Schatzman later contacted officials of the accounting company Arthur Young and Associates, who confirmed that the no-bid CTA contract was overpriced by millions of dollars. In June 1984 the Office of the Pennsylvania Auditor General informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the alleged bribery that occurred during the awarding of the contract. During late July 1984, Janice R. Kincaid, a former CTA employee, released a sworn statement claiming that Dwyer awarded the contract to CTA because he was promised a $300,000 kickback by the company. Kincaid also indicated that Torquato directed women who worked for CTA to give sexual favors to potential clients.

Dwyer's awarding of the CTA contract was investigated by federal prosecutors. Upon learning of this investigation, Dwyer rescinded the contract with CTA on July 11, 1984. Subsequently, Dwyer repeatedly attempted to stop, divert and forestall the investigation, stating that the U.S. attorney had neither the authority nor evidence to pursue prosecution. Dwyer later admitted to telling his staff to withhold request for proposal (RFP) information from the U.S. attorney and the FBI during the investigation. After being indicted by a federal grand jury, Dwyer was finally charged with agreeing to receive a kickback of $300,000 in return for awarding CTA the contract.

Dwyer stated that he offered to take a polygraph test but only on the condition that if he passed it, he would not be indicted. The state rejected Dwyer's offer. Prior to Dwyer's indictment, on October 22, 1984, a grand jury indicted Torquato, Torquato's attorney William T. Smith, Judy Smith, Alan R. Stoneman, and David Herbert. At Smith's 1985 trial, Smith, who was a friend of Dwyer's, testified that he did not bribe Dwyer, and instead that Torquato offered Dwyer a campaign contribution in return for the CTA contract, yet Dwyer rejected Torquato's offer. In contrast, Torquato testified that Smith offered Dwyer a $300,000 bribe in return for the CTA contract. Dwyer, acting as a defense witness for Smith at Smith's trial, denied that he was offered any contribution at all. In August 1984, Smith failed a polygraph test when he stated that he did not bribe Dwyer or any state official. However, prior to Smith's trial, on October 27, 1984 (four days after Smith's indictment), Smith confessed to offering Dwyer a bribe, and stated that Dwyer accepted this offer.

"I met with Dwyer in his office and at the insistence of Torquato offered to give him $300,000 if he signed a contract with CTA LTD. Dwyer talked about $100,000 to him personally—$100,000 to his campaign committee—$100,000 to Republican State Committee. [Dwyer] was going to see Robert Asher in Montgomery County that weekend to talk to him about how this should be done."

However, Bob Asher, the then Pennsylvania Republican Party Chairman, objected to this, and requested that the $300,000 be directed entirely to the Republican State Committee, since Asher "did not want Dwyer to go to jail".

"Asher indicated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Dwyer, and he knew that I had made an offer to him of a $300,000 contribution, and then he was very angry when he began to talk about that, angry with me. Said he thought I knew better than to offer a contribution to Mr. Dwyer, and he said if there was going to be a contribution, it was going to go to Republican State Committee."

Dwyer, along with Asher, were indicted by a federal grand jury on May 13, 1986. In the hopes of reducing his twelve-year sentence resulting from his 1985 conviction, Smith testified on behalf of the federal government against Dwyer and Asher at their 1986 trial. Ultimately, Smith did not receive any reduction of his sentence for testifying against Dwyer (although his wife, Judy Smith, was granted immunity from prosecution). Before testifying against Dwyer, Smith passed a polygraph test.

It was revealed at Dwyer's trial that he sought and won approval for special legislation—Act 38 of 1984 (House Bill 1397)—that authorized him to recover the FICA overpayments, and that coded computer tape seized from CTA's office on July 6, 1984, showed that Dwyer was to receive a $300,000 pay-off for awarding CTA the contract. Moreover, Smith and Torquato's claims about Dwyer being bribed were corroborated by four independent and impartial witnesses, and Smith's testimony against Dwyer was virtually identical to written statements Smith made long before entering into a plea agreement. Additionally, FBI agents testified that Dwyer attempted to conceal his involvement with the scheme when, after learning of the FBI investigation, he erased the entry in his appointment book of the March 2, 1984, meeting with Torquato and Smith in which he was first offered a bribe.

Dwyer maintained that he awarded CTA the contract on the basis of his treasury task force recommendation, yet this conflicted with the fact that Dwyer personally managed all matters relating to the contract six days prior to awarding it to CTA. Furthermore, his task force's contribution merely consisted in the making of a single telephone call to David I. Herbert (the former State Director for Social Security, who controlled FICA recovery for Pennsylvania's public employees, and who was convicted subsequently for conspiring with CTA).

Dwyer awarded the contract to CTA -- an obscure California-based company with three employees, little equipment, and little experience -- despite being informed in April 1984 by the major Pennsylvania-based accounting company Arthur Young and Associates, which had 250 employees and submitted a proposal on April 13, 1984, at least fourteen days prior to CTA's proposal, that they could perform the FICA recovery as fast as CTA for half the cost.

Trial
Charles Collins, Arthur Young's former management consulting director in Pittsburgh, testified at Dwyer's trial that Arthur Young and Associates, who, unlike CTA, had experience in identical tax recovery work, was prepared to negotiate the FICA recovery contract (that was half the cost of the CTA contract) and that Dwyer was clearly aware of Arthur Young's offer before committing the contract to CTA. Additionally, sixteen other competitors were willing to be considered for the FICA recovery contract and many had communicated with Treasurer Dwyer's office to request an opportunity to bid on the contract, yet Dwyer did not respond. Dwyer repeatedly stated that he awarded the contract to CTA as a result of his task force's recommendation on the basis of CTA's providing "immediate credit", yet the contract between CTA and Dwyer contained no information regarding CTA's ability to provide such credit. Moreover, Dwyer admitted that he did not mention the concept of "immediate credit" to Arthur Young and Associates when officials from the company asked why CTA was chosen instead of them. In contradiction to Dwyer's statements about awarding CTA the contract on the basis of their providing "immediate credit", Arthur Young and Associates were told that CTA got the contract since they first recognized that the overpayments could be recovered, and that they endorsed legislation that gave Dwyer the sole power to award said contract.

Dwyer denied any wrongdoing, stating that after the CTA contract was signed, Smith merely made a "generic" offer to help him with his campaign. Dwyer's lawyer spoke to the prosecutor, acting U.S. Attorney James West, asking him if he would dismiss all charges against Dwyer if Dwyer resigned as state treasurer. West refused the offer. He instead offered to let Dwyer plead guilty to a single charge of bribe receiving, which would have meant a maximum of five years' imprisonment, as long as he resigned from his office as Treasurer of Pennsylvania and cooperated completely with the government's investigation, but Dwyer refused and went to trial. At his trial, Dwyer did not testify, and his lawyer, Paul Killion, presented no defense witnesses since he thought that the government did not sufficiently prove its case. It is possible that Dwyer did not testify in his own defense since he did not want to be questioned regarding his involvement in a 1980 conspiracy involving his wife's business "Poli-Ed," and two Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) employees. One of these employees was Dwyer's close friend and campaign manager Fred Mckillop, who was subsequently dismissed by the PSEA for his involvement with the scheme, and who later featured in a 2010 documentary about Dwyer. In this conspiracy, which was investigated by the office of the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Dwyer allegedly siphoned money from his campaign into his personal funds.

On December 18, 1986, Dwyer was found guilty on 11 counts of conspiracy, mail fraud, perjury and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering, and was consequently liable to a sentence of as much as 55 years imprisonment and a $300,000 fine. His sentencing was scheduled for January 23, 1987, to be performed by U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Muir. One mail-fraud charge against Dwyer was dismissed by Judge Muir. One juror, Carolyn Edwards of Williamsport, found it emotionally difficult to convict Dwyer (and Asher) since they were men of "very high integrity ... they just made a mistake", while Dwyer made a statement after the verdict saying "This is a sad and shocking day for me, totally unbelievable, I'm totally innocent of all of these charges and I don't know how this could have happened". Bob Asher, Dwyer's co-defendant, was sentenced to one year in jail. He later resumed politics and served as a Republican national committeeman for Pennsylvania.

Accounting company Levin-Horwath ultimately fulfilled the contract for $1,300,000, with slightly more than a third of the fee possibly being subject to rebate. If CTA were to have performed the recovery work, Pennsylvania would have lost $6,000,000.

Pennsylvania law stated that Dwyer could not officially be dismissed from office until his sentencing in January. Given this, Dwyer stated that until his legal appeal was resolved, he would continue as treasurer with a leave of absence without pay and would not resign before having the opportunity to appeal his conviction. In the interim, the treasury department would be managed by Deputy Treasurer Donald L. Johnson.

Dwyer continued to profess his innocence after being convicted, and on December 23 wrote a letter to President Ronald Reagan seeking a presidential pardon, and to Senator Arlen Specter seeking assistance with this effort.

The week of Dwyer's sentencing, Pennsylvania State Attorney General LeRoy Zimmerman and state prosecutors were investigating a provision of the Pennsylvania state constitution such that dismissal of a civil worker from office who has been convicted of a crime is "self-executing", thus, automatic upon that person's sentencing. A decision confirming this constitutional provision was expected on January 22, the day before Dwyer's sentencing hearing.

Public suicide
In a meeting in his home on January 15, 1987, Dwyer discussed the idea of a press conference with his press secretary James "Duke" Horshock and Deputy Treasurer Don Johnson. At the meeting, both Horshock and Johnson cautioned Dwyer not to use the conference to attack the governor or other individuals involved with his criminal conviction, and both suggested to Dwyer that he should have the conference at a location other than his office. Dwyer angrily rejected their suggestion, but nevertheless assured both men that he would not attack anybody involved with his conviction. He said that he would not announce his resignation at the conference, but rather thank his staff and friends. Both men left assuming Dwyer would ultimately resign at the conference, although Horshock had fears that Dwyer would violate his promise.

The next day, Dwyer visited his lawyer, Paul Killion, who told Dwyer to express repentance for his crimes. Dwyer responded by agreeing to change his "version of events", which was to be presented to Judge Muir at Dwyer's pre-sentencing conference scheduled for the afternoon of January 22. Dwyer later saw Killion again, gave him an updated "version of events", and stated that he would announce his resignation at the press conference, yet did not want Killion to attend the conference.

Dwyer wrote a letter to then-Senator Joe Biden and Congressman Peter W. Rodino, who were at the time the chairs of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Committee respectively, on January 20, asking them to conduct an investigation into the CTA affair, to reform the justice system in the United States, and if this was not done, to completely remove the word "justice" from everything related to the DOJ.

Dwyer finally reached U.S. Senator Arlen Specter by telephone on January 21, two days before his sentencing. A Specter aide stated that the two of them talked for eight to ten minutes. He then wrote personally to President Ronald Reagan asking for a presidential pardon. In his letter, Dwyer once again professed his innocence and stated that the concept of immediate credit was not understood by the uneducated, unsophisticated "rural" jury at his trial. The senator responded that this request to President Reagan was "not realistic" because the judicial process, including appeals, had not yet finished.

On the same day, Dwyer asked his press secretary Horshock and deputy press secretary Gregory Penny to schedule a news conference for the next day without telling them what he was to discuss. Horshock arranged the press conference for 10:30 a.m. EST the next day, January 22. The press secretary summoned dozens of reporters asking them to attend, and told them he did not know its subject.

Dwyer wanted to ban certain reporters from the press conference who he believed wrote biased accounts about him and even suggested that a guard should be in attendance to prevent entry to those who were not on his authorized list. Horshock, who was unconvinced about Dwyer's claims that he was being conspired against, objected, stating to Dwyer that he could not "use state government facilities to manipulate the free flow of information".

Before the press conference, acting U.S. Attorney West, who had secured the conviction against Dwyer, remarked that a resignation "sounds like the appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. It seems like it would save everybody a lot of time and aggravation." Similarly, Harrisburg Patriot-News reporter Kenn Marshall described the consensus among reporters: they would be attending to see Dwyer announce his resignation from his office. "My mission was to stay there until he said those words, then call in a new top for our story."

The night before the press conference, Dwyer wrote the following note:

"I enjoy being with Jo so much, the next 20 years or so would have been wonderful. Tomorrow is going to be so difficult and I hope I can go through with it."

Dwyer's press statement
The next morning, Dwyer went to his press conference as planned. Standing behind a large wood table that separated him from nine television cameras, four wire service photographers and about 20 television, radio and newspaper reporters, he began reading from a 21-page prepared text, while aides handed a 20-page version to the media. The final page was expected to be his announcement that he would resign from office.

Appearing nervous and agitated, Dwyer again professed his innocence and accused acting U.S. Attorney James West, FBI agents, U.S. District Court Judge Malcolm Muir, the media and others for abusing the justice system and ruining him. Dwyer stated that Attorney West purposely held Dwyer's trial not in Harrisburg but in Williamsport, due to it being located in Lycoming County, one of the most uneducated counties in Pennsylvania. Dwyer spoke out against the death penalty and expressed regret for voting in favor of it while he was in the Pennsylvania assembly. This speech lasted nearly 30 minutes, and approximately halfway through it, some of the gathered press began to pack and leave. Dwyer spotted this and interrupted himself to say, "Those of you who are putting your cameras away, I think you ought to stay because we're not, we're not finished yet."

Given the sensitive nature of portions of Dwyer's text, press secretary Horshock had considered interrupting him outright to stop him but concluded that he would hold his own press conference after Dwyer's. "I had to make it known that I was not aware of the content of the statement. I didn't want it to be thought that I wrote that for him."

Upon reaching the final page of his statement, which had not been distributed to the press nor press secretary Horshock in advance, Dwyer paused. "... and I'm on the last page now, and I don't have enough to pass out, but Duke [Horshock], I'll leave this here, and you can make copies for the people; there's a few extra copies here right now." Dwyer continued,

"I thank the good Lord for giving me 47 years of exciting challenges, stimulating experiences, many happy occasions and most of all the finest wife and children any man could ever desire.

Now my life has changed for no apparent reason. People who call and write are exasperated and feel helpless. They know I am innocent and want to help, but in this nation, the worlds [sic] greatest democracy, there is nothing they can do to prevent me from being punished for a crime they know I did not commit. Some who have called have said that I am a modern day Job.

Judge Muir is also noted for his medieval sentences. I face a maximum sentence of 55 years in prison and a $300,000 fine for being innocent. Judge Muir has already told the press that he felt 'invigorated' when we were found guilty and that he plans to imprison me as a 'deterrant' to other public officials. But it wouldn't be a deterrant [sic] because every public official who knows me knows that I am innocent. It wouldn't be legitimate punishment because I've done nothing wrong. Since I'm a victim of political persecution, my prison would simply be an American Gulag.

I ask those that believe in me to continue to extend friendship and prayer to my family, to work untiringly for the creation of a true justice system here in the United States, and to press on with the efforts to vindicate me, so that my family and their future families are not tainted by this injustice that has been perpetrated on me.

We were confident that right and truth would prevail and I would be acquitted and we would devote the rest of our lives working to create a justice system here in the United States. The guilty verdict has strengthened that resolve. But as we've discussed our plans to expose the warts of our legal system[,] people have said, 'Why bother? No one cares, you'll look foolish, 60 Minutes, 20/20, the American Civil Liberties Union, Jack Anderson, and others have been publicizing cases like yours for years and it doesn't bother anyone.'"

At this time, Dwyer stopped reading from his prepared remarks, with the gathered press still waiting on his expected resignation. There was still a significant portion of the prepared text remaining, which detailed what he was actually planning to do, and it read as follows (he did not read these comments to the crowd):

"I've repeatedly said that I'm not going to resign as State Treasurer. After many hours of thought and meditation I've made a decision that should not be an example to anyone because it is unique to my situation. Last May I told you that after the trial, I would give you the story of the decade. To those of you who are shallow, the events of this morning will be that story. But to those of you with depth and concern the real story will be what I hope and pray results from this morning—in the coming months and years[,] the development of a true justice system here in the United States. I am going to die in office in an effort to ' ... see if the shame[-ful] facts, spread out in all their shame, will not burn through our civic shamelessness and set fire to American pride.' Please tell my story on every radio and television station and in every newspaper and magazine in the U.S. Please leave immediately if you have a weak stomach or mind since I don't want to cause physical or mental distress. Joanne, Rob, DeeDee – I love you! Thank you for making my life so happy. Good bye to you all on the count of 3. Please make sure that the sacrifice of my life is not in vain."

After deciding to break from his speech, Dwyer called to three of his staffers, giving each a sealed envelope with the insignia of the treasury department. The first envelope, given to Bob Holste, contained a letter addressed to then-Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey, who had assumed office just two days earlier. The second, given to deputy press secretary Gregory Penny, contained an organ donor card and other related materials. The last, given to Deputy Treasurer Don Johnson, contained materials intended for Dwyer's family, including three letters: one for his wife Joanne, and one for each of his children, Rob and DeeDee (Dyan), and suggested funeral arrangements.

Freelance photographer Gary Miller, one of the reporters in attendance, described the scene at this time, stating: "It was just kind of a long-winded, sad event."

Suicide
After he had finished speaking and handing out the notes to his staffers, Dwyer brought out a manila envelope with a Model 19 .357 Magnum revolver in it.

Reporters David Morris of the Associated Press, Thom Cole of UPI and Gary Warner of afternoon newspaper The Pittsburgh Press were at the rear of the room, waiting for Dwyer to say he had resigned, so they could run down the hall to telephones to tell their editors they could publish pre-written stories and add Dwyer's direct quote. When Dwyer produced the revolver, the three ran into the hallway and shouted to a state police kiosk in the center of the long hallway that the treasurer had a gun.

Inside the room, people gasped, and Dwyer backed up against the wall, holding the weapon close to his body. Dwyer calmly said, "Please, please leave the room if this will... if this will affect you."

Among those who stayed, some pleaded with Dwyer to surrender the gun while others tried to approach him and seize the weapon. Dwyer warned against either action, exclaiming his last words, "Don't, don't, don't, this will hurt someone!"

Dwyer then put the muzzle of the gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger, firing a shot through the roof of his mouth and into his brain. He collapsed on the floor, dead. Blood ran out profusely through the back of his head and through his nose.

Nine news cameras recorded the events. One of the cameras remained focused on Dwyer and captured close-up footage of the aftermath of the shooting; as his body slumped, blood streamed from the exit wound in the back of his head as well as from his nostrils and mouth. He died instantly from the gunshot shortly before 11:00 a.m. EST but was not pronounced dead until 11:31 a.m. An aide later stated that Dwyer's corneas were made available for transplant per his organ donation wishes, but that no other organs were usable by the time his body reached a hospital. Dwyer was interred at Blooming Valley Cemetery in Saegertown on January 26.

Graphic footage and television media
While the live footage was only shown on one station, many television stations throughout Pennsylvania broadcast taped footage of Dwyer's suicide to a midday audience. Philadelphia station WPVI (Channel6) showed Dwyer pulling the trigger and falling backwards, but did not show the bullet path. During the next several hours, news editors had to decide how much of the graphic footage they wanted to broadcast. Many chose not to broadcast the final moments of the suicide and WPVI also chose not to show the gunshot a second time.

Many stations, including WCAU and Pennsylvania's Group W stations KYW and KDKA-TV, stopped the action just before the gunshot. However, the latter two allowed the audio of the shooting to continue with the stopped image. GroupW's news cameraman William L. Martin and reporter David Sollenberger had a camera set up at the conference. They chose to broadcast the audio with a freeze-frame of the gun in Dwyer's mouth. Only a handful broadcast the unedited press conference. WPVI in Philadelphia rebroadcast the suicide footage in full on their 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Action News broadcast without warning the viewers. That station's broadcast is a source for copies available on the Internet. WPXI in Pittsburgh is reported by the Associated Press to have broadcast the footage uncensored on an early newscast. In explaining the decision to broadcast, WPXI operations manager By Williams said, "It's an important event [about] an important man". Williams avoided broadcasting the footage in the evening newscasts, explaining, "Everyone knows by then that [Dwyer] did it. There are children out of school." However, in central Pennsylvania, many children were home from school during the day of Dwyer's suicide due to a snowstorm.

The moment of Dwyer's suicide did not appear on any national newscast. NBC Nightly News and CNN's coverage only showed Dwyer holding the gun and stopped before he placed it in his mouth, and CBS Evening News and ABC World News Tonight did not include any footage from the press conference in their reports.

Some older students joked about the event. A study of the incidence of the jokes showed that they were told only in areas where stations showed uncensored footage of the press conference. At least one reporter present at Dwyer's suicide suffered from being a witness: radio reporter Tony Romeo, who was standing a few feet from Dwyer, developed depression after the suicide and took a break from journalism.

Dwyer's mistrust of outgoing Republican Governor Dick Thornburgh was expressed in detail in his press conference statement. The timing of Dwyer's press conference and suicide meant that Thornburgh was not empowered to appoint a Treasurer to replace him. Instead, this became the responsibility of Thornburgh's successor, Democrat Bob Casey, who had assumed office on January 20.

The letter Dwyer sent Casey stated, "By the time you receive this letter ... the office of State Treasurer of Pennsylvania will be vacant. I stress to you that I did not resign but was State Treasurer of Pennsylvania to the end." It also stated that Casey "will be the great Governor that Pennsylvania needs at this time in our history". He suggested his wife Joanne as his successor, describing her as "very talented, personable, organized and hard-working."

Governor Casey did not accept Dwyer's suggestion. Regardless of the events of January 22, the governor and legislature of Pennsylvania already expected Dwyer to either resign or be dismissed from office. As such, a deal had already been brokered wherein the next treasurer, a Democrat, would serve the remnant of Dwyer's term and resign at its end. This was G. Davis Greene Jr., who was appointed as the 71st Treasurer of Pennsylvania on January 23, 1987, the day after Dwyer's suicide.

In 2010, former U.S. attorney James West, who prosecuted Dwyer, affirmed Dwyer's guilt, stating that "the evidence against Dwyer was overwhelming and indisputable".

In his final press statement, Dwyer alleged that Governor Thornburgh along with prosecutor James West, engaged in a political vendetta against him, and that FBI agents had acted improperly in their investigation. After Dwyer's public suicide, the National Association of State Treasurers requested that Dwyer's allegations be reviewed by the Department of Justice. After a thorough investigation, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility exonerated attorney James West and everyone else involved in Dwyer's investigation and prosecution of any wrongdoing. The FBI also investigated Dwyer's claims regarding impropriety on behalf of FBI personnel. They ultimately found Dwyer's claims to be "lacking in substance and specificity" and warranting no further action. R.B. Swift, former Capitol reporter, noted that Dwyer's allegations were extensively investigated by journalists from both The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Associated Press, but no evidence was found to substantiate them.

Dwyer claimed that Governor Thornburgh sought revenge against him, since Dwyer had angered Thornburgh when he refused publicly to approve expense vouchers for Thornburgh's wife for a European visit, and, additionally, when he criticized Thornburgh's use of state police to chauffeur his son to school. In response, Thornburgh pointed out that prior to their European visit, the Thornburgh family had issued a press release specifically stating that Ginny Thornburgh would pay her own expenses. Upon their return to Pennsylvania, Mrs. Thornburgh "repeatedly requested" the Thornburgh staff to "advise her of the amount" to be reimbursed; however, Dwyer leaked this matter to The Philadelphia Inquirer in an attempt to "enhance his own image by embarrassing" Thornburgh and his family. Regarding the use of the state police, Thornburgh stated that "the security detail provided its services to all members of our household as the officers deemed necessary for our protection. We neither asked for nor questioned these services, which were no different than those provided to our predecessors." Thornburgh spokesman David Runkel dismissed Dwyer's allegations as being "paranoic", as did John Taylor, the former spokesman for Governor Bob Casey. Pennsylvanian journalist and author Brad Bumsted suggested that Dwyer's allegations against Thornburgh may have been an attempt to divert attention from his own criminal activity with CTA. Bumsted also stated that, in Dwyer's final press statement, Dwyer "offered no real evidence" that there was any conspiracy against him.

Dwyer's deputy press secretary Gregory Penny, who was handed an envelope by Dwyer at Dwyer's final press conference, stated that he was convinced that Dwyer, whom he had once defended, had been guilty all along:

"Some of the individuals Budd associated with and surrounded himself; the reluctance to provide information to his press office when we tried to respond to reporters' questions during that time; the pleading of the 5th Amendment during Budd's trial by his top aide [Mark Phenicie ]; Budd's decision not to take the stand in his own defense during the trial; and Budd's decision to take his life rather than go to prison and continue fighting to prove his innocence — these are the things I thought about and that brought me to conclude that Budd was not innocent."

Death benefits
Since Dwyer died in office, his widow Joanne was able to collect full survivor benefits totaling more than US$1.28 million (equivalent to about $M in ), which at the time was the largest death benefit payment ever made by the Pennsylvania Municipal Retirement System. If Dwyer had been sentenced, state law would have prohibited the payment of his state-provided pension benefits. A spokesman for Dwyer suggested that he may have killed himself to preserve the pension benefits for his family, whose finances had been ruined by legal defense costs. Other statements made by some friends and family also suggest that this was Dwyer's motivation.

At a panel discussion for the documentary Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer, Dwyer's sister Mary Kun stated that Dwyer had made the decision to kill himself prior to knowing he would lose his pension and thus his motivation for his suicide was not to provide financial assurance for his family, but rather to "sacrifice himself to help the system."

Appeals
On January 27, 1987, Dwyer's lawyers filed an appeal in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking the dismissal of all post-trial motions that were then pending against Dwyer, abatement of Dwyer's conviction and the dismissal of his May 13, 1986, indictment. On March 5, 1987, the district court denied all motions, stating that "there were no grounds whatsoever upon which Mr. Dwyer could hope to succeed upon appeal" and ordered to "close this file as to R. Budd Dwyer". Dwyer's lawyers appealed this decision, and The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit subsequently vacated the judgment. On remand, the district court was instructed to dismiss Dwyer's motions (since the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction), and Dwyer's convictions for mail fraud and conspiracy were sustained. Six years after Dwyer's death, efforts were made to exonerate Dwyer when a retrial request was filed in U.S. District Court in July 1993. This request was denied in October of the same year.

Music

 * Cabaret Voltaire's 1987 song "Don't Argue" from the album Code samples audio of Dwyer's suicide at the end of the track.
 * The 1988 Rapeman EP Budd is named after Dwyer, and its first track, which shares the EP's name, contains lyrics referencing his suicide.
 * Faith No More's 1992 Angel Dust B-side "The World Is Yours" samples audio of Dwyer's suicide and features lyrics referencing Dwyer's final words ("This will hurt someone").
 * German metal band Kreator used audio samples from the suicide of Dwyer in their song "Karmic Wheel" on their 1992 album Renewal.
 * Marilyn Manson's debut single "Get Your Gunn" (1994) samples audio of Dwyer's suicide.
 * The 1994 reissue of Neurosis's album Pain of Mind shows Dwyer on its cover moments before shooting himself.
 * Industrial metal band Dead World sampled the audio of Dwyer's suicide for their 1994 song and EP "This Will Hurt Someone".
 * Some bootlegs of the Broken short movie by Nine Inch Nails featured footage of Dwyer's suicide.
 * The 1995 song "Hey Man Nice Shot" by rock band Filter is about Dwyer's suicide.
 * Grindcore band Brutal Truth sampled Dwyer’s suicide during their song “K.A.P.” on their 1997 album Sounds of the Animal Kingdom
 * The 1999 album Volume 1 by Pennsylvania rock band CKY initially featured an artistic depiction of Dwyer's death by suicide. When the band later signed with Volcom, the album art was changed as the label found the graphic to be too offensive.
 * In 2003, the band Ion Dissonance featured a song called "The Bud Dwyer Effect" on their album Breathing Is Irrelevant.
 * In 2004, the rapper Necro sampled the audio of Dwyer's suicide in his song "You Did It", on his third studio album, The Pre-Fix for Death.
 * On their 2013 album Hellbound, deathcore band Fit for an Autopsy paid homage to Dwyer in their song "Thank You, Budd Dwyer". The band stated that the song was in response to the injustices in the legal system and maintained that Dwyer was a victim of wrongful accusations.
 * Suicideboys member $crim often uses the alias Budd Dwyer when producing. Also Suicideboys' 2014 EP, Kill Yourself Part III: The Budd Dwyer Saga, features a still frame of Dwyer excerpted from the moments before his suicide for the cover art.
 * Emergency Broadcast Network used footage of Dwyer's suicide in the video for the 1992 track "Get Down, Get Down".
 * Dwyer is mentioned in the track "Orange Juice Jones" on the JPEGMafia and Danny Brown collaboration album Scaring the Hoes.

Movies and television

 * The 1993 documentary movie Traces of Death made by Brain Damage Films includes full footage of Dwyer's suicide at the last segment of the movie.
 * The 2002 documentary movie Bowling for Columbine includes footage of Dwyer's suicide as part of a montage of gun-related video clips.
 * The 2006 movie Loren Cass shows footage of Dwyer's suicide.
 * The 2010 documentary Honest Man: The Life of R. Budd Dwyer by director James Dirschberger detailed the events of the CTA scandal that resulted in Dwyer's suicide.

title: R. Budd Dwyer


text:
De rerum natura

De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) is a first-century BC didactic poem by the Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius (c. 99 BC) with the goal of explaining Epicurean philosophy to a Roman audience. The poem, written in some 7,400 dactylic hexameters, is divided into six untitled books, and explores Epicurean physics through poetic language and metaphors. Namely, Lucretius explores the principles of atomism; the nature of the mind and soul; explanations of sensation and thought; the development of the world and its phenomena; and explains a variety of celestial and terrestrial phenomena. The universe described in the poem operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna ("chance"), and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities.

Background

To the Greek philosopher Epicurus, the unhappiness and degradation of humans arose largely from the dread which they had of the power of the deities and terror of their wrath. This wrath was supposed to be displayed by the misfortunes inflicted in this life and by the everlasting tortures that were the lot of the guilty in a future state or, where these feelings were not strongly developed, from a vague dread of gloom and misery after death. Epicurus thus made it his mission to remove these fears and thus establish tranquility in the minds of his readers. To do this, Epicurus invoked the atomism of Democritus to demonstrate that the material universe was formed not by a Supreme Being but by the mixing of elemental particles which had existed from all eternity, governed by certain simple laws. He argued that the deities (whose existence he did not deny) lived forever in the enjoyment of absolute peace—strangers to all the passions, desires and fears, which affect humans—and are totally indifferent to the world and its inhabitants, unmoved alike by their virtues and their crimes. This meant that humans had nothing to fear from them.

Lucretius's task was clearly to state and fully develop these views in an attractive form. His work was an attempt to show through poetry that everything in nature can be explained by natural laws, without the need for the intervention of divine beings. Lucretius identifies the supernatural with the notion that the deities created our world or interfere with its operations in some way. He argues against fear of such deities by demonstrating, through observations and arguments, that the operations of the world can be accounted for in terms of natural phenomena, which are the result of regular but purposeless motions and interactions of tiny atoms in empty space.

Synopsis
The poem consists of six untitled books, in dactylic hexameter. The first three books provide a fundamental account of being and nothingness, matter and space, the atoms and their movement, the infinity of the universe both as regards time and space, the regularity of reproduction (no prodigies, everything in its proper habitat), the nature of mind (animus, directing thought) and spirit (anima, sentience) as material bodily entities, and their mortality, since, according to Lucretius, they and their functions (consciousness, pain) end with the bodies that contain them and with which they are interwoven. The last three books give an atomic and materialist explanation of phenomena preoccupying human reflection, such as vision and the senses, sex and reproduction, natural forces and agriculture, the heavens, and disease.

Lucretius opens his poem by addressing Venus not only as the mother of Rome (Aeneadum genetrix) but also as the veritable mother of nature (Alma Venus), urging her to pacify her lover Mars and spare Rome from strife. By recalling the opening to poems by Homer, Ennius, and Hesiod (all of which begin with an invocation to the Muses), the proem to De rerum natura conforms to epic convention. The entire proem is also written in the format of a hymn, recalling other early literary works, texts, and hymns and in particular the Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite. The choice to address Venus may have been due to Empedocles's belief that Aphrodite represents "the great creative force in the cosmos". Given that Lucretius goes on to argue that the gods are removed from human life, many have thus seen this opening to be contradictory: how can Lucretius pray to Venus and then deny that the gods listen to or care about human affairs? In response, many scholars argue that the poet uses Venus poetically as a metonym. For instance, Diskin Clay sees Venus as a poetic substitute for sex, and Bonnie Catto sees the invocation of the name as a metonym for the "creative process of natura".

After the opening, the poem commences with an enunciation of the proposition on the nature and being of the deities, which leads to an invective against the evils of superstition. Lucretius then dedicates time to exploring the axiom that nothing can be produced from nothing, and that nothing can be reduced to nothing (Nil fieri ex nihilo, in nihilum nil posse reverti). Following this, the poet argues that the universe comprises an infinite number of Atoms, which are scattered about in an infinite and vast void (Inane). The shape of these atoms, their properties, their movements, the laws under which they enter into combination and assume forms and qualities appreciable by the senses, with other preliminary matters on their nature and affections, together with a refutation of objections and opposing hypotheses, occupy the first two books.

In the third book, the general concepts proposed thus far are applied to demonstrate that the vital and intellectual principles, the Anima and Animus, are as much a part of us as are our limbs and members, but like those limbs and members have no distinct and independent existence, and that hence soul and body live and perish together; the book concludes by arguing that the fear of death is a folly, as death merely extinguishes all feeling—both the good and the bad.

The fourth book is devoted to the theory of the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, of sleep and of dreams, ending with a disquisition upon love and sex.

The fifth book is described by Ramsay as the most finished and impressive, while Stahl argues that its "puerile conceptions" is proof that Lucretius should be judged as a poet, not as a scientist. This book addresses the origin of the world and of all things therein, the movements of the heavenly bodies, the changing of the seasons, day and night, the rise and progress of humankind, society, political institutions, and the invention of the various arts and sciences which embellish and ennoble life.

The sixth book contains an explanation of some of the most striking natural appearances, especially thunder, lightning, hail, rain, snow, ice, cold, heat, wind, earthquakes, volcanoes, springs and localities noxious to animal life, which leads to a discourse upon diseases. This introduces a detailed description of the great pestilence that devastated Athens during the Peloponnesian War. With this episode, the book closes; this abrupt ending suggests that Lucretius might have died before he was able to finalize and fully edit his poem.

Purpose
Lucretius wrote this epic poem to "Memmius", who may be Gaius Memmius, who in 58 BC was a praetor, a judicial official deciding controversies between citizens and the government. There are over a dozen references to "Memmius" scattered throughout the long poem in a variety of contexts in translation, such as "Memmius mine", "my Memmius", and "illustrious Memmius". According to Lucretius's frequent statements in his poem, the main purpose of the work was to free Gaius Memmius's mind of the supernatural and the fear of death—and to induct him into a state of ataraxia by expounding the philosophical system of Epicurus, whom Lucretius glorifies as the hero of his epic poem.

However, the purpose of the poem is subject to ongoing scholarly debate. Lucretius refers to Memmius by name four times in the first book, three times in the second, five in the fifth, and not at all in the third, fourth, or sixth books. In relation to this discrepancy in the frequency of Lucretius's reference to the apparent subject of his poem, Kannengiesse advances the theory that Lucretius wrote the first version of De rerum natura for the reader at large, and subsequently revised in order to write it for Memmius. However, Memmius' name is central to several critical verses in the poem, and this theory has therefore been largely discredited. The German classicists Ivo Bruns and Samuel Brandt set forth an alternative theory that Lucretius did at first write the poem with Memmius in mind, but that his enthusiasm for his patron cooled over time. Stearns suggests that this is because Memmius reneged on a promise to pay for a new school to be built on the site of the old Epicurean school. Memmius was also a tribune in 66, praetor in 58, governor of Bithynia in 57, and was a candidate for the consulship in 54 but was disqualified for bribery, and Stearns suggests that the warm relationship between patron and client may have cooled (sed tua me virtus tamen et sperata voluptas / suavis amicitiae quemvis efferre laborem, "But still your merit, and as I hope, the joy / Of our sweet friendship, urge me to any toil").

There is a certain irony to the poem, namely that while Lucretius extols the virtue of the Epicurean school of thought, Epicurus himself had advised his acolytes from penning poetry because he believed it to make that which was simple overly complicated. Near the end of his first book, Lucretius defends his fusion of Epicureanism and poetry with a simile, arguing that the philosophy he espouses is like a medicine: life-saving but often unpleasant. Poetry, on the other hand, is like honey, in that it is "a sweetener that sugarcoats the bitter medicine of Epicurean philosophy and entices the audience to swallow it." (Of note, Lucretius repeats these 25 lines, almost verbatim, in the introduction to the fourth book.)

Completeness
The state of the poem as it currently exists suggests that it was released in an unfinished state. For instance, the poem concludes rather abruptly while detailing the Plague of Athens, there are redundant passages throughout (e.g., 1.820–821 and 2.1015–1016) alongside other aesthetic "loose ends", and at 5.155 Lucretius mentions that he will spend a great deal of time discussing the nature of the gods, which never comes to pass. Some have suggested that Lucretius died before being able to edit, finalize, and publish his work.

Lack of divine intervention
After the poem was rediscovered and made its rounds across Europe and beyond, numerous thinkers began to see Lucretius's Epicureanism as a "threat synonymous with atheism." Some Christian apologists viewed De rerum natura as an atheist manifesto and a dangerous foil to be thwarted. However, at that time the label was extremely broad and did not necessarily mean a denial of divine entities (for example, some large Christian sects labelled dissenting groups as atheists). What is more, Lucretius does not deny the existence of deities; he simply argues that they did not create the universe, that they do not care about human affairs, and that they do not intervene in the world. Regardless, due to the ideas espoused in the poem, much of Lucretius's work was seen by many as a direct challenge to theistic, Christian belief. The historian Ada Palmer has labelled six ideas in Lucretius's thought (viz. his assertion that the world was created from chaos, and his denials of Providence, divine participation, miracles, the efficacy of prayer, and an afterlife) as "proto-atheistic". She qualifies her use of this term, cautioning that it is not to be used to say that Lucretius was himself an atheist in the modern sense of the word, nor that atheism is a teleological necessity, but rather that many of his ideas were taken up by 19th-, 20th-, and 21st-century atheists.

Repudiation of immortality
De rerum natura does not argue that the soul does not exist; rather, the poem claims that the soul, like all things in existence, is made up of atoms, and because these atoms will one day drift apart, the human soul is not immortal. Lucretius thus argues that death is simply annihilation, and that there is no afterlife. He likens the physical body to a vessel that holds both the mind (mens) and spirit (anima). To prove that neither the mind nor spirit can survive independent of the body, Lucretius uses a simple analogy: when a vessel shatters, its contents spill everywhere; likewise, when the body dies, the mind and spirit dissipate. And as a simple ceasing-to-be, death can be neither good nor bad for this being, since a dead person—being completely devoid of sensation and thought—cannot miss being alive. To further alleviate the fear of non-existence, Lucretius makes use of the symmetry argument: he argues that the eternal oblivion awaiting all humans after death is exactly the same as the infinite nothingness that preceded our birth. Since that nothingness (which he likens to a deep, peaceful sleep) caused us no pain or discomfort, we should not fear the same nothingness that will follow our own demise:

 * Look back again—how the endless ages of time comes to pass
 * Before our birth are nothing to us. This is a looking glass
 * Nature holds up for us in which we see the time to come
 * After we finally die. What is there that looks so fearsome?
 * What's so tragic? Isn't it more peaceful than any sleep?

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Lucretius sees those who fear death as embracing the fallacious assumption that they will be present in some sense "to regret and bewail [their] own non-existence."

Physics
Lucretius maintained that he could free humankind from fear of the deities by demonstrating that all things occur by natural causes without any intervention by the deities. Historians of science, however, have been critical of the limitations of his Epicurean approach to science, especially as it pertained to astronomical topics, which he relegated to the class of "unclear" objects.

Thus, he began his discussion by claiming that he would "explain by what forces nature steers the courses of the Sun and the journeyings of the Moon, so that we shall not suppose that they run their yearly races between heaven and earth of their own free will [i.e., are gods themselves] or that they are rolled round in furtherance of some divine plan...."

However, when he set out to put this plan into practice, he limited himself to showing how one, or several different, naturalistic accounts could explain certain natural phenomena. He was unable to tell his readers how to determine which of these alternatives might be the true one. For instance, when considering the reason for stellar movements, Lucretius provides two possible explanations: that the sky itself rotates, or that the sky as a whole is stationary while constellations move. If the latter is true, Lucretius, notes, this is because: "either swift currents of ether whirl round and round and roll their fires at large across the nocturnal regions of the sky"; "an external current of air from some other quarter may whirl them along in their course"; or "they may swim of their own accord, each responsive to the call of its own food, and feed their fiery bodies in the broad pastures of the sky". Lucretius concludes that "one of these causes must certainly operate in our world... But to lay down which of them it is lies beyond the range of our stumbling progress."

Despite his advocacy of empiricism and his many correct conjectures about atomism and the nature of the physical world, Lucretius concludes his first book stressing the absurdity of the (by then well-established) spherical Earth theory, favoring instead a flat Earth cosmology.

Drawing on these, and other passages, William Stahl considered that "The anomalous and derivative character of the scientific portions of Lucretius' poem makes it reasonable to conclude that his significance should be judged as a poet, not as a scientist." His naturalistic explanations were meant to bolster the ethical and philosophical ideas of Epicureanism, not to reveal true explanations of the physical world.

The swerve
Determinism appears to conflict with the concept of free will. Lucretius attempts to allow for free will in his physicalistic universe by postulating an indeterministic tendency for atoms to veer randomly (clinamen, literally "the turning aside of a thing", but often translated as "the swerve"). According to Lucretius, this unpredictable swerve occurs at no fixed place or time:

"When atoms move straight down through the void by their own weight, they deflect a bit in space at a quite uncertain time and in uncertain places, just enough that you could say that their motion has changed. But if they were not in the habit of swerving, they would all fall straight down through the depths of the void, like drops of rain, and no collision would occur, nor would any blow be produced among the atoms. In that case, nature would never have produced anything."

This swerving provides the indeterminacy that Lucretius argues allows for the "free will which living things throughout the world have" (libera per terras ... haec animantibus exstat ... voluntas).

Classical antiquity to the Middle Ages

Martin Ferguson Smith notes that Cicero's close friend, Titus Pomponius Atticus, was an Epicurean publisher, and it is possible his slaves made the very first copies of De rerum natura. If this were the case, then it might explain how Cicero came to be familiar with Lucretius's work. In c. AD 380, St. Jerome would contend in his Chronicon that Cicero amended and edited De rerum natura, although most scholars argue that this is an erroneous claim; the classicist David Butterfield argues that this mistake was likely made by Jerome (or his sources) because the earliest reference to Lucretius is in the aforementioned letter from Cicero. Nevertheless, a small minority of scholars argue that Jerome's assertion may be credible.

The oldest purported fragments of De rerum natura were published by K. Kleve in 1989 and consist of sixteen fragments. These remnants were discovered among the Epicurean library in the Villa of the Papyri, Herculaneum. Because, as W. H. D. Rouse notes, "the fragments are so minute and bear so few certainly identifiable letters", at this point in time "some scepticism about their proposed authorship seems pardonable and prudent." However, Kleve contends that four of the six books are represented in the fragments, which he argues is reason to assume that the entire poem was at one time kept in the library. If Lucretius's poem were to be definitely placed at the Villa of the Papyri, it would suggest that it was studied by the Neapolitan Epicurean school.

Copies of the poem were preserved in a number of medieval libraries, with the earliest extant manuscripts dating to the ninth century. The oldest—and, according to David Butterfield, most famous—of these is the Codex Oblongus, often called O. This copy has been dated to the early ninth century and was produced by a Carolingian scriptorium (likely a monastery connected to the court of Charlemagne). O is currently housed at Leiden University Libraries as MS VLF 30. The second of these ninth-century manuscripts is the Codex Quadratus, often called Q. This manuscript was likely copied after O, sometime in the mid-ninth century. Today, Q is also housed at Leiden University Libraries as VLQ 94. The third and final ninth-century manuscript—which comprises the Schedae Gottorpienses fragment (commonly called G and located in the Kongelige Bibliotek of Copenhagen) and the Schedae Vindobonenses fragments (commonly called V and U and located in the Austrian National Library in Vienna)—was christened by Butterfield as S and has been dated to the latter part of the ninth century. Scholars consider manuscripts O, Q, and S to all be descendants of the original archetype, which they dub Ω. However, while O is a direct descendant of the archetype, Q and S are believed to have both been derived from a manuscript (Ψ) that in turn had been derived from a damaged and modified version of the archetype (ΩI).

Rediscovery to the present

While there exist a handful of references to Lucretius in European sources dating between the ninth and fifteenth centuries (references that, according to Ada Palmer, "indicate a tenacious, if spotty knowledge of the poet and some knowledge of [his] poem"), no manuscripts of De rerum natura are known to survive from this span of time. Rather, all the remaining Lucretian manuscripts, apart from the early three discussed above, that are known date from or after the fifteenth century. This is because De rerum natura was rediscovered in January 1417 by Poggio Bracciolini, who probably found the poem in the Benedictine library at Fulda. The manuscript that Poggio discovered did not survive, but a copy (the "Codex Laurentianus 35.30") of it by Poggio's friend, Niccolò de' Niccoli, did, and today it is kept at the Laurentian Library in Florence.

Machiavelli made a copy early in his life. Molière produced a verse translation which does not survive; John Evelyn translated the first book.

The Italian scholar Guido Billanovich demonstrated that Lucretius' poem was well known in its entirety by Lovato Lovati (1241–1309) and some other Paduan pre-humanists during the thirteenth century. This proves that the work was known in select circles long before the official rediscovery by Bracciolini. It has been suggested that Dante (1265–1321) might have read Lucretius's poem, as a few verses of his Divine Comedy exhibit a great affinity with De rerum natura, but there is no conclusive evidence for this hypothesis.

The first printed edition of De rerum natura was produced in Brescia, Lombardy, in 1473. Other printed editions followed soon after. Additionally, although only published in 1996, Lucy Hutchinson's translation of De rerum natura was in all likelihood the first in English and was most likely completed some time in the late 1640s or 1650s, though it remained unpublished in manuscript.

Classical antiquity

The earliest recorded critique of Lucretius's work is in a letter written by the Roman statesman Cicero to his brother Quintus, in which the former claims that Lucretius's poetry is "full of inspired brilliance, but also of great artistry" (Lucreti poemata, ut scribis, ita sunt, multis luminibus ingeni, multae tamen artis).

It is also believed that the Roman poet Virgil referenced Lucretius and his work in the second book of his Georgics when he wrote: "Happy is he who has discovered the causes of things and has cast beneath his feet all fears, unavoidable fate, and the din of the devouring Underworld" (felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas/atque metus omnis et inexorabile fatum/subiecit pedibus strepitumque Acherontis avari). According to David Sedley of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "With these admiring words, Virgil neatly encapsulates four dominant themes of the poem—universal causal explanation, leading to elimination of the threats the world seems to pose, a vindication of free will, and disproof of the soul's survival after death."

Lucretius was almost certainly read by the imperial poet Marcus Manilius (fl. 1st century AD), whose didactic poem Astronomica (written c. AD 10–20) alludes to De rerum natura in a number of places. However, Manilius's poem espouses a Stoic, deterministic understanding of the universe, and by its very nature attacks the very philosophical underpinnings of Lucretius's worldview. This has led scholars like Katharina Volk to argue that "Manilius is a veritable anti-Lucretius". What is more, Manilius also seems to suggest throughout this poem that his work is superior to that of Lucretius's. (Coincidentally, De rerum natura and the Astronomica were both rediscovered by Poggio Bracciolini in the early 15th century.)

Additionally, Lucretius's work is discussed by the Augustan poet Ovid, who in his Amores writes "the verses of the sublime Lucretius will perish only when a day will bring the end of the world" (Carmina sublimis tunc sunt peritura Lucreti / exitio terras cum dabit una dies), and the Silver Age poet Statius, who in his Silvae praises Lucretius as being highly "learned". David Butterfield also writes that "clear echoes and/or responses" to De rerum natura can be detected in the works of the Roman elegiac poets Catullus, Propertius, and Tibullus, as well as the lyric poet Horace.

In regards to prose writers, a number either quote from Lucretius's poem or express great admiration for De rerum natura, including Vitruvius (in De Architectura), Marcus Velleius Paterculus (in the Historiae Romanae), Quintilian (in the Institutio Oratoria), Tacitus (in the Dialogus de oratoribus), Marcus Cornelius Fronto (in De eloquentia), Cornelius Nepos (in the Life of Atticus), Apuleius (in De Deo Socratis),  and Gaius Julius Hyginus (in the Fabulae). Additionally, Pliny the Elder lists Lucretius (presumably referring to his De rerum natura) as a source at the beginning of his Naturalis Historia, and Seneca the Younger quoted six passages from De rerum natura across several of his works.

Late antiquity and the Middle Ages
Because Lucretius was critical of religion and the claim of an immortal soul, his poem was disparaged by most early Church Fathers. The Early Christian apologist Lactantius, in particular, heavily cites and critiques Lucretius in his The Divine Institutes and its Epitome, as well as his De ira Dei. While he argued that Lucretius's criticism of Roman religion were "sound attacks on paganism and superstition", Lactantius claimed that they were futile against the "True Faith" of Christianity. Lactantius also disparages the science of De rerum natura (as well as of Epicureanism in general), calls Lucretius "the most worthless of the poets" (poeta inanissimus), notes that he is unable to read more than a few lines of De rerum natura without laughing, and sarcastically asks, "Who would think that [Lucretius] had a brain when he said these things?"

After Lactantius's time, Lucretius was almost exclusively referenced or alluded to in a negative manner by the Church Fathers. The one major exception to this was Isidore of Seville, who at the start of the 7th century produced a work on astronomy and natural history dedicated to the Visigothic king Sisebut that was entitled De natura rerum. In both this work, and as well as his more well-known Etymologiae (c. AD 600–625), Isidore liberally quotes from Lucretius a total of twelve times, drawing verses from all of Lucretius's books except his third. (About a century later, the British historian and Doctor of the Church Bede produced a work also called De natura rerum, partly based on Isidore's work but apparently ignorant of Lucretius's poem. )

Renaissance to the present
Montaigne owned a Latin edition published in Paris, in 1563, by Denis Lambin which he heavily annotated. His Essays contain almost a hundred quotes from De rerum natura. Additionally, in his essay "Of Books", he lists Lucretius along with Virgil, Horace, and Catullus as his four top poets.

Notable figures who owned copies include Ben Jonson, whose copy is held at the Houghton Library, Harvard; and Thomas Jefferson, who owned at least five Latin editions and English, Italian and French translations.

Lucretius has also had a marked influence upon modern philosophy, as perhaps the most complete expositor of Epicurean thought. His influence is especially notable in the work of the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana, who praised Lucretius—along with Dante and Goethe—in his book Three Philosophical Poets, although he openly admired the poet's system of physics more so than his spiritual musings (referring to the latter as "fumbling, timid and sad").

In 2011, the historian and literary scholar Stephen Greenblatt wrote a popular history book about the poem, entitled The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. In the work, Greenblatt argues that Poggio Bracciolini's discovery of De rerum natura reintroduced important ideas that sparked the modern age. The book was well-received, and later earned the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction and the 2011 National Book Award for Nonfiction.

Work cited

 * Commentaries

 * Beretta, Marco. Francesco Citti (edd), Lucrezio, la natura e la scienza (Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, 2008) (Biblioteca di Nuncius / Istituto e Museo distoria della scienza, Firenze; 66).
 * Campbell, Gordon. Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De rerum natura Book Five, Lines 772–1104 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).
 * Esolen, Anthony M. Lucretius On the Nature of Things (Baltimore, 1995).
 * Fowler, Don. Lucretius on Atomic Motion: A Commentary on De rerum natura 2. 1–332 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).
 * Godwin, John. Lucretius (London: Bristol Classical Press, 2004) ("Ancient in Action" Series).
 * Melville, Ronald. Lucretius: On the Nature of the Universe (Oxford, 1997).
 * Nail, Thomas. Lucretius I: An Ontology of Motion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2018).
 * Nail, Thomas. Lucretius II: An Ethics of Motion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020).
 * Studies
 * DeMay, Philip. Lucretius: Poet and Epicurean (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) (Series: Greece & Rome: texts and contexts).
 * Deufert, Marcus. Pseudo-Lukrezisches im Lukrez (Berlin-New York, 1996).
 * Erler M. "Lukrez," in H. Flashar (ed.), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 4. Die hellenistische Philosophie (Basel, 1994), 381–490.
 * Gale Monica R. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
 * Garani, Myrto. Empedocles Redivivus: poetry and analogy in Lucretius. Studies in classics (London; New York: Routledge, 2007).
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * DeMay, Philip. Lucretius: Poet and Epicurean (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009) (Series: Greece & Rome: texts and contexts).
 * Deufert, Marcus. Pseudo-Lukrezisches im Lukrez (Berlin-New York, 1996).
 * Erler M. "Lukrez," in H. Flashar (ed.), Die Philosophie der Antike. Bd. 4. Die hellenistische Philosophie (Basel, 1994), 381–490.
 * Gale Monica R. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Classical Studies: Lucretius (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
 * Garani, Myrto. Empedocles Redivivus: poetry and analogy in Lucretius. Studies in classics (London; New York: Routledge, 2007).
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Garani, Myrto. Empedocles Redivivus: poetry and analogy in Lucretius. Studies in classics (London; New York: Routledge, 2007).
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Marković, Daniel. The Rhetoric of Explanation in Lucretius' De rerum natura (Leiden, Brill, 2008) (Mnemosyne, Supplements, 294).
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Rumpf L. Naturerkenntnis und Naturerfahrung. Zur Reflexion epikureischer Theorie bei Lukrez (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2003) (Zetemata, 116).
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Sedley, David N. Lucretius and the Transformation of Greek Wisdom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1998]).
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.
 * Strauss, Leo. "Notes on Lucretius," in Liberalism: Ancient and Modern (Chicago, 1968), 76–139.

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

title: De rerum natura


text:
Paresis

In medicine, paresis is a condition typified by a weakness of voluntary movement, or by partial loss of voluntary movement or by impaired movement. When used without qualifiers, it usually refers to the limbs, but it can also be used to describe the muscles of the eyes (ophthalmoparesis), the stomach (gastroparesis), and also the vocal cords (vocal cord paresis).

Neurologists use the term paresis to describe weakness, and plegia to describe paralysis in which all voluntary movement is lost. The term paresis comes from the πάρεσις 'letting go' from παρίημι 'to let go, to let fall'.

Limbs

 * Monoparesis – One leg or one arm
 * Paraparesis – Both legs
 * Hemiparesis – The loss of function to only one side of the body
 * Triparesis – Three limbs. This can either mean both legs and one arm, both arms and a leg, or a combination of one arm, one leg, and face
 * Double hemiparesis – All four limbs are involved, but one side of the body is more affected than the other
 * Tetraparesis – All four limbs
 * Quadriparesis – All four limbs, equally affected
 * These terms frequently refer to the impairment of motion in multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy

Other

 * Gastroparesis – impaired stomach emptying
 * A form of ophthalmoplegia
 * Spastic paresis – exaggerated tendon reflexes and muscle hypertonia
 * In the past, the term was most commonly used to refer to "general paresis", which was a symptom of untreated syphilis. However, due to improvements in treatment of syphilis, it is now rarely used in this context.

title: Paresis


text:
User talk:Thunderbunny

Warhol Museum
You may or may not remember this edit from some time ago. Do you have a citation for it? I want to use it in Campbell's Soup Cans. TonyTheTiger 15:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

 * A Google search for "warhol largest museum" yields quite a few relevant results, but I'm not sure how Wikiworthy they are. Sorry if I wasn't much help. Thunderbunny 07:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I will go with what I have found.  I was hoping you might have something better. TonyTheTiger 17:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Donnie Davies
Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated the article for a deletion reversal which you can weigh in on here: WP:DRV Thanks! SquatGoblin 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wyoming Incident
Thanks. That is some creepy stuff, but I am interested in it. Let me know if you find anything else. Thanks again. --Rajah 04:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wild. It'll be interesting to check that blog tomorrow. Peace. --Rajah 04:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an interest in the subject; why are you so hot to delete it all of a sudden? RMc 12:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the article sucks and, due to the lack of external sources, isn't going to get much better. A bad article that spreads confusion, speculation, and misinformation is worse than no article. Thunderbunny 15:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Because Thunderbunny thinks the article sucks"...ahh, that's a good reason to delete something. Did you even bother to read the article? It doesn't spread "confusion, speculation, and misinformation," as you so prissily put it; it's all researched with plenty of external sources. It's hardly the most important article on Wiki, but it doesn't deserve your jihad against it, either. Get a life. RMc 02:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "plenty of external sources" you mean "absolutely none at all", then yes, I agree with you. Thunderbunny 03:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the top is
It's at the other end. ☺ Uncle G 09:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * edit

Center of Population
Nicely done! Feel free to use the table I set up for that! And don't forget to include refs. I seem to recall going to each place and adding a sentence about it being the CoP, but I don't know if that info is still there. I think I also went to each state page and added something. In any case - very nicely done! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Celebrity Jeopardy! for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Celebrity Jeopardy!, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Celebrity Jeopardy! until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Closer (baseball), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lee Smith ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Closer_%28baseball%29 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Closer_%28baseball%29?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thunderbunny