text:
Serekh

In Egyptian hieroglyphs, a serekh is a rectangular enclosure representing the niched or gated façade of a palace surmounted by (usually) the Horus falcon, indicating that the text enclosed is a royal name. The serekh was the earliest convention used to set apart the royal name in ancient Egyptian iconography, predating the later and better known cartouche by four dynasties and five to seven hundred years.

Appearance
A serekh was an ornamental vignette combining a view of a palace façade and a plan (top view) of the royal courtyard. The term serekh derives from the Egyptian word for "façade". Different serekhs on different types of object display countless variations of the façade decor in its complexity and detail. It seems that no strict artistic rules for the design of the serekh itself existed.

History
The serekh first appears as an ornamental miniature during the late Gerzeh culture, when it was used as a royal crest only. From the Old Kingdom period onward, the first uses of the full written word appear in old papyri.

A serekh was normally used as a royal crest, accentuating and honouring the name of the pharaoh. Its use can be dated back as early as the Gerzeh culture (c. 3400 BC). The hieroglyphs forming the king's name were placed inside a rectangular extension atop the serekh, which represented the royal courtyard. Additionally, the falcon of the god Horus, or in a few cases the Set animal, topped the serekh, showing the celestial patron of the named king.

If the word "serekh" was written in full letters (as shown in the infobox above), sometimes accompanied by a miniature of the serekh, it could also be used in text.

One of the most important elements of royal display and identity in ancient Egypt was the king's name, important as pharaohs were concerned that future generations remain aware of their reigns. These were first seen from rulers as early as those of Dynasty 0 and continued to be used by kings throughout the history of ancient Egypt. For example, a serekh of Senusret I, who was a king during the Twelfth Dynasty, has been found and is now displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. The serekhs of kings from the 30th Dynasty can also be seen. The serekh represented the king's palace shown in a combination of plan and elevation. The rectangular enclosure represented the plan while the patterned area represented the elevation of the façade. A serekh incised or painted in ink on a vessel denoted that the contents were the produce and/or property of the royal court. The serekh containing the king's name was used on a variety of objects and made a fundamental statement of royal ideology. The king's name was written in hieroglyphs and the Horus falcon, in reference to the sky god Horus, usually surmounted it.

The Horus name is the first of five royal titles that were in use by the Fifth Dynasty. The second title is the (He of the) Two Ladies, representing the king as manifesting, and under the protection of, the goddesses Nekhbet of Elkab and Hierakonpolis in Upper Egypt, and Wadjet of Buto in Lower Egypt. The third title is the Horus of Gold, with the Horus falcon above the hieroglyphic sign for gold. The fourth title is often translated as "He of the Sedge and Bee", with the sedge plant symbolic of Upper Egypt and the bee symbolic of Lower Egypt. This is also known as nswt-bìty, a title which expressed the many dualities over which the king exercised rule: Upper and Lower Egypt, the Black Land of cultivation and the Red Land of desert, the realms of day and night, and the natural and the supernatural. The fifth title is Son of Ra. This name claims a direct solar origin for the king as child of the sun-god. The Horus name was commonly written in the serekhs of ancient Egypt. There are a couple of cases in which the Horus name appears without serekhs, and only Peribsen and Khasekhemwy have serekhs without the Horus name.

Horus

The king's name was written in hieroglyphs and the Horus falcon, in reference to the god Horus, usually surmounted it. As a result, the king's name in the serekh came to be known by Egyptologists as his 'Horus name.' The writing of the king's name within the serekh symbolized the king in his palace as the center of royal administration and power. The serekh as a whole was therefore a symbol of kingship. The presence of the Horus falcon showed that the living king was a manifestation of the god. Additionally, the Horus names of several First Dynasty kings expressed the aggressive authority of Horus, perhaps reflecting the coercive power of kingship at this early stage of Egyptian statehood. Examples of such names are 'Horus the fighter' (Hor-Aha), 'Horus the strong' (Djer), and 'arm-raising Horus' (Qa'a). All of these names reveal the warlike iconography of the earliest royal monuments from the period of state formation. They emphasize an authority based upon military strength and the power of life and death. The emphasis in the Second Dynasty, however, began to change possibly due to the periods of instability that the kings faced, though the exact reason is still disputed. This led to a slight alteration in the structure of the serekh, solely during the reigns of Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. Since this alteration only occurred during these two reigns, it is seen as an exception, as the succeeding kings returned to the previous iconography.

Progression
The earliest serekhs were empty because the symbol alone relayed the necessary message of royal power. Over time, the king began to write an epithet within the serekh. These serekhs were dominated by the symbol of Horus. During the Second Dynasty only, changes in the formulation of the Horus name to a Seth-name and then a Horus-and-Seth name were seen. These changes occurred merely during the Second Dynasty and are viewed as an exception to the typical use of the Horus name as is evidenced by the continued use of Horus in the serekhs of the Egyptian kings before and after Peribsen and Khasekhemwy. Many propositions have been made as to why this change occurred, though the exact reason is still disputed.

Peribsen and Khasekhemwy
For reasons which remain unclear, Seth attained particular prominence in the late Second Dynasty, temporarily replacing, then joining, Horus as the god atop the royal serekh. When the name Peribsen, who was the penultimate king of the Second Dynasty, was written in a serekh, it was surmounted, not by the usual Horus falcon hieroglyph, but by the Seth animal, a hound or jackal-like creature with a wide, straight tail.

Peribsen thus made a visual statement that he was the earthly embodiment of Seth. The importance of Seth in the reign of Peribsen was also reflected in a sealing of the king from Abydos. It referred to a god named 'the golden one' or, perhaps more likely, 'he of Nubt (Naqada)', the usual epithet of Seth in historic times. It appears as though Seth was adopted by Peribsen as his personal deity. This is emphasized by the wording of the inscription: 'He of Nubt has handed over the Two Lands to his son, the dual king Peribsen'. One interpretation of this dramatic change in the format of the royal name is that it represented a rebellion of some kind that was quashed or reconciled by the last king of the dynasty, Khasekhemwy, whose name appeared in serekhs surmounted by both the Horus falcon and the Seth animal. Originally known as Khasekhem, which means 'The One who Arises in respect of the Power', his name eventually came to be known as Khasekhemwy which means 'The One who Arises in respect of the Two Powers'. The 'Two Powers' in his name have been interpreted by some as the Horus falcon and the Seth animal. The addition to Khasekhem's name is further evidence that he was trying to merge the ideas of both Horus and Seth.

While the validity of this proposal is debatable, Khasekhemwy's epithet from seal impressions supports this notion. It is interpreted as 'the Two Lords are at peace in him' which can be viewed as though he resolved some internal conflict, especially if 'Two Lords' are seen as referring to Horus and Seth and their followers, respectively. Others have viewed this evidence as a way of proclaiming national renewal under Khasekhemwy as he was able to reunite Upper and Lower Egypt. This idea remains speculative, however, due to the lack of hard evidence to support this notion. Nonetheless, it seems likely that foreign relations reached a new level under Khasekhemwy, since a seal-impression of his reign showed the first occurrence of the title ìmì-r3 h3st which means 'overseer of foreign land(s)'. It strongly suggests the imposition of Egyptian hegemony on foreign territory.

The change of the deity image on a serekh was significant: While the king's name sometimes appeared in a serekh without an image of a deity above, no deity other than Horus is so far known to have occurred on the serekh of a king until the reign of Peribsen. However, the serekhs of some queens had other deities above. And example is Neithotep's, whose serekh had the goddess Neith's emblems above it. Due to evidence that Peribsen's stelae were subjected to erasure of the Seth animals, it has been inferred that whatever reasons Peribsen had for substituting his falcon failed to win acceptance among royal generations after Khasekhemwy.

title: Serekh


text:
WGA screenwriting credit system

The Writers Guild of America (WGA) credit system for motion pictures and television programs covers all works under the jurisdiction of the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE) and the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW). The WGA, originally the Screen Writers Guild, has since 1941 been the final arbiter of who receives credit for writing a theatrical, television or new media motion picture written under its jurisdiction.

The system has rules on how writers should be billed during the credits. A variety of credit forms can be given to indicate technicalities such as whether a writer contributed to the original source material, the chronological order of contributors working on different drafts, or whether there were writing teams. Since its inception, writers must have contributed at least 33 percent of a final script to receive credit, and only a certain number of writers can receive credit.

A determination process for screen credits first sees the production company submit proposed credits; about a third of these are challenged and taken to arbitration. This process asks all writing parties involved to provide evidence and supporting statements to help determine how much of the final product was each writer's work. However, several of the WGA's arbitration decisions have been criticized by WGA members, including how the process handles existing source material that is adapted to the screen, or whether writers of a particular draft should still receive full credit even after all their ideas were completely tossed out in the subsequent drafts.

Rationale
Writing credits affect the career of writers, as well as their reputation and union membership.

Writers trade on the reputation of their name; John Howard Lawson, the first president of the Screen Writers Guild (SWG; now the Writers Guild of America, WGA), said that "a writer's name is his most cherished possession. It is his creative personality, the symbol of the whole body of his ideas and experience." Not having their name on a film's credits will not only cost the writer residuals, but also hinder them from finding future work, depending on the film's success. A writer may also be given a bonus if their name is in the credits, as films often have many more contributing writers than the credits show.

The credit system can affect eligibility for membership in the trade union, as one way in which a person becomes a member of the Writers Guild of America, West (WGAW) is by accruing "points" based on the individual's writing credits. Membership points are also accrued through employment by, or sale or option to, a company signatory to the Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA), a deal struck between the WGA and a collection of studios and production companies every three years, in which the companies agree to certain minimum fees, residuals, and other benefits for WGA writers they contract. It is negotiated by a committee of the WGA.

Screen Writers Guild credit system
The early industry had taken efforts to prevent writers from unionizing. Although the SWG was formed in 1933, it encountered resistance until May 1941, when it signed a deal with the studios that gave the Guild, among other rights, the final say on writing credits. The agreement was seen as weak, as it mostly covered the lowest paid writers, and credits were still unfairly given in the compulsory collaboration era when studios employed large numbers of independent writers on projects; at this point, the need for writers to have contributed 33 percent of the final script had been established, which left many out of credits on productions written by committee. The best paid writers, on the other hand, had always been respected and could often elect to work alone because of their status.

Credits process
All writers on a project have the right to know who else has written on that project. Under the MBA a production is required to tell all new writers who has preceded them; a writer may conversely ask the production for the names of those who contributed after them. Writers also bear responsibilities to make sure they are informed, and to inform other writers on the same project that they are working for it; they must also file their contract with the appropriate Guild within a week of receiving it. For television productions of a motion picture over 90 minutes, the production company must inform, in writing, all writers of the writers who follow them.

The MBA stipulates also that the production company must supply all participant writers—anyone who has contributed, or been hired to contribute, written material; anyone who has been paid for their prior written material whether purchased or licensed; anyone who contributed in any of the aforementioned ways to the original script, in the case of a remake—and the Writers Guild a notice of tentative credits, and give all participant writers a copy of either the shooting script or latest revised script, promptly upon the conclusion of photography. Any participant writer, even deceased, has the right to be involved in the credit determination process (this may be through a representative, such as an agent). Up to three writers, or two teams of writers in film and three teams of writers in television, may receive credit for a production. The Writers Guild has the right to protest any company's proposed credits, regardless of whether the writers do.

To determine credits, "it is vital that the writer keep copies of all work done", and submit copies to the Writers Guild promptly upon completion. Scripts as well as substantial story ideas and other literary material are counted for credit decisions. When there is more than one participant writer on a production, "all participants have the right to agree unanimously among themselves as to which of them shall receive writing credits on the screen and in what form", as long as the agreed form meets requirements. The MBA also establishes that the agreed form "shall not be suggested or directed by the [production] Company".

The Writers Guild also officially presumes that any writer has access to all prior material written for the project during their employment, underscoring credits given to prior writers who have been removed from projects. Materials used for research are not credited, but source material as defined by the WGA receives credits. The appropriate credit to use for source material is anything indicative of the nature and relationship of the source material and the final script, with the WGA providing the examples "From a Play by, From a Novel by, Based upon a Story by, From a series of articles by, Based upon a [teleplay/Screenplay] by".

Once a writer has received both the notice of tentative credits and the final script, they can either agree with the production's tentative credits, in which case they do nothing, they can discuss the credits with the other writers through the Writers Guild, or they can challenge the tentative credits within a certain time period. If a participant writer disagrees with the credits, but there are other participants and it is seen that an agreement may be reached between them, the Screen/Television Credits Administrator must make a best attempt to arrange discussion between all writers before arbitration is sought.

Teams
Credits are handled differently for individual writers and for "teams". A team of writers is defined by the WGA as "two writers who have been assigned at about the same time to the same material and who work together for approximately the same length of time on the material"; the work of the two writers is considered a joint contribution, not creditable to only one of them or to one more than the other. For the purpose of credits (and to discourage later disputes), one of the writers must openly question the designation of their contributions being part of a team at the time the work is submitted to the Writers Guild if they wish to be credited in another way. A team is credited with an ampersand (&) separating their names. Team credits are more complex when one of the team has also been hired as an additional writer: both writers in the team must form an agreement to allow the additional writer to take the shared credit. Multiple writers who are not part of a team have the word "and" separating their names.

Written by
The "Written by" credit is for writers who can claim both the story and screenplay/teleplay elements, except when there is "source material of a story nature". There are some restrictions on producers and directors of a work being given writing credits, particularly that they cannot receive the story/screenplay/teleplay credit unless there are either no other writers for the story/screenplay/teleplay or the decision is taken to arbitration, and that the Writers Guild must have been notified of a writing team (intending to claim credits) that includes a producer/director and a non-producer/director at the commencement of the team's work together. In television, a written by credit is also usually given to writers on variety shows and audience participation shows.

Screenplay by
A "Screenplay by" credit may also be used, when the writers for the story and screenplay are different, or in similar circumstances to a screen story credit (either if the work is not mostly original, or in addition to the screen story credit). No more than two writers can share a screenplay credit except in cases of arbitration. From arbitration, screenplay credits can be given to either three individual writers or two teams of writers. For the purposes of arbitration, to be awarded a screenplay credit, the writer must have contributed more than 33 percent of the final screenplay. In the case of an original screenplay, Writers who did not write the original must contribute more than 50 percent to receive the credit. The WGA acknowledges the difficulty in determining such percentages. The television equivalent of the screenplay by credit is "Teleplay by", and it is used in the same way.

Story by
The MBA describes story as "distinct from [screenplay/teleplay] and consisting of basic narrative, idea, theme or outline indicating character development and action". A "Story by" credit is used when the writer was hired (as a WGA member) to write for story, when the story idea was purchased from the writer by a WGA signatory company, or when the resultant script is based on a sequel story devised by the writer under the WGA's jurisdiction. The "Story by" credit cannot be shared by more than two writers in film and three in television, and the story may have been written in different literary forms, including a film treatment. A "Screen Story by" or "Television Story by" credit is used for the screenwriter when their work is based on, but substantially different from, source material and a story as they are defined by the WGA. Screen story credit also cannot be shared by more than two writers, and is a credit that is only handled through arbitration. The writer of the source material for the screen story may receive a source material credit.

Separated rights
Television also has a "Created by" and a "Developed (for Television) by" credit under a crediting structure known as separated rights. Writers entitled to created by credits will have developed a significant part of the format, story, and teleplay, and also get sequel rights to the material. Created by credits are given on every episode, while Developed (for Television) by credits are only given on the episodes the writer has explicitly contributed material to.

Other forms
Other writing credits that may be used are "Narration Written by", "Based on Characters Created by", and "Adaptation by". A "Special Material by" credit can be given to writers on some forms of television shows, when they have contributed written material that does not qualify for other credits; there are no limits to how many people may receive this credit.

Screenwriter Scott Myers, a WGA member and arbiter on "perhaps 10 credit arbitrations", has questioned why more than three writers cannot be credited, saying, "After the official Written By or Screenplay By credits are determined, why not in end credits add 'Additional Writing Services,' then list all the other writers? Everybody and their mother who works on a movie gets a credit. Why not all the writers?"

Structure and exceptions
In credits, names are usually ordered by who did the most work. If the order is disagreed upon and the arbitration finds that all writers contributed equally, the names will be ordered chronologically. A pseudonym may be used if the writer is to be paid less than US$200,000 (for film) or less than three times the applicable minimum in their MBA (for television), if the pseudonymous name is deemed reasonable, and if the writer requests this within five business days of the final credits being determined (for film) or within a preset time frame (for television). Before a pseudonym can be used, it must be registered with the Writers Guild.

A writer may withdraw from credit "for personal cause" before the tentative notice is submitted; if the other writers do not agree, it shall be taken to arbitration. A writer cannot withdraw from credit after arbitration. Withdrawing from credit also includes losing rights to and compensation from the material; using a pseudonym does not remove these rights.

Arbitration
If there is no agreement on writing credits, the Writers Guild's Screen Credits Administrator (for film) or Television Credits Administrator (for television) will begin arbitration proceedings. Three members of the Writers Guild are selected as arbiters, as long as they have no interest in the decision; for film, the members must have either been a member for five years or have three screen credits, and for television, they must have been a member for at least one year and have at least three writing credits. At least two of the selected members must have been on at least two arbitration committees before and, where possible, members who are familiar with the type of writing involved will be chosen. The identity of arbiters is kept anonymous to everyone, including the other arbiters, except the Screen/Television Credits Committee. Also, before selecting the three members, the Screen/Television Arbiters List of all eligible members will be sent to all participant writers, who can preclude from selection a reasonable number of names on it; the selection will be made from the remaining names without question. A member of the Screen/Television Credits Committee will be designated to each arbitration case to advise the arbiters and help them to come to a decision. Film arbitration takes place over 21 business days, and television arbitration over eight.

All participant writers and the production must also cooperate with the committees, most importantly by accurately submitting all written material (original and in triplicate) to be considered, and scrutinizing submitted material. The Writers Guild also advises all writers to submit a written statement to the arbitration committee, outlining their stance and detailing their claim to credit in line with Writers Guild policy; the statement cannot include anything irrelevant to the case, reference to compensation, letters of support from other people, or information on the development that will not help the arbiters in their purely analytical review.

Participant writers have 24 hours to give their statements, their only means of providing supporting evidence to the arbiters, to the guild. Statements submitted late will be accepted as long as they come before a decision is made. The arbiters thus each receive the tentative writing credits, the writers' statements, a summary of the issues to be determined in the case, all the written material with a chronological record, a copy of the Screen/Television Credits Manual, and the request that their decision be communicated to the Screen/Television Credits Administrator first by telephone and then in writing.

The writers' statements are kept private by the WGA. Additionally, the writers' identities are kept anonymous from the arbiters.

In situations where there is doubt over the authenticity of the submitted written material, a hearing may be held before arbitration, where the writers each provide testimony and evidence as to the authorship, sequence, and legitimacy of the material. The Writers Guild may also request a descriptive script of a film called a "cutting continuity", or a television production called an "as broadcast" script, which the production must provide if available; particularly, a writer may ask that the Writers Guild request this if they believe the final script is not reflective of what was actually filmed.

The arbiters may not come to unanimous agreement. When this happens, they teleconference with the advisor to, while remaining anonymous to each other, discuss the reasoning for their choices in an attempt to come to a decision. In the absence of a unanimous decision at this stage, a majority decision shall be accepted. The arbitration committee's decision, once written confirmation has been received by the Screen/Television Credits Administrator, is communicated to the interested parties. A participant writer may then request an appeal before an internal Policy Review Board of the Writers Guild, within 24 hours of the arbiters' decision being communicated to them. That board consists of three members of the Screen/Television Credits Committee, usually including either the Chair or Vice-Chair; none should have an interest in the decision. The Policy Review Board only serves to determine if there was any "serious deviation from the policy of the Guild or the procedure as set forth in [the Screen/Television Credits Manual]" through the process of the arbitration, and do not read any of the submitted written materials nor judge the writers' contributions. The Policy Review Board may annul an arbitration decision, but only if policy regarding decision-making has been broken; if they find this, the arbiters may be asked to reconsider, or a new arbitration committee selected.

Should the screenplay be rewritten after the final credits decision has been made, arbitration may be reopened within 48 hours of the final changes.

WGA members have criticized how the process handles existing material, such as a book that is adapted to film. New York Times reporter Michele Willens suggests that the first writer to work on such a project will write the most cinematic elements of the story, but other teams that subsequently work on the script may base their work on the original text, rather than the first draft. Barry Levinson, the director of Wag the Dog, and a disputant over screenwriting credit for the film (which was adapted from a novel), said: "If a writer creates an idea from scratch, that's one thing. Even if the script is given to other writers and rewritten, that first writer created the seeds of that idea and he or she should get some regard. But for a script from a book, it's different. Even if little of the initial efforts remain in the final script, original writers are often awarded credit because they were first on the scene."

Notable conflicts
Frank Pierson, former WGAW president (and former president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences), said that "the large majority of credits are still straightforward and uncontested [but] when they go wrong, they go horribly wrong." Writer-director Phil Alden Robinson has said that "no one can trust the writing credit. Nobody knows who really wrote the film." From 1993 to 1997, there were 415 arbitrations, about a third of all films with credits submitted.

When Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was adapted for the screen, Alex Cox and Tod Davies wrote the initial adaptation. When Terry Gilliam was brought in to direct it, he rewrote it with Tony Grisoni. The WGA initially denied Gilliam and Grisoni any credit even though Gilliam claimed that nothing of the original adaptation remained in the final film: "As a director, I was automatically deemed a 'production executive' by the Guild and, by definition, discriminated against. But for Tony to go without any credit would be really unfair." After complaints, the WGA awarded Gilliam and Grisoni credit in addition to Cox and Davies, but Gilliam resigned from the union over the dispute. Gilliam said the arbitration process "[is] really a Star Chamber", claiming it took more work than the screenplay itself.

Similar problems arose for the film Ronin. According to director John Frankenheimer, "the credits should read: Story by J. D. Zeik, screenplay by David Mamet. We didn't shoot a line of Zeik's script." Instead, Mamet received credit under a pseudonym. After the controversy over credits for Wag the Dog, Mamet decided to attach his name only to movies on which he is the sole writer.

A disagreement over the 2–1 arbitration decision denying George Clooney a writing credit for Leatherheads led Clooney to become a financial core member of the WGA, rather than an active one. Variety's Michael Fleming wrote that "Clooney took a languishing 17-year-old project and got a greenlight after personally giving the script a major overhaul that transformed it into a screwball comedy", with Clooney asserting that he wrote almost the entire script, but only Duncan Brantley and Rick Reilly, who came up with the original concept, were credited.

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

title: WGA screenwriting credit system


text: User talk:166.109.178.51

title: User talk:166.109.178.51


text:
Juan Valera

Juan Valera may refer to:

 * Juan Valera y Alcalá-Galiano (1824–1905), Spanish author, diplomat and politician
 * Juan Valera (footballer) (born 1984), Spanish footballer

title: Juan Valera


text:
Peter Lorimer

Peter Patrick Lorimer (14 December 1946 – 20 March 2021) was a Scottish professional footballer, best known for his time with Leeds United and Scotland during the late 1960s and early 1970s. An attacking midfielder and the club's youngest-ever player, he was renowned for his powerful strikes from distance. From 1984 to 1985 he was club captain. Lorimer is the club record scorer with 238 goals in all competitions. He was voted Leeds' ninth greatest player ever and on to the greatest Leeds United team of all time.

After retiring as a player, Lorimer became a member of the Leeds board of directors, provided match commentary on BBC Radio Leeds and Yorkshire Radio and wrote a regular column in the Yorkshire Evening Post. From April 2013 he held the position of club ambassador.

Early life
Lorimer was born in Dundee to Janet and Peter Lorimer and was brought up in Broughty Ferry on the edge of the city. He attended Eastern Primary School and later Stobswell Secondary School, where he played for the school's football team.

Leeds United
After playing junior football in Dundee for Stobswell Boys and Broughty YMCA, Lorimer signed for Leeds United in May 1962 after scoring for the Scotland Schoolboys team in a 4–2 win over England. He made his Leeds debut on 29 September 1962 against Southampton, aged 15 years and 289 days, becoming the youngest player to play for the first team.

Lorimer came to regular prominence in the 1965–66 season, making 34 League Championship appearances and scoring 19 goals, more than any other player at Leeds United managed that season. A skilful and industrious player who operated best in a drifting position either wide on the right (though not as an orthodox winger – he was more likely to cut in and shoot than stay wide and cross) or behind two main strikers (usually Allan Clarke and Mick Jones), Lorimer was a frequent and often spectacular goalscorer, earning himself several nicknames stemming from his powerful shooting – HotShot and Lash being two of the more prevalent. He became renowned for these strikes, with his shots reaching speeds of up to 90 mph. One penalty kick was recorded at 107 mph.

In the 1966–67 season, Lorimer made his first major headlines when a free-kick equaliser against Chelsea in an FA Cup semi-final was controversially ruled out by referee Ken Burns and retaken, for the Chelsea players had not retreated the necessary 10 yards. Chelsea held on to win the game. In the 1975 European Cup Final, Lorimer scored to give Leeds a 1–0 lead, only for the goal to be controversially disallowed by referee Michel Kitabdjian, with Leeds going on to lose the game. In summer 1971, Lorimer had a short spell on loan at Cape Town City in South Africa. Lorimer left the club in 1979, having scored 219 goals in 616 appearances. During this time he had won two League titles, an FA Cup, a League Cup, a Charity Shield, and two Inter-Cities Fairs Cups.

Later career
He played for York City and then tried his luck in the North American Soccer League (NASL). Lorimer played for two clubs: the Toronto Blizzard (1979–1980) and the Vancouver Whitecaps (1981–83). In January 1983 he signed for University College Dublin.

Lorimer returned to Leeds United in 1983, aged 37, two seasons after Leeds had fallen into the Football League Second Division. He played under former team-mate Eddie Gray (more than a year his junior) and broke the club's goalscoring record in the process, ending up with 238 goals from 705 appearances until retiring just before his 40th birthday at the end of the 1985–86 season. However, Leeds were still a Second Division team when Lorimer played his final game for them and it would be another four years before they returned to the First Division.

International career
Lorimer made his international debut for Scotland against Austria in November 1969. He won 21 caps for Scotland and scored four goals, having played in all three of their matches at the 1974 FIFA World Cup. His Scotland career was, however, affected by a ban imposed on him in 1971 after he spent a summer playing for Cape Town City in apartheid-era South Africa.

After playing
In his retirement Lorimer ran the Commercial Inn pub in the Holbeck area of the city. Lorimer remained a dedicated spokesman for Leeds United after retirement – he was always one of the first ex-players to whom broadcasters and journalists turned when the club was in the news. He worked as a pundit at games for BBC Radio Leeds and as a columnist for the local paper, the Yorkshire Evening Post. He wrote a column in the club's match programme (his final one being the match against Aston Villa on 27 February 2021) and acted as a summariser for Yorkshire Radio on every Leeds away match.

On 26 February 2021, it was announced that Lorimer had been placed under hospice care due to a long-term illness. He died on 20 March 2021, aged 74.

International

 * Scores and results list Scotland goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Scotland goal.

Honours
Leeds United
 * Football League First Division: 1968–69, 1973–74
 * FA Cup: 1971–72; runner-up: 1969–70, 1972–73
 * Football League Cup: 1967–68
 * FA Charity Shield: 1969
 * Inter-Cities Fairs Cup: 1967–68, 1970–71; runner-up: 1966–67
 * European Cup runner-up: 1974–75
 * European Cup Winners' Cup runner-up: 1972–73

Individual
 * Leeds United Player of the Year: 1971–72
 * Rothmans Golden Boots Awards: 1973

title: Peter Lorimer


text:
Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria (SV 325, The Return of Ulysses to his Homeland) is an opera consisting of a prologue and five acts (later revised to three), set by Claudio Monteverdi to a libretto by Giacomo Badoaro. The opera was first performed at the Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paolo in Venice during the 1639–1640 carnival season. The story, taken from the second half of Homer's Odyssey, tells how constancy and virtue are ultimately rewarded, treachery and deception overcome. After his long journey home from the Trojan Wars Ulisse, king of Ithaca, finally returns to his kingdom where he finds that a trio of villainous suitors are importuning his faithful queen, Penelope. With the assistance of the gods, his son Telemaco and a staunch friend Eumete, Ulisse vanquishes the suitors and recovers his kingdom.

Il ritorno is the first of three full-length works which Monteverdi wrote for the burgeoning Venetian opera industry during the last five years of his life. After its initial successful run in Venice the opera was performed in Bologna before returning to Venice for the 1640–41 season. Thereafter, except for a possible performance at the Imperial court in Vienna late in the 17th century, there were no further revivals until the 20th century. The music became known in modern times through the 19th-century discovery of an incomplete manuscript score which in many respects is inconsistent with the surviving versions of the libretto. After its publication in 1922 the score's authenticity was widely questioned, and performances of the opera remained rare during the next 30 years. By the 1950s the work was generally accepted as Monteverdi's, and after revivals in Vienna and Glyndebourne in the early 1970s it became increasingly popular. It has since been performed in opera houses all over the world, and has been recorded many times.

Together with Monteverdi's other Venetian stage works, Il ritorno is classified as one of the first modern operas. Its music, while showing the influence of earlier works, also demonstrates Monteverdi's development as a composer of opera, through his use of fashionable forms such as arioso, duet and ensemble alongside the older-style recitative. By using a variety of musical styles, Monteverdi is able to express the feelings and emotions of a great range of characters, divine and human, through their music. Il ritorno has been described as an "ugly duckling", and conversely as the most tender and moving of Monteverdi's surviving operas, one which although it might disappoint initially, will on subsequent hearings reveal a vocal style of extraordinary eloquence.

Historical context
Monteverdi was an established court composer in the service of Duke Vincenzo Gonzaga in Mantua when he wrote his first operas, L'Orfeo and L'Arianna, in the years 1606–08. After falling out with Vincenzo's successor, Duke Francesco Gonzaga, Monteverdi moved to Venice in 1613 and became director of music at St Mark's Basilica, a position he held for the rest of his life. Alongside his steady output of madrigals and church music, Monteverdi continued to compose works for the stage, though not actual operas. He wrote several ballets and, for the Venice carnival of 1624–25, Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda ("The Battle of Tancred and Clorinda"), a hybrid work with some characteristics of ballet, opera and oratorio. In 1637 fully-fledged opera came to Venice with the opening of the Teatro San Cassiano. Sponsored by the wealthy Tron family, this theatre was the first in the world specifically devoted to opera. The theatre's inaugural performance, on 6 March 1637, was L'Andromeda by Francesco Manelli and Benedetto Ferrari. This work was received with great enthusiasm, as was the same pair's La Maga fulminata the following year. In rapid succession three more opera houses opened in the city, as the ruling families of the Republic sought to express their wealth and status by investing in the new musical fashion. At first, Monteverdi remained aloof from these activities, perhaps on account of his age (he was over 70), or perhaps through the dignity of his office as maestro di capella at St. Mark's. Nevertheless, an unidentified contemporary, commenting on Monteverdi's silence, opined that the maestro might yet produce an opera for Venice: "God willing, one of these nights he too will step onto the stage." This remark proved prescient; Monteverdi's first public contribution to Venetian opera came in the 1639–40 carnival season, a revival of his L'Arianna at the Teatro San Moisè.

L'Arianna was followed in rapid succession by three brand new Monteverdi operas, of which Il ritorno was the first. The second, Le nozze d’Enea con Lavinia ("The Marriage of Aeneas to Lavinia"), was performed during the 1640–41 carnival; Monteverdi's music is lost, but a copy of the libretto, of unknown authorship, survives. The last of the three, written for the 1642–43 carnival, was L'incoronazione di Poppea ("The Coronation of Poppea"), performed shortly before the composer's death in 1643.

Libretto
Giacomo Badoaro (1602–1654) was a prolific poet in the Venetian dialect who was a member of the Accademia degli Incogniti, a group of free-thinking intellectuals interested in promoting musical theatre in Venice—Badoaro himself held a financial interest in the Teatro Novissimo. Il ritorno was his first libretto; he would later, in 1644, write another Ulysses-based libretto for Francesco Sacrati. The text of Il ritorno, originally written in five acts but later reorganised as three, is a generally faithful adaptation of Homer's Odyssey, Books 13–23, with some characterisations altered or expanded. Badoaro may have been influenced in his treatment of the story by the 1591 play Penelope by Giambattista della Porta. The libretto was written with the express purpose of tempting Monteverdi to enter the world of Venetian opera, and it evidently captured the elderly composer's imagination. Badoaro and Monteverdi used a classical story to illustrate the human condition of their own times.

The Monteverdi scholar Ellen Rosand has identified 12 versions of the published libretto that have been discovered in the years since the first performance. Most of these appear to be 18th-century copies, possibly from a single source; some are literary versions, unrelated to any theatrical performances. All but one of the 12 identify Badoaro as the author, while the other gives no name. Only two refer to Monteverdi as the composer, though this is not significant—composers' names were rarely given on printed librettos. The texts are all generally the same in each case, and all differ from the one surviving copy of Monteverdi's musical score, which has three acts instead of five, a different prologue, a different ending, and many scenes and passages either omitted or rearranged. Some of the libretto copies locate the opera's first performance at Teatro San Cassiano, although Teatro SS Giovanni e Paolo is now generally accepted as the opening venue.

Composition
It is not known when Monteverdi received the libretto from Badoaro, but this was presumably during or before 1639 since the work was being prepared for performance in the 1639–40 carnival. In keeping with the general character of Venetian opera, the work was written for a small band—around five string players and various continuo instruments. This reflected the financial motives of the merchant princes who were sponsoring the opera houses—they demanded commercial as well as artistic success, and wanted to minimise costs. As was common at the time, precise instrumentation is not indicated in the score, which exists in a single handwritten manuscript discovered in the Vienna National Library in the 19th century.

A study of the score reveals many characteristic Monteverdi features, derived from his long experience as a composer for the stage and of other works for the human voice. Rosand believes that rather than casting doubts on Monteverdi's authorship, the significant differences between the score and the libretto might lend support to it, since Monteverdi was well known for his adaptations of the texts presented to him. Ringer reinforces this, writing that "Monteverdi boldly reshaped Badoaro's writing into a coherent and supremely effective foundation for a music drama", adding that Badoaro claimed that he could no longer recognise the work as his own. Contemporaries of the composer and the librettist saw an identification between Ulysses and Monteverdi; both are returning home—"home" in Monteverdi's case being the medium of opera which he had mastered and then left, 30 years earlier.

Authenticity
Before and after the publication of the score in 1922, scholars questioned the work's authenticity, and its attribution to Monteverdi continued to be in some doubt until the 1950s. The Italian musicologist Giacomo Benvenuti maintained, on the basis of a 1942 performance in Milan, that the work was simply not good enough to be by Monteverdi. Apart from the stylistic differences between Il ritorno and Monteverdi's other surviving late opera, L'incoronazione di Poppea, the main issue which raised doubts was the series of discrepancies between the score and the libretto. However, much of the uncertainty concerning the attribution was resolved through the discovery of contemporary documents, all confirming Monteverdi's role as the composer. These documents include a letter from the unknown librettist of Le nozze d'Enea in Lavinia, which discusses Monteverdi's setting of Il ritorno. There is also Badoaro's preface to the Il ritorno libretto, addressed to the composer, which includes the wording "I can firmly state that my Ulysses is more indebted to you than ever was the real Ulysses to the ever-gracious Minerva". A 1644 letter from Badoaro to Michelangelo Torcigliani contains the statement "Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria was embellished with the music of Claudio Monteverdi, a man of great fame and enduring name". Finally, a 1640 booklet entitled Le Glorie della Musica indicates the Badoaro-Monteverdi pairing as the creators of the opera. In the view of conductor and instrumentalist Sergio Vartolo, these findings establish Monteverdi as the principal composer "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Although parts of the music may be by other hands, there is no doubt that the work is substantially Monteverdi's and remains close to his original conception.

Roles
The work is written for a large cast—thirty roles including small choruses of heavenly beings, sirens and Phaecians—but these parts can be organised among fourteen singers (three sopranos, two mezzo-sopranos, one alto, six tenors and two basses) by appropriate doubling of roles. This approximates to the normal forces employed in Venetian opera. In the score, the role of Eumete changes midway through Act II from tenor to soprano castrato, suggesting that the surviving manuscript may have been created from more than one source. In modern performances the latter part of Eumete's role is usually transposed to a lower range, to accommodate the tenor voice throughout.

Synopsis
The action takes place on and around the island of Ithaca, ten years after the Trojan Wars. English translations used in the synopsis are from Geoffrey Dunn's version, based on Raymond Leppard's 1971 edition, and from Hugh Ward-Perkins's interpretation issued with Sergio Vartolo's 2006 recording for Brilliant Classics. Footnotes provide the original Italian.

Prologue
The spirit of human frailty (l'humana Fragilità) is mocked in turn by the gods of time (il Tempo), fortune (la Fortuna) and love (l'Amore). Man, they claim, is subject to their whims: "From Time, ever fleeting, from Fortune's caresses, from Love and its arrows...No mercy from me!" They will render man "weak, wretched, and bewildered."

Act 1
In the palace at Ithaca, Penelope mourns the long absence of Ulysses: "The awaited one does not return, and the years pass by." Her grief is echoed by her nurse, Ericlea. As Penelope leaves, her attendant Melanto enters with Eurimaco, a servant to Penelope's importunate suitors. The two sing passionately of their love for each other ("You are my sweet life"). The scene changes to the Ithacan coast, where the sleeping Ulisse is brought ashore by the Phaecians (Faeci), whose action is in defiance of the wishes of gods Giove and Nettuno. The Phaecians are punished by the gods who turn them and their ship to stone. Ulysses awakes, cursing the Phaecians for abandoning him: "To your sails, falsest Phaeacians, may Boreas be ever hostile!" From the goddess Minerva, who appears disguised as a shepherd boy, Ulisse learns that he is in Ithaca, and is told of "the unchanging constancy of the chaste Penelope", in the face of the persistent importunings of her evil suitors. Minerva promises to lead Ulisse back to the throne if he follows her advice; she tells him to disguise himself so that he can penetrate the court secretly. Ulisse goes to seek out his loyal servant Eumete, while Minerva departs to search for Telemaco, Ulisse's son who will help his father reclaim the kingdom. Back at the palace, Melanto tries vainly to persuade Penelope to choose one of the suitors: "Why do you disdain the love of living suitors, expecting comfort from the ashes of the dead?" In a wooded grove Eumete, banished from court by the suitors, revels in the pastoral life, despite the mockery of Iro, the suitors' parasitic follower, who sneers: "I live among kings, you here among the herds." After Iro is chased away, Ulisse enters disguised as a beggar, and assures Eumete that his master the king is alive, and will return. Eumete is overjoyed: "My long sorrow will fall, vanquished by you."

Act 2
Minerva and Telemaco return to Ithaca in a chariot. Telemaco is greeted joyfully by Eumete and the disguised Ulisse in the woodland grove: "O great son of Ulysses, you have indeed returned!" After Eumete goes to inform Penelope of Telemaco's arrival a bolt of fire descends on Ulisse, removing his disguise and revealing his true identity to his son. The two celebrate their reunion before Ulisse sends Telemaco to the palace, promising to follow shortly. In the palace, Melanto complains to Eurimaco that Penelope still refuses to choose a suitor: "In short, Eurymachus, the lady has a heart of stone." Soon afterwards Penelope receives the three suitors (Antinoo, Pisandro, Anfinomo), and rejects each in turn despite their efforts to enliven the court with singing and dancing: "Now to enjoyment, to dance and song!" After the suitors' departure Eumete tells Penelope that Telemaco has arrived in Ithaca, but she is doubtful: "Such uncertain things redouble my grief." Eumete's message is overheard by the suitors, who plot to kill Telemaco. However, they are unnerved when a symbolic eagle flies overhead, so they abandon their plan and renew their efforts to capture Penelope's heart, this time with gold. Back in the woodland grove, Minerva tells Ulisse that she has organised a means whereby he will be able to challenge and destroy the suitors. Resuming his beggar's disguise, Ulisse arrives at the palace, where he is challenged to a fight by Iro, ("I will pluck out the hairs of your beard one by one!"), a challenge he accepts and wins. Penelope now states that she will accept the suitor who is able to string Ulisse's bow. All three suitors attempt the task unsuccessfully. The disguised Ulisse then asks to try though renouncing the prize of Penelope's hand, and to everyone's amazement he succeeds. He then angrily denounces the suitors and, summoning the names of the gods, kills all three with the bow: "This is how the bow wounds! To death, to havoc, to ruin!"

Act 3
Deprived of the suitors' patronage, Iro commits suicide after a doleful monologue ("O grief, O torment that saddens the soul!") Melanto, whose lover Eurimaco was killed with the suitors, tries to warn Penelope of the new danger represented by the unidentified slayer, but Penelope is unmoved and continues to mourn for Ulisse. Eumete and Telemaco now inform her that the beggar was Ulisse in disguise, but she refuses to believe them: "Your news is persistent and your comfort hurtful." The scene briefly transfers to the heavens, where Giunone, having been solicited by Minerva, persuades Giove and Nettune that Ulisse should be restored to his throne. Back in the palace the nurse Ericlea has discovered Ulisse's identity by recognising a scar on his back, but does not immediately reveal this information: "Sometimes the best thing is a wise silence." Penelope continues to disbelieve, even when Ulisse appears in his true form and when Ericlea reveals her knowledge of the scar. Finally, after Ulisse describes the pattern of Penelope's private bedlinen, knowledge that only he could possess, she is convinced. Reunited, the pair sing rapturously to celebrate their love: "My sun, long sighed for! My light, renewed!"

Early performances
Il ritorno was first staged during the 1639–40 Venice carnival by the theatrical company of Manelli and Ferrari, who had first brought opera to Venice. The date of the Il ritorno première is not recorded.

According to Carter the work was performed at least ten times during its first season; it was then taken by Manelli to Bologna, and played at the Teatro Castrovillani before returning to Venice for the 1640–41 carnival season. From markings in the extant score, it is likely that the first Venice performances were in five acts, the three-act form being introduced either in Bologna or in the second Venice season. A theory offered by Italian opera historian Nino Pirrotta that the Bologna performance was the work's première is not supported by subsequent research. The opera's revival in Venice only one season after its première was very unusual, almost unique in the 17th century, and testifies to the opera's popular success—Ringer calls it "one of the most successful operas of the century". Carter offers a reason for its appeal to the public: "The opera has enough sex, gore and elements of the supernatural to satisfy the most jaded Venetian palate."

The venue for Il ritorno's première was at one time thought to be the Teatro Cassiano, but scholarly consensus considers it most likely that both the 1639–40 and 1640–41 performances were at the Teatro SS Giovanni e Paolo. This view is supported by a study of the performance schedules for other Venice operas, and by the knowledge that the Manelli company had severed its connection with the Teatro Cassiano before the 1639–40 season. The Teatro SS Giovanni e Paolo, owned by the Grimani family, would also be the venue for the premières of Monteverdi's Le nozze d'Enea and Poppea. In terms of its staging Il ritorno is, says Carter, fairly undemanding, requiring three basic sets—a palace, a seascape and a woodland scene—which were more or less standard for early Venetian opera. It did, however, demand some spectacular special effects: the Phaecian ship turns to stone, an airborne chariot transports Minerva, a bolt of fire transforms Ulisse.

After the Venice 1640–41 revival there is no record of further performances of Il ritorno in Venice, or elsewhere, before the discovery of the music manuscript in the 19th century. The discovery of this manuscript in Vienna suggests that at some time the opera was staged there, or at least contemplated, perhaps before the Imperial court. The Monteverdi scholar Alan Curtis dates the manuscript's arrival in Vienna to 1675, during the reign of the Emperor Leopold I who was a considerable patron of the arts, and opera in particular.

Modern revivals
The Vienna manuscript score was published by Robert Haas in 1922. Publication was followed by the first modern performance of the opera, in an edition by Vincent d'Indy, in Paris on 16 May 1925. For the next half-century performances remained rare. The BBC introduced the opera to British listeners with a radio broadcast on 16 January 1928, again using the d'Indy edition. The Italian composer Luigi Dallapiccola prepared his own edition, which was performed in Florence in 1942, and Ernst Krenek's version was shown in Wuppertal, Germany, in 1959. The first British staging was a performance at St. Pancras Town Hall, London, on 16 March 1965, given with the English Chamber Orchestra conducted by Frederick Marshall.

The opera entered a wider repertory in the early 1970s, with performances in Vienna (1971) and Glyndebourne (1972). The Vienna performance used a new edition prepared by Nikolaus Harnoncourt, whose subsequent partnership with the French opera director Jean-Pierre Ponnelle led to the staging of the opera in many European cities. Ponnelle's 1978 presentation in Edinburgh was later described as "infamous"; at the time, critic Stanley Sadie praised the singers but criticised the production for its "frivolity and indeed coarseness". In January 1974 Il ritorno received its United States première with a production mounted by the Opera Society of Washington at the Kennedy Center, on the basis of the Harnoncourt edition. Led by conductor Alexander Gibson, the cast included Frederica von Stade as L'humana Fragilità and Penelope, Claude Corbeil as Il Tempo and Antinoo, Joyce Castle as La Fortuna, Barbara Hocher as Amore and Melanto, Richard Stilwell as Ulisse, Donald Gramm as Nettuno, WIlliam Neill as Giove, Carmen Balthrop as Minerva, David Lloyd as Eumete, R. G. Webb as Iro, Howard Hensel as Eurimaco, Paul Sperry as Telemaco, Dennis Striny as Pisandro, and John Lankston as Anfinomo.

More recently the opera has been performed at the New York Lincoln Center by New York City Opera, and at other venues throughout the United States. A 2006 Welsh National Opera production by David Alden, designed by Ian McNeil, featured neon signs, stuffed cats, a Neptune in flippers and a wet suit, Minerva in the form of the aviator Amelia Earhart, and Jupiter as a small-time hustler, an interpretation defended by the critic Anna Picard – "the gods were always contemporary fantasies, while an abandoned wife and a humbled hero are eternals."

The German composer Hans Werner Henze was responsible for the first two-act version, which was produced at the Salzburg Festival on 11 August 1985, with divided critical reaction. Two-act productions have since become increasingly common. The South African artist and animator William Kentridge devised a version of the opera based on the use of puppets and animated film, using around half of the music. This version was shown in Johannesburg in 1998 and then toured the world, appearing at the Lincoln Center in 2004 and at the Edinburgh Festival in 2009.

Music
According to Denis Arnold, although Monteverdi's late operas retain elements of the earlier Renaissance intermezzo and pastoral forms, they may be fairly considered as the first modern operas. In the 1960s, however, David Johnson found it necessary to warn prospective Il ritorno listeners that if they expected to hear opera akin to Verdi, Puccini or Mozart, they would be disappointed: "You have to submit yourself to a much slower pace, to a much more chaste conception of melody, to a vocal style that is at first or second hearing merely like dry declamation and only on repeated hearings begins to assume an extraordinary eloquence." A few years later, Jeremy Noble in a Gramophone review wrote that Il ritorno was the least known and least performed of Monteverdi's operas, "quite frankly, because its music is not so consistently full of character and imagination as that of Orfeo or Poppea." Arnold called the work an "ugly duckling". Later analysts have been more positive; to Mark Ringer Il ritorno is "the most tender and moving of Monteverdi's operas", while in Ellen Rosand's view the composer's ability to portray real human beings through music finds its fullest realisation here, and in Poppea a few years later.

The music of Il ritorno shows the unmistakable influence of the composer's earlier works. Penelope's lament, which opens Act I, is reminiscent both of Orfeo's Redentemi il mio ben and the lament from L'Arianna. The martial-sounding music which accompanies references to battles and the killing of the suitors, derives from Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, while for the song episodes in Il ritorno Monteverdi draws in part on the techniques which he developed in his 1632 vocal work Scherzi musicale. In typical Monteverdi fashion the opera's characters are vividly portrayed in their music. Penelope and Ulisse, with what is described by Ringer as "honest musical and verbal declamation", overcome the suitors whose styles are "exaggerated and ornamental". Iro, perhaps "the first great comic character in opera", opens his Act 3 monologue with a wail of distress that stretches across eight bars of music. Penelope begins her lament with a reiteration of E flats that, according to Ringer, "suggest a sense of motionless and emotional stasis" that well represents her condition as the opera begins. At the work's end, her travails over, she unites with Ulisse in a duet of life-affirming confidence which, Ringer suggests, no other composer bar Verdi could have achieved.

Rosand divides the music of Il ritorno into "speech-like" and "musical" utterances. Speech, usually in the form of recitative, delivers information and moves the action forward, while musical utterances, either formal songs or occasional short outbursts, are lyrical passages that enhance an emotional or dramatic situation. This division is, however, less formal than in Monteverdi's earlier L'Orfeo; in Il ritorno information is frequently conveyed through the use of arioso, or even aria at times, increasing both tunefulness and tonal unity. As with Orfeo and Poppea, Monteverdi differentiates musically between humans and gods, with the latter singing music which is usually more profusely melodic—although in Il ritorno, most of the human characters have some opportunity for lyrical expression. According to the reviewer Iain Fenlon, "it is Monteverdi's mellifluous and flexible recitative style, capable of easy movement between declamation and arioso, which remains in the memory as the dominant language of the work." Monteverdi's ability to combine fashionable forms such as the chamber duet and ensembles with the older-style recitative from earlier in the century further illustrate the development of the composer's dramatic style. Monteverdi's trademark feature of "stilo concitato" (rapid repetition of notes to suggest dramatic action or excitement) is deployed to good effect in the fight scene between Ulisse and Iro, and in the slaying of the suitors. Arnold draws attention to the great range of characters in the opera—the divine, the noble, the servants, the evil, the foolish, the innocent and the good. For all of these "the music expresses their emotions with astonishing accuracy."

List of musical items
The following is a list of the "scenes" into which the libretto is divided. Each separate scene is typically a mixture of musical elements: recitative, arioso, arietta and sometimes ensemble, with occasional instrumental interludes.

Recording history
The first recording of the opera was issued in 1964 by Vox, a version which incorporated substantial cuts. The first complete recording was that of Harnoncourt and Concentus Musicus Wien in 1971. Raymond Leppard's 1972 Glyndebourne version was recorded in a concert performance in the Royal Albert Hall; the following year the same Glyndebourne cast was recorded in a full stage performance. Leppard's third Glyndebourne version was issued in 1980, when the orchestration with strings and brass drew critical comment from Denis Arnold in his Gramophone review: "Too much of the music left with a simple basso continuo line in the original has been fully orchestrated with strings and brass, with the result that the expressive movement between recitative, arioso and aria is obscured." (For further details, see Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria (Raymond Leppard recording).) Much the same criticism, says Arnold, may be levelled at Harnoncourt's 1971 recording.

Among more recent issues is the much praised 1992 René Jacobs performance with Concerto Vocale, "a recording that all serious Monteverdians will wish to return to frequently", according to Fenlon. Jacobs's version is in the original five-act form, and uses music by Luigi Rossi and Giulio Caccini for some choruses which appear in the libretto but which are missing from Monteverdi's score. More than thirty years after his first issue, Harnoncourt's 2002 version, with Zurich Opera, was recorded live in DVD format. While the quality of the vocal contributions were praised, Harnoncourt's "big-band score" and bold instrumentation were highlighted by Gramophone critic Jonathan Freeman-Attwood as a likely source of future debate.

Editions
Since the publication of the Vienna manuscript score in 1922 the opera has been edited frequently, sometimes for specific performances or recordings. The following are the main published editions of the work, to 2010.
 * Robert Haas (Vienna, 1922 in the series Denkmäler der Tonkunst in Österreich)
 * Vincent d'Indy (Paris, 1926)
 * Gian Francesco Malipiero (Vienna, 1930 in Claudio Monteverdi: Tutte le opere)
 * Luigi Dallapiccola (Milan, 1942)
 * Ernst Krenek (Wuppertal, 1959)
 * Nikolaus Harnoncourt (Vienna, 1971)
 * Raymond Leppard (London, 1972)
 * Hans Werner Henze (Salzburg, 1985)
 * Alan Curtis (London, 2002)

title: Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria


text:
Talk:Sabbat (World of Darkness)

I've rewritten part of the article and tried to create a structure of sorts - my first real major edit, I hope I did it right. Constructive criticism more than welcome. gifkip 17:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) - New York isn't in the southeast US. Should it say southern AND eastern US? - Put in a few extra references. Cameronmurtagh 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) - the link to the Black hand, links to the original Black hand, not the one related in the video game... i dont have much info on the WoD black hand, so is that intended? - I object to the deletion notice and removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.83.112 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sabbat (World of Darkness)


text:
Child advocacy

Child advocacy refers to a range of individuals, professionals and advocacy organizations who speak out on the best interests of children. An individual or organization engaging in advocacy typically seeks to protect children's rights which may be abridged or abused in a number of areas.

What child advocates do
A child advocate typically represents or gives voice to children whose concerns and interests are not being heard. Child advocacy can be done at the micro level (for one child or a few children), mezzo level (for group of children or at a community level) or macro level (for a category of children affected by a social issue). A child advocate will try to prevent children from being harmed and may try to obtain justice for those who have already been injured in some way. A child advocate may also seek to ensure that children have access to resources or services which will benefit their lives such as education, childcare and proper parenting. Malnutrition is another form of harm-there are many children who go to bed without eating and it is looked over by child welfare or the police.

Another form of child advocacy happens at the policy level and aims at changing the policies of governments or even transnational policies. These advocates do lobbying, policy research, file lawsuits and engage in other types of policy change techniques. Many use Internet based techniques to influence decision makers.

Where child advocates can be found
Several countries have established Children's Ombudsman agencies, at national, sub-national or local levels, as independent public bodies promoting and protecting the rights of children. Other child advocates exist in school, community, and home environments, and work on an individual, group or governmental level(s) to protect and nurture children. In most circumstances, mothers, fathers, family and teachers all advocate on behalf of children, although it is well recognized that we all have the ability and responsibility to advocate on behalf of children. In Wales the Welsh Assembly Government has set up the National Advocacy Meic helpline which allows children to talk directly to advocates. These independent advocates support and represent the concerns of children.

Eight Canadian provinces, including Ontario, have an official child advocate whose job it is to protect the interests and welfare of all the children in the province. Within the criminal justice system, child advocates are concerned with the developmental needs of children and young people, and can play an important role in ensuring due process rights for young people in conflict with the law. They can help provide a voice for children and young people, ensure just and humane conditions of custody, and guard the privacy rights surrounding record provisions. They can also work to ensure that the special legal protections assigned to young people are provided with dignity and fairness.

Child advocacy centers
Child advocacy centers (CAC) provide a child-friendly, safe and neutral location in which law enforcement and Child Protective Services investigators may conduct and observe forensic interviews with children who are alleged victims of crimes, and where the child and non-offending family members receive support, crisis intervention and referrals for mental health and medical treatment. The Child advocacy center model's main objective is to reduce trauma to child victims by bringing all disciplines together and sharing information more efficiently to minimize duplication. CACs coordinate multidisciplinary teams composed of law enforcement officers, child protective service personnel, prosecutors, advocates, mental health therapists and medical personnel. The multidisciplinary team meets regularly to communicate and collaborate on child maltreatment cases. Cases are reviewed beginning with the victim’s initial outcry through investigation, treatment and prosecution. Communication within the team reduces duplication and mistakes, and keeps victims from falling through the cracks.

A child forensic interview is a process where a child is given the opportunity to make a statement about what happened in a private, safe, supportive environment. The child is questioned in a legally-sound, developmentally appropriate, and trauma-informed manner by a specially trained child interviewer. Members of the multidisciplinary team that have jurisdiction over the case observe the interview as it is taking place. Interviews are recorded, reducing the number of times children need to be interviewed, therefore reducing trauma to the child. Information gathered in the forensic interview is used to help make decisions about protection, prosecution and treatment. Conducting forensic interviews with child crime victims in a child advocacy center is considered best practice.

History of child advocacy centers: In 1985, Congressman Robert E. "Bud" Cramer (AL), who was then a District Attorney, organized an effort to create a better system to help abused children. He was frustrated as a prosecutor, because he was having difficulty prosecuting child abuse cases and getting guilty verdicts or pleas for offenders of crimes against children. He noticed the social service and the criminal justice systems were not working together in an effective manner and this created the common problem of adding to children's emotional distress, and created a segmented, repetitious, and often frightening experience for the child victims. He pulled together law enforcement, criminal justice, child protective service, medical and mental health workers into one coordinated team that would serve child victims of crime in a respectful way. Thirty years ago, this was a revolutionary idea.

Child advocacy centers in the USA are accredited by the National Children's Alliance.

The Child Advocate in the USA is a national not for profit organization with connections to hundreds of other organizations and resources to address sexual abuse but also many other advocacy needs for children and families. Their goals are to serve the needs of children, families and professionals while addressing mental health, medical, educational, legal and legislative issues.

Child advocacy organizations in the USA at the policy level exist at state and national levels and as transnational NGOs. The organizations that they work in vary from smaller organizations at the local level to multinational voluntary organizations concerned about international child rights.

The United Nations
On the international stage, the United Nations has long advocated on behalf of children through UNICEF, whose position on children was formulated and publicly formalized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention sets out a summary of collective ideals and a covenant of commitments to all children on the planet.

Philosophy
One thing that all child advocates have in common is healthy respect for young children. There is also recognition that in most countries, children are not seen as having full citizenship status which confers certain rights and responsibilities as adults. Child advocates provide assistance to children both in the foster care setting and children who are going through any court system. They provide the necessary counseling to the adults in child/children's lives to ensure a high quality of life for the child. The most important person to the advocate is the child. The philosophy of a child advocate is to guarantee that the caretakers of any child are receiving the proper tools that are necessary for raising that child, guaranteeing a satisfactory life.

title: Child advocacy


text:
Munkyung College

Mungyeong College, also known as Mun Kyung College, is a private technical college in Mungyeong city, North Gyeongsang province, South Korea. It is located in Hogye-myeon, on the outskirts of Jeomchon. It was established as Mun Kyung Technical College (문경전문대학) in 1990, and took on its present name in 1995.

Mungyeong College currently employs about 34 instructors. Specializations include information technology, tourism, and early childhood education. Enrollment fluctuates around 1000 students.

title: Munkyung College


text:
Trespassers William

Trespassers William was an American indie rock band formed in 1997 from Orange County, California. The band released three albums from 1997 to 2006, relocating to the SoDo/Capitol Hill area of Seattle, Washington before their third album Having. Trespassers William disbanded in 2012, reuniting in 2020 for the release of a non-album single.

The band underwent numerous lineup changes, never retaining the same roster for more than one album. Trespassers William most recently consisted of vocalist Anna-Lynne Williams and guitarist/keyboardist Matt Brown as a duo. Williams releases solo material under the moniker Lotte Kestner.

History
Formed in Orange County, California in 1997, Trespassers William released four albums and two EPs. Their debut album Anchor (1999) appeared on Sonikwire Records and is now out of print. It features a more alternative country and dream pop sound.

Different Stars was self-released in 2002 and was re-released twice—most recently on Nettwerk Records on October 19, 2004. The self-released version of Different Stars caught the attention of former Cocteau Twins member Simon Raymonde, who signed Trespassers William to his Bella Union record label.

In early 2004, the band moved to Seattle, leaving behind drummer Jamie Williams, who did not want to make the move with the band. Their third album, Having, (mixed by The Flaming Lips producer Dave Fridmann) was released on February 28, 2006. In February 2007, American webzine Somewhere Cold voted Having No. 10 on their 2006 Somewhere Cold Awards Hall of Fame.

The band toured the United States and Europe several times, including a UK tour with Damien Rice and a festival appearance in Spain with Morrissey. The band's music attracted modest press coverage and exposure, most notably in British magazines such as NME and Uncut and was featured on such television shows as One Tree Hill, The O.C., Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Felicity, and movies such as A Love Song for Bobby Long and Annapolis. Trespassers William also opened for The Chameleons lead singer Mark Burgess, Lisa Germano, Stereolab and James singer Tim Booth. Williams provided guest vocals for The Chemical Brothers' 2005 song "Hold Tight London" and Black Swan Lane's 2007 song "Fakers".

Brown and Williams turned Trespassers William into a duo by 2009 as "the constants in the history of the band." Williams would later admit that she felt the constant lineup changes "weakened the band." After the release of The Natural Order of Things EP in 2009, the band entered a long period of silence and officially disbanded on January 1, 2012. Brown and Williams began writing music in their Seattle apartment, but Williams came down with a case of tendonitis which worsened the pair's relationship.

A collection of B-sides and rarities called Cast, which also contains an expanded edition of their 2009 EP The Natural Order of Things, was released by Saint Marie Records on September 4, 2012. In 2017, Newsweek named Cast the fifteenth best double album since Prince's 1987 double album Sign o' The Times. Writing for Newsweek, Zach Schonfeld said that though Cast is "technically a rarities compilation, but in all its weird aching melancholy, it has the ebb and flow of a proper album."

In 2020, the band reunited to release the non-album single "Winterstorms".

Band name origin
Trespassers William's name is from a Winnie-the-Pooh tale, "Pooh and Piglet Go Hunting and Nearly Catch a Woozle" by A.A. Milne: "Next to [Piglet's] house was a piece of broken board which had: 'TRESPASSERS WILL' on it. When Christopher Robin asked Piglet what it meant, he said it was his grandfather's name, which was short for Trespassers William. And his grandfather had had two names in case he lost one — Trespassers after an uncle, and William after Trespassers."

Influences
The band was influenced by The Smiths, Cocteau Twins, Red House Painters, Talk Talk, Sigur Rós, Kent, The Knife, Kate Bush and Radiohead.

Albums

 * Anchor (November 30, 1999)
 * Different Stars (September 28, 2002)
 * Having (February 28, 2006)

Singles and EPs

 * "Vapour Trail" [Single] (2003)
 * "Lie in the Sound" [Single] (2004)
 * Live Session [EP] (2005)
 * Noble House [EP] (2007)
 * The Natural Order of Things [EP] (March 12, 2009)
 * "Winterstorms" [Single] (April 24, 2020)
 * "Hold" [Single] (recorded in 2011, officially released on May 13, 2022)

Compilations

 * Cast (September 4, 2012)

Soundtrack appearances

 * A Love Song for Bobby Long (Original Soundtrack) (2004)
 * 5. "Different Stars"

 * Music from the Television Series One Tree Hill, Volume 1 (2005)
 * 14. "Lie In The Sound"

 * Sweet Nothings: Love is a Mixtape (2006)
 * 1. "And We Lean In"

Final lineup

 * Matt Brown – guitar and keyboards (1997–2012, 2020)
 * Anna-Lynne Williams – vocals and guitar (1997–2012, 2020)

Former members

 * Josh Gordon – bass guitar, drums, percussion, guitar (1999–2001)
 * Jeff McCullogh – accordion (1999–2001)
 * Trinidad Sanchez III – bass guitar (2001–2004)
 * Ross Simonini – bass guitar and keyboards (2002–2009)
 * Nathan Skolrud – drums, bass guitar, and keyboards (2006–2009)
 * Jamie Williams – drums (2001–2006)

title: Trespassers William


text:
Djer

Djer (or Zer or Sekhty; fl. c. 3000 BC) is considered the third pharaoh of the First Dynasty of ancient Egypt in current Egyptology. He lived around the mid 31st century BC and reigned for c. 40 years. A mummified forearm of Djer or his wife was discovered by Egyptologist Flinders Petrie, but was discarded by Émile Brugsch.

Name
The Abydos King List lists the third pharaoh as Iti, the Turin King List lists a damaged name, beginning with It..., while Manetho lists Kenkenês. Jürgen von Beckerath in the Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen (1999) translates the hieroglyphs of the name Djer as "Defender of Horus."

Length of reign
Although the Egyptian priest Manetho, writing in the third century BC, stated that Djer ruled for 57 years, modern research by Toby Wilkinson in Royal Annals of Ancient Egypt stresses that the near-contemporary and therefore, more accurate Palermo Stone ascribes Djer a reign of "41 complete and partial years." Wilkinson notes that years 1–10 of Djer's reign are preserved in register II of the Palermo Stone, while the middle years of this pharaoh's reign are recorded in register II of Cairo stone fragment C1.

Reign

Djer's reign was preceded by a regency controlled by Neithhotep, possibly his mother or grandmother.

The evidence for Djer's life and reign is:
 * Tomb in Umm el-Qa'ab, Abydos
 * Seal prints from graves 2185 and 3471 in Saqqara
 * Inscriptions in graves 3503, 3506 and 3035 in Saqqara
 * Seal impression and inscriptions from Helwan
 * Jar from Turah with the name of Djer
 * UC 16182 ivory tablet from Abydos, subsidiary tomb 612 of the enclosure of Djer
 * UC 16172 copper adze with the name of Djer
 * Inscription of his name (of questioned authenticity, however) at Wadi Halfa, Sudan

The inscriptions, on ivory and wood, are in a very early form of hieroglyphs, hindering complete translation, but a label at Saqqarah may depict the First Dynasty practice of human sacrifice. An ivory tablet from Abydos mentions that Djer visited Buto and Sais in the Nile Delta. One of his regnal years on the Cairo Stone was named "Year of smiting the land of Setjet", which often is speculated to be Sinai or beyond.

Manetho claimed that Athothes, who is sometimes identified as Djer, had written a treatise on anatomy that still existed in his own day, over two millennia later.

Family

Djer was a son of the pharaoh Hor-Aha and his wife Khenthap. His grandfather was probably Narmer. Djer fathered Merneith, wife of Djet and mother of Den. Women carrying titles later associated with queens such as Great One of the Hetes-Sceptre and She who Sees/Carries Horus were buried in subsidiary tombs near the tomb of Djer in Abydos or attested in Saqqara. These women are thought to be the wives of Djer and include:

 * Nakhtneith (or Nekhetneith), buried in Abydos and known from a stela.
 * Herneith, possibly a wife of Djer. Buried in Saqqara.
 * Seshemetka, buried in Abydos next to the king. She was said to be a wife of Den in Dodson and Hilton.
 * Penebui, her name and title were found on an ivory label from Saqqara.
 * bsu, known from a label in Saqqara and several stone vessels (reading of name uncertain; name consists of three fish hieroglyphs).

Tomb
Similarly to his father Hor-Aha, Djer was buried in Umm el-Qa'ab at Abydos. Djer's tomb is tomb O of Petrie. His tomb contains the remains of 318 retainers who were buried with him. At some point, Djer's tomb was devastated by fire, possibly as early as the Second Dynasty. During the Middle Kingdom, the tomb of Djer was revered as the tomb of Osiris, and the entire First Dynasty burial complex, which includes the tomb of Djer, was very important in the Egyptian religious tradition. An image of Osiris on a funerary bier was placed in the tomb, possibly by the Thirteenth dynasty pharaoh Djedkheperu.

Several objects were found in and around the tomb of Djer:

 * A stela of Djer, now in the Cairo Museum, probably comes from Abydos.
 * Labels mentioning the name of a palace and the name of Meritneith.
 * Fragments of two vases inscribed with the name of Queen Neithhotep.
 * Bracelets of a Queen were found in the wall of the tomb.

In the subsidiary tombs, excavators found objects including stelae representing several individuals, ivory objects inscribed with the name of Neithhotep, and various ivory tablets.

Manetho indicates that the First Dynasty ruled from Memphis – and indeed Herneith, one of Djer's wives, was buried nearby at Saqqara.

title: Djer


text:
George Urban

George Robert Urban (born Gyorgy Robert Ungar; 12 April 1921, in Miskolc, Hungary – 3 October 1997) was a Hungarian writer, best known as a broadcaster for Radio Free Europe (RFE).

Early life
Gyorgy Robert Ungar was born on 12 April 1921 in Miskolc, Hungary. He attended Budapest University and left Hungary for the United Kingdom in 1948, where he took up further studies at London University. On 1 April 1955 he was naturalised as a British subject under the name George Robert Urban.

Career
Urban began work for the BBC Hungarian service. He was a radio broadcaster for a number of years for the BBC World Service, leaving and joining RFE in 1960, and becoming its director for a period in the 1980s.

Urban is known also for his writing for Encounter magazine. His journalism and book writing drew heavily on long dialogues, in effect extended interviews, from his work at RFE, involving major intellectual and political figures who were prepared to engage with the Cold War. He also published a study of the Georgekreis, an early enthusiasm, and continuing shaper of his attitudes. In 1985, he signed a petition in support for the far-right paramilitary Contras (Nicaragua).

Personal life
Urban was twice married.

Works

 * Kinesis and stasis; a study in the attitude of Stefan George and his circle to the musical arts (1962)
 * The Sino-Soviet Conflict (1965) with Leo Labedz
 * Toynbee on Toynbee: A Conversation between Arnold J. Toynbee and G. R. Urban (1974)
 * Détente (1976)
 * What is Eurocommunism? (1977) editor
 * Eurocommunism: Its Roots and Future in Italy and Elsewhere (1978)
 * Communist Reformation: Nationalism, Internationalism, and Change in the World Communist Movement (1979)
 * Can the Soviet System Survive Reform?: Seven Colloquies About the State of Soviet Socialism Seventy Years After the Bolshevik Revolution (1989)
 * End of Empire: The Demise of the Soviet Union (1992)
 * Diplomacy and Disillusion at the Court of Margaret Thatcher: An Insider's View (1996)
 * Radio Free Europe and the Pursuit of Democracy: My War Within the Cold War (1997)

title: George Urban


text: Category:Theosophical philosophical concepts


text: Talk:Munkyung College

title: Talk:Munkyung College


text:
Talk:Jianzhen

Untitled
It would be significant to learn about Jianzhen's medical education and practices. With regard to Buddhist medicine, the following discussion is interesting.

Pattison, Eliot. Stone Mountain (St Martin's Grifin Ed. 2004) 130-131 (sequel to The Skull Mantra)

The westerner tells about a conversation between a western woman and Tibetans:

"The Tibetans told her that the most important thing for maintaining the human life force was connection to the land, and that the world had become divided between people whose lives were severed from the life force and people who lived close to the land.That those who lived close to the land had a sacred duty to protect the life force."

A lama named Lokesh, speaking of the medicine lamas, who lived in a gompa surrounded by the Plain of Flowers before it was destroyed by the Chinese:

"We would sit here for lessons sometimes, and the lamas would explain how the spring was connected to th e center of the earth. They would wash herbs in this water and send clay jars of it to healers all over Tibet. I remember listening for hours while Chigu Rinpoche taught us how the power of plants came from the power of the earth and their power to heal came from the ways they connected humans back to the earth."

Then the westerner says,

"Doctors say they could heal anything if they just knew how the human animal evolved,how to trace the human body back to where it rose up out of the mud. Because everything we're made of came out of the earth....It's a different way of saying the same thing, isn't it?"

A conversation between a westerner and a Tibetan-Buddhist monk in the 19th or 20th century has nothing to do with the medical practices of Zen-Buddhist Jianzhen. Intranetusa (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganjin was not a Zen-Buddhist...he established the Ritsu school of Buddhism. Zen Buddhism didn't arrive in Japan until several centuries later. Tony 10:12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.21.82 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Jianzhen


text:
Wesel transmitter

The FM and TV-mast Wesel is a 320.8 metre tall guyed steel framework radio mast of the Deutsche Telekom AG at Wesel-Büderich, Germany. FM and TV-mast Wesel was built in 1968 and is used for FM- and TV transmission.

FM and TV-mast Wesel is the second tallest structure in Northrhine-Westphalia. Before the construction of the chimney of Power Station Westerholt, it was the tallest structure of North Rhine-Westphalia. It reclaimed this title after the chimney's demolition on November 12, 2006.

title: Wesel transmitter


text:
Category talk:Education in South Korea

I'm not sure what this page is supposed to do. It doesn't open up into subcategories for me, and the entries are not complete. Nor are theyof a single hierarchical level. Also, I can't see the list in the edit mode, only the top lines visible there.

title: Category talk:Education in South Korea