shs-home-slider-button-icon GIVE IT A TRY TODAY!
SuperHuman's Pure Vegan is a powerful formulation of pure pea protein with a touch of rice combined with turmeric and black pepper extract to help with inflammation and absorption. In addition, this formula whips up very smooth and people are surprised at how this natural formula can taste this good and be this powerful! Excellent for Pre or Post Workout.
SuperHuman Pure Whey is one of the finest and most powerful 100% grass-fed hormone and antibiotic free whey Isolate formulations available. The formulation also contains turmeric and black pepper making this a one of a kind pure formula for easy digestibility, and maximum absorption. People tell us they love the taste and love how easy it is on their digestive system.
Excellent Pre or Post Workout.
SuperHuman Nourish is when you need a little more than just protein. Formulated as a vegan protein supplement, it has a pea protein base and a fantastic blend of organic greens and fruits topped off with an enzyme blend and probiotics. People tell us they love this as a morning shake, after a workout, or even to replace a meal.
With a fantastic vanilla taste, this blends up nicely into a shake, or if you're on the run, just with water. Great for Meal Replacement or Post Workout.
We took a naturopath, functional medicine doctor and professional strength coach to formulate our products. We then tested on professional athletes for an entire summer to dial everyting in. Our Elite Sports Specific formulas that are NSF Certified For Sport are utilized by multiple NHL teams, NFL athletes, MLB teams and athletes, basketball, rugby, runners, cyclists, ironmen, triathletes, and more. The ingredients are natural, effective and athletes tell us they actually feel the difference.
SUPERHUMAN RECOVERY has a near perfect 1:1 ratio of 100% grass-fed whey isolate protein and simple and complex carbs, targeted amino acids, electrolytes and vitamins that your body requires after an intense workout or game. Our Recovery formula has been designed with intensity in mind! Hailed as one of the best post workout and game recovery formulas in professional sports.
SUPERHUMAN RESTORE is the natural hydration product athletes have been waiting for. The product has a base of BCAAs and electrolytes, but we took it one step further and added D-Ribose to help your body recover during workout or game. D-Ribose is a natural sugar that is produced by the body and used as an energy source by the body. Highly effective and read the full case study about Restore by clicking here. Pre and During workout.
Whey Isolate vs Whey Concentrate vs Whey Blend? That's the question most buyers of protein constantly ask. It's a question where absorption, amino acid profile, ease of mixing and preference of taste are factors. Funny enough, you don't start asking these questions until you have solved that you actually want a whey protein as there are so many others such as vegan protein, egg, goat, etc.
If you're a vegan looking for a vegan protein powder supplement or just someone looking for an alternative to dairy, you have more options to choose from than you may think. The question though is what are the best vegan protein sources.
SuperHuman Strength Is Being Used By Everyone!


HATech is a Las Vegas startup on a mission to bring DevOps mastery to organizations through education, transformation, re-architecting, tooling, managed services and hard work. The HATech team recently announced they are are offering Mentor Sessions each month at The Innevation Center for fellow Las Vegas startups.
"Being a startup ourselves, we find that we can identify with other startups, particularly in the tech space," said Tabatha Wearing, Customer Success Manager at HATech. "Las Vegas is full of promising and aspiring entrepreneurs who may or may not have the knowledge of how to get their ideas formed into a business plan or online service or product. We are very invested in the startups here, and being one ourselves gives us an edge and an understanding of the challenges that a startup faces, especially in the early days.
Wearing says startup founders have many ideas, and everyone has a vision of their ultimate product, but helping an individual formulate those ideas and realize their minimum viable product is key to helping identify building blocks for success.
Wearing said another aspect explored in Mentor Sessions is preparing startups for investment.
The team at HATech views these Mentor Sessions as an important part of being invested in the startup community in Las Vegas, and thinks they are very important. With the help of valuable mentors, Wearing thinks many startups can avoid mistakes.


A brief introduction and overview of the forthcoming guidance regarding the presentation of theses and dissertations of UKH. A what and how of the university's expectations, outlining in detail according to international standards and adhering to Ministry regulations, and the requirements for submission. If you are supervising students at whatever level this contains 'must have' information for you.


Kerden Haulage is a Proud Australian owned, family operated company, established in 1992 with one Prime Mover.
Kerden Haulage has evolved into a specialised 30 Prime Mover, 65 Trailer Operation. Incorporating depots in Brisbane, Sydney Adelaide and Melbourne with Head office in a facility, including Workshop and Storage area located in Nowra NSW.
All Prime movers are fitted with Navman Tracking that tracks your freight wherever it is in Australia. Updating our equipment regularly ensures we have the safest most efficient equipment to meet your business requirements. Employees of Kerden Haulage are trained and kept up-to-date with Legislative changes, Industry standards and Best practice in all aspects of Road Transport. Workplace safety, Mass management and over Dimensional requirements from State to State regulations.


Esteban Francisco Sebourne, 63, of 1290 Irinastian Ave in Bridgeport was arrested and charged with Stalking 3, Criminal Trespass 1, and Refusing to be Fingerprinted after an incident on Sunday in Glenville.
Around 5pm on Jan 15, Greenwich Police responded to a report of an unwanted male suspect on Riverdale Ave.
Investigation revealed that the man had been warned by police the previous evening that he was neither to go to the residence or have any contact with the resident.
The resident was concerned because Mr. Sebourne continued to show up at her house, as he had at her previous address, claiming to be married to her.
Despite being warned, he returned to the residence again and waited outside after receiving no response at the door.
Mr. Sebourne was unable to post his $30,000 and was held by Greenwich Police. He was assigned a court date in Stamford Superior Court on Jan 23, 2017.


text:
COVID-19 and SFS activities
About us / News / COVID-19 and SFS activities
Dear members, colleagues, and friends,
Due to the ongoing crisis relating to COVID-19, the Society for French Studies has taken the decision to cancel this year's postgraduate conference, and its annual conference, which was due to take place in July in Bath.
We hope to be able to reschedule the postgraduate conference later in the year; our next annual conference will be in Belfast in 2021. Speakers due to attend the Bath conference have already been contacted by email, and the hope is that many will be able to present their work at Belfast. A new CFP for Belfast will also be issued in due course.
In the coming months we may have to adjust deadlines for some of the Society's other activities in response to ongoing developments, although we hope that the schedule for all of our prizes will remain the same. We would like to reassure members who currently hold offers of funding from us (including for research, and conferences and workshops), that where activities have had to be postponed due to COVID-19, we will still honour our original commitment and are happy for funds to be spent at a later date. Where members with offers of funding from us have booked tickets and yet not been able to travel due to COVID-19, and are unable to have their tickets refunded, we will also cover these costs. Members in this situation will not be prevented from reapplying for further funds from us to cover the same research activities, once travel restrictions are lifted.
If you have any questions about a particular funding scheme, please contact the member of the SFS executive committee responsible for the scheme; contact details are available via the relevant prizes pages of our website.
Unfortunately Oxford University Press have had to temporarily suspend print production of French Studies and French Studies Bulletin, due to supply chain issues. Members still have full access to these publications online, via the OUP website, throughout the crisis.
We hope that all our members are safe and well, and send you our warmest wishes.
The SFS executive committee

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Whether you work on cleaning jewelry or turning castings into highly polished finished jewelry - polishing is a necessary part of the finishing process to remove scratches, nicks, and other mars in the metal. Polishing will restore worn gold, silver, or platinum to its original shine. Esslinger carries a variety of polishing compounds that are used in combination with polishing wheels to get the desired polished affect for metals like platinum, stainless steel, gold, and silver. Using the right buff with the right compound will allow you to get the best polish possible.


text:
Satish Kumar
Jan 22, 2015 by Rita Matos
A former monk and long-term peace and environment activist, Satish Kumar has been quietly setting the global agenda for change for over 50 years. He was just nine when he left his family home to join the wandering Jains, and 18 when he decided he could achieve more back in the world, campaigning for land reform in India and working to turn Gandhi's vision of a renewed India and a peaceful world into reality.
Inspired in his early 20s by the example of the British peace activist Bertrand Russell, Satish embarked on an 8,000-mile peace pilgrimage. Carrying no money and depending on the kindness and hospitality of strangers, he walked from India to America, via Moscow, London and Paris, to deliver a humble packet of 'peace tea' to the then leaders of the world's four nuclear powers.
In 1973, Satish settled in the United Kingdom taking up the post of editor of Resurgence magazine, a position he has held ever since, making him the UK's longest-serving editor of the same magazine. During this time, he has been the guiding spirit behind a number of now internationally respected ecological and educational ventures including, Schumacher College in South Devon, where he is still a Visiting Fellow.
In his 50th year, Satish undertook another pilgrimage – again carrying no money. This time, he walked 2,000 miles to the holy places of Britain, a venture he describes as a celebration of his love of life and nature. In July 2000 he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Education from the University of Plymouth. In July 2001, he received an Honorary Doctorate in Literature from the University of Lancaster. And in the November of that same year, he was presented with the Jamnalal Bajaj International Award for Promoting Gandhian Values Outside India.
His autobiography, No Destination, first published by Green Books in 1978, has sold over 50,000 copies. He is also the author of You Are, Therefore I Am: A Declaration of Dependence,The Buddha and the Terrorist and Earth Pilgrim.
In 2005, Satish was Sue Lawley's guest on Radio 4's Desert Island Discs. In 2008, as part of BBC2's Natural World series, he presented a 50-minute documentary from Dartmoor, which was watched by over 3.6 million people. He appears regularly in the printed media and a range of radio programmes including Thought for the Day and Midweek.
Satish is on the advisory board of Our Future Planet, a unique online community sharing ideas for real change, and in recognition of his commitment to animal welfare and compassionate living, he was recently elected vice president of the RSPCA (Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). He continues to teach and run workshops on reverential ecology, holistic education and voluntary simplicity and is a much sought-after speaker both in the UK and abroad.


Fast-paced alt rock instrumental. A tight heavy metal style electric guitar riff over quick, insistent drums. Short, sharp stabs of sound with elaborate, manic drum fills bridging the gaps. Aggressive, mischievous and incendiary, sounding like Foo Fighters or Queens of the Stone Age, provocative music that spells danger and rebellion. Perfect for badass rule-breakers on TV/Film, or for a ball-busting advert where the status quo is crushed to smithereens.


Скачать бесплатно без СМС и регистрации игру Dishonored (2012/ RUS) Bethesda Softworks С Торрента. Watch Dogs: Digital Deluxe Edition + 14 DLC (v.1.05) (+Bad Blood) (2014 / Ubisoft Entertainment) (RUS ENG) R совместимая с DirectX. Bethesda Softworks (Bethesda Softworks/«1С-СофтКлаб») (RUS/ENG) v 1.4.1 + DLC P (RUS-ENG) Repack От a1chem1st; Dishonored. Скачать фильм Dishonored 2012 RePack, Bethesda Softworks Dishonored + 2DLC 2012 RePack RUS / ENG Action / 3D/ 1st Person / Stealth.


text:
Dirmstein is een plaats in de Duitse deelstaat Rijnland-Palts, en maakt deel uit van de Landkreis Bad Dürkheim.
Dirmstein telt  inwoners. In de plaats ligt spoorwegstation Dirmstein.

Bestuur
De plaats is een Ortsgemeinde en maakt deel uit van de Verbandsgemeinde Grünstadt-Land.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


On behalf of Latrobe Law Associates, LLC posted in Gun Ownership on Sunday, December 31, 2017.
If you're a gun enthusiast and you have a debilitating condition that you can treat with medical marijuana, you're going to have to make a choice -- guns or marijuana? You will not be able to have both in Pennsylvania.


text:
import TUI.Models.TUIModel
import TUI.TUIMenu.AboutWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.ConnectWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.DownloadsWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.LogWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.PreferencesWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.PythonWindow
import TUI.TUIMenu.UsersWindow
import TUI.Inst.APOGEE.APOGEEWindow
import TUI.Inst.APOGEEQL.APOGEEQLWindow
import TUI.Inst.BOSS.BOSSWindow
import TUI.Inst.Guide.FocusPlotWindow
import TUI.Inst.Guide.GuideWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.BOSSMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.FluxMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.FocusMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.GuideMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.ScaleMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.SeeingMonitorWindow
import TUI.Inst.SOP.SOPWindow
import TUI.Misc.Alerts.AlertsWindow
import TUI.Misc.Interlocks.InterlocksWindow
import TUI.Misc.MCP.MCPWindow
import TUI.Misc.MessageWindow
import TUI.TCC.FiducialsWdg.FiducialsWindow
import TUI.TCC.FocalPlaneWindow
import TUI.TCC.FocusWindow
import TUI.TCC.MirrorStatusWindow
import TUI.TCC.NudgerWindow
import TUI.TCC.OffsetWdg.OffsetWindow
import TUI.TCC.SkyWindow
import TUI.TCC.SlewWdg.SlewWindow
import TUI.TCC.StatusWdg.StatusWindow

def loadAll():
    tuiModel = TUI.Models.TUIModel.Model()
    tlSet = tuiModel.tlSet
    TUI.TUIMenu.AboutWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.ConnectWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.DownloadsWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.LogWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.PreferencesWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.PythonWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TUIMenu.UsersWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.APOGEE.APOGEEWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.APOGEEQL.APOGEEQLWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.BOSS.BOSSWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.Guide.FocusPlotWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.Guide.GuideWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.BOSSMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.FluxMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.FocusMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.GuideMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.ScaleMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.GuideMonitor.SeeingMonitorWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Inst.SOP.SOPWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Misc.Alerts.AlertsWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Misc.Interlocks.InterlocksWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Misc.MCP.MCPWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.Misc.MessageWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.FiducialsWdg.FiducialsWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.FocalPlaneWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.FocusWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.MirrorStatusWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.NudgerWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.OffsetWdg.OffsetWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.SkyWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.SlewWdg.SlewWindow.addWindow(tlSet)
    TUI.TCC.StatusWdg.StatusWindow.addWindow(tlSet)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Preface to the Text
Chapters with notes
Chapter I. Florence, The Earliest Years, to 1513
Chapter II. Florence, 1513–1519
Chapter III. Florence, Piombino, Volterra, 1519–1521
Chapter IV. Florence, 1521–1524
Chapter V. Rome, 1524–1527
Chapter VI. Perugia, Borgo Sansepolcro, Città di Castello, Pieve S. Stefano, Arezzo, Venice, 1527–1530
Chapter VII. Paris and Fontainebleau, 1530–1536
Chapter VIII. Fontainebleau, The Gallery of Francis I, 1531–1539
Chapter IX. Paris and Fontainebleau, 1536–1538
Chapter X. Paris and Fontainebleau, the Final Years, 1538–1540
Preface to the Catalogues
P.1 Portrait of a Young Woman as Mary Magdalen
P.2A,B (COPIES) Madonna and Child with St. John the Evangelist
P.3 Assumption of the Virgin
P.4 Angel Playing a Lute
P.5 Madonna and Child with Saints
P.6 Portrait of a Young Man with a Letter
P.7 Holy Family with the Young St. John the Baptist
P.8 Portrait of a Young Man
P.9 Deposition
P.10 Madonna and Child with St. John the Baptist and St. Bartholomew
P.11 St. John the Baptist in the Wilderness
P.12 Madonna and Child with Ten Saints
P.13 Marriage of the Virgin
P.14 Moses Killing the Egyptian and Defending the Daughters of Jethro
P.15 Rosso (VARIANT COPY) Rebecca and Eliezer
P.16 Portrait of a Man with a Helmet
P.17 Creation of Eve & Fall of Adam and Eve
P.18 Dead Christ Attended by Four Angels (Pietà)
P.19 Pietà
P.20 Christ in Glory
P.21 Portrait of a Seated Young Man
P.22. Gallery of Francis I
P.22 Documents & Summary
Construction of the Gallery, Documents
Decoration of the Gallery
Woodwork in the Gallery
Summary on the Construction and Decoration of The Gallery of Francis I
Introduction to the Gallery Catalogue
Views of the Gallery
P.22 I North: Venus and Minerva
P.22 I South: Combat of Centaurs and Lapiths
P.22 II North: Education of Achilles
P.22 II South: Loss of Perpetual Youth
P.22 III North: Revenge of Nauplius
P.22 III South: Death of Adonis and the Funeral of Hector
P.22 IV North: Entrance Wall of The North Cabinet & The North Cabinet
P.22 IV South: Planned South Cabinet, The Nymph of Fontainebleau and The Danaë
P.22 V North: The Twins of Catania
P.22 V South: Cleobis and Biton
P.22 VI North: Royal Elephant
P.22 VI South: Unity of the State
P.22 VII North: Scene of Sacrifice
P.22 VII South: Enlightenment of Francis I
P.22 East Wall
P.22 West Wall
P.22 Tapestries
P.22 Literature on the Gallery
Summary on the Gallery of Francis I
P.24 Madonna and Child with St. Anne and St. John the Baptist
A.1. The Gallery of Francis I
A.2. Exterior Staircase (Destroyed) and Portico
A.3. Rosso? Tour du Jardin
A.4. Rosso? Chapel of Saint Saturnin and The Chapelle Haute du Roi
D.1 Disputation of the Angel of Death and the Devil (Allegory of Death and Fame)
D.2 Disputation Between Two Old Men (St. Paul and St. Peter?)
D.3 (COPY?) St. Paul the Hermit
D.4 Study for an Altarpiece
D.5 Standing Nude Woman
D.6 Virtù Vanquishing Fortune
D.7 Standing Male Nude
D.8 (COUNTERPROOF) Head of a Bearded Old Man
D.9 Seated Male Nude
D.10 Seated Nude Woman
D.11 Seated Woman in Niche
D.12 Nude with a Standard
D.13 St. Roch Distributing His Inheritance to the Poor
D.14A, B (COPIES) St. Roch Visiting the Plague-Stricken
D.15 (COPY) The Angel of God Appearing to St. Roch
D.16 Standing Bearded Nude with a Fillet Binding His Hair
D.17-18 Gods in Niches
D.19 Standing Nude Youth
D.20 Profile Head of a Young Woman
D.21 (COPY) Standing Nude Youth Seen from the Back
D.22 (COPY) Seated Nude Youth Seen from the Back
D.23 (COPY?) Bishop Saint Resuscitating a Youth
D.24 Copy of Michelangelo's David-Apollo
D.25 Ideal Bust of a Woman
D.26A Reclining Male Nude
D.26B Two Feet of a Kneeling Figure, and a Left Hand
D.27A, B (COPIES) Four Seated Women
D.28 Study for the Lower Half of the Christ in Glory
D.30 (COPY?) Allegory of the Immaculate Conception
D.31-34 Preface to Lagrime Project, Arezzo
D.31 (COPY) Allegory of the Immaculate Conception
D.32 Allegory of the Immaculate Conception
D.33A, B (COPIES?) Allegory of the Virgin as the Ark of the Covenant and/or as the "Scala Coeli"
D.34 Throne of Solomon
D.35 Madonna della Misericordia
D.36 Standing Apostle
D.37 Design for a Chapel with an Altarpiece of the Gathering of Manna
D.38 Design for an Altar in S. Maria delle Lagrime, Arezzo
D.40A (COPY?) Last Supper
D.40B (COPY) Christ in Limbo
D.41 Apollo Proclaiming His Victory to the Gods
D.42 Mars and Venus
D.43 Annunciation
D.44 (COPY) Narcissus
D.45 St. Jerome
D.46A, B (COPIES ) Vertumnus And Pomona
D.47 Ornamental Panel
D.48 St. Denis (Dionysius The Areopagite) in a Niche
D.49 (COPY) Design for a Candlestick
D.50A-D (COPIES) Scene of Sacrifice (First Version)
D.51 (REVERSED COPY) Scene of Sacrifice (First Version, Slightly Revised)
D.52 (COPY) Dance of the Dryads
D.53 (COPY) Education of Achilles
D.54A-F (COPIES) Royal Elephant
D.55 (COPY) Unity Of The State
D.56 (COPY) Allegory of Deceit
D.57 (COPY) Design for the Stucco Frame of an Oval Picture
D.58A, B (COPIES) The Funeral of Hector
D.59 (COPY) Revenge of Nauplius
D.60 (COPY) Twins of Catania
D.61A, B, C (COPIES) Enlightenment of Francis I
D.62 (COPY) Naval Battle in a Port
D.63A, B (COPIES) Death of Adonis
D.64 (COPY) Scene of Sacrifice (Final Version)
D.65A, B, C (COPIES) Scene of Sacrifice (Final Version)
D.66 (COPY) Contest of Athena and Poseidon
D.67 Pandora and Her Box
D.68 Seated Male Nude
D.69 (COPY) Francis I Adoring the Enthroned Virgin and Child
D.70 Martyrdom of Sts. Marcus and Marcellinus
D.71A, B, C (COPIES) Pietà
D.72 Allegory on the Birth of Christ
D.73 Design for a Gilt Silver Cantoral Baton for Notre Dame, Paris
D.74 Leda and the Swan, after Michelangelo
D.75A, B, C (COPIES) Holy Family in a Cartouche
D.76A Apollo holding a Lyre and the Skin of Marsyas
D.76B (COPY?) Cephalus And Procris In Two Niches
D.77 (COPY) Pandora Adorned by Aphrodite and the Hours
D.78 Dream of Hercules
D.79 Reclining Nude Woman
D.80 Empedocles – St. Roch
D.81 Design for a Tomb
D.82 (COPY) Holy Family with St. Anne
D.83 (COPY) Annunciation
D.84 Judith and Holofernes
D.85 The Visitation or Vertumnus and Pomona?
CHERUBINO ALBERTI
E.1 Adoration of the Magi
E.2 Stoning of St. Stephen
E.3 Agony in the Garden
E.4 Altar
DOMENICO DEL BARBIERE
E.5 Fame
JACOB BINK
E.6, 1-20 Gods in Niches
GEORGE BOBA
GIULIO BONASONE
RENÉ BOYVIN
E.7 Judith with the Head of Holofernes
E.8 St. Paul and St. Peter
E.9 Rape of Europa
E.10 Saturn and Philyra
E.11 Twins of Catania
E.12 Enlightenment of Francis I
E.13 Contest of Athena and Poseidon
E.14 Cephalus & Procris in Two Niches
E.15 Madonna and Child with a Book
E.16 Empedocles
E.17 Dream of Hercules
GIAN JACOPO CARAGLIO
E.18 Fury
E.19-24 Labors and Adventures of Hercules
E.25 Challenge of the Pierides
E.26-45 Gods in Niches
E.46-47 Loves of the Gods
E.48 Battle of the Romans and the Sabines
AGOSTINO CARRACCI
LÉON DAVENT
E.49 DELAUNE, Narcissus
E.50 Scene of Sacrifice
E.51 MARCO DENTE, Disputation of the Angel of Death and the Devil
JACQUES I ANDROUET DU CERCEAU
E.52, 1-6 Labors of Hercules
E.54, 1-20 Gods in Niches
E.55, 1-3 Grands Cartouches de Fontainebleau, First Set
E.55,1 Sacrifice of a Bull at the Right
E.55,2 Sacrifice of a Ram in the Center
E.55,3 Female Satyr at the Left and Male Satyr at the Right
E.56, 1-8 Grands Cartouches de Fontainebleau, Second Set
E.56,1 Embracing Children Flanking a Blank Square
E.56,2 Two Heavily Draped Slouching Figures
E.56,3 Putto Holding an F in Reverse above a Blank Circle
E.56,4 Triads of Female Terms Flanking an Oval
E.56,5 Vertical Cartouche with Putti
E.56,6 Child Playing Two Horns Framing a Blank Circle
E.56,7 Satyrs Framing an Oval
E.56,8 Old Bearded Man in a Niche to the Left of a Blank Square
E.57, 1-11 Petits Cartouches de Fontainebleau
E.57,1 Framing an Upright Blank Oval
E.57,2 Two Heavily Draped Slouching Figures Above Framing a Small Blank Square
E.57,3 Priest-Herms Framing a Blank Rectangle
E.57,4 Reclining Woman Holding Her Breast
E.57,5 Large Female Nude at the Left
E.57,7 Vertical Cartouche with Putti Riding Winged Horses Below Framing a Small Blank Central Oval
E.57,8 Satyrs Framing a Blank Rectangle
E.57,9 Two Old Bearded Men Framing a Blank Rectangle
E.57,10 Satyrs Framing an Oval
E.57,11 Nude Woman Holding Her Breasts at the Right
E.58 Two Caryatids and a Term
E.59 Design for the Decoration of a Cup or Bowl
E.60 Apollo holding a Lyre
E.61 Diana Shooting with Her Bow
ANTONIO FANTUZZI
E.62 Vertumnus and Pomona
E.63 Cartouche: Satyrs Framing an Oval View of a Port
E.64 Cartouche: Priest-Herms Framing a Landscape
E.65 Royal Elephant
E.66 Unity of the State
E.67 Cartouche: Nude Woman holding Her Breasts
E.68 Fortune giving Drink to a Young Prince
E.69 Cartouche: Triads of Female Terms
E.70 Cartouche Framing a Landscape
E.71 Revenge of Nauplius
E.72 Funeral of Hector
E.73 Cartouche: Two Old Bearded Men Framing a View of a Port City
E.75 Cartouche: Satyrs Framing a Landscape
E.76 Death of Adonis
E.79 Pandora and Her Box
E.80 Pietà
E.81 Allegory on the Birth of Christ
E.82 Vertical Cartouche with Putti
E.83 Cartouche: Two Sleeping Putti Above Framing a Blank Circle
E.84 Cartouche: Child Playing Two Horns Framing a Blank Circle
E.85 Cartouche: Child Playing Two Horns Framing a Landscape in a Circle
E.86 Cartouche: Two Heavily Draped Slouching Figures
E.87 Cartouche: Reclining Nude Woman holding Her Breast
E.88 Right Half of a Cartouche Framing a Landscape in a Half-Circle and Another in a Full Circle
E.89 ANTOINE GARNIER, Revenge of Nauplius
LÉONARD LIMOSIN
E.90 Annunciation
E.91 Nativity
E.92 Entry into Jerusalem
E.93 Last Supper
E.94 Agony in the Garden
E.95 Kiss of Judas
E.96 Christ Sent Away by Herod
E.97 Resurrection
MELCHIOR LORCK (LORICHS)
E.98 MASTER I.♀.V., St. Paul and St. Peter
E.99 Cartouche Framing a Standing Draped Woman
E.100 Allegory on the Birth of Christ
MASTER L.D.
E.101 MASTER NDB, Holy Family With St. Anne Set Within A Frame
JEAN MIGNON
PIERRE MILAN
E.102 Dance of the Dryads
E.103 Nymph of Fontainebleau in a Frame
E.104 Three Fates, Costume Designs
E.105 Three Fates, Nude
BATTISTA ANGOLO DEL MORO
E.106 OSELLO, St. Roch
GIOVANNI BATTISTA PITTONI
CESARE REVERDINO
JACQUES PREVOST
E.107 ROTA, Christ in a Niche
E.108 NIKOLAUS SOLIS, Three Fates, Nude
VIRGIL SOLIS
AGOSTINO VENEZIANO
E.109 Disputation of the Angel of Death and the Devil
E.110 VICO, Challenge of the Pierides
E.111 Nine Daughters of Pierus
E.112 ZENOI, Enlightenment of Francis I
ANONYMOUS PRINTS
E.113, 1-6 Labors of Hercules
E.114 A-D Labors of Hercules
E.115-122 Gods in Niches
E.123-129 Loves of the Gods
E.130 Mars and Venus
E.131-132 Mars and Venus
E.133 Annunciation
E.134 Narcissus
E.135-136 Dance of the Dryads
E.137 Nymph of Fontainebleau
E.138 Venus and Minerva
E.139 Two Groups of Three Putti
E.140 Allegorical Scene of Rage and Madness
E.141 Victory
E.142 Twins of Catania
E.143 Caritas Romana
E.145 Cartouche: Roundels Framing a Standing Draped Woman
E.146 Saturn and Philyra
E.147 Draped Youth Leaning on a Block at the Left
E.148 Birth of Venus
E.149 Oval Cartouche Framing Mars and Venus Viewed by Vulcan
E.151 Apollo holding a Lyre
E.152 Venus and Cupid
E.153 Holy Family in a Cartouche
E.154-155 Three Fates, Nude
E.156 Christ in a Niche I
E.157 Christ in a Niche II
E.158 Christ in a Niche III
E.159 Cartouche: Two Groups of Three Cherubs
E.160 Figure Costumed as Hercules
E.161 Holy Family with St. Anne
E.163 Cupid Sleeping Upon a Garland of Fruit Suspended from Two Lions' Heads
Lost Works
L.1 Drawings after Masaccio's Frescoes in the Brancacci Chapel
L.2 Part of the Predella of Andrea del Sarto's San Gallo Annunciation
L.3 Drawings after Michelangelo's Cartoon of The Battle of Cascina
L.4 Dead Christ
L.5 Rosso? Coats-of-Arms of Pope Leo X and Giuliano De'Medici
L.6 Rosso? Work on a Wax Effigy of Giuliano De'Medici
L.7 Two Coats-of-Arms of Fra Aurelio d'Arezzo, The General of the Servites
L.8 The Arms of Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci
L.9 The Arms of Leo X
L.10 Possible Studies for an Unexecuted Fresco at SS. Annunziata, Florence
L.11. Madonna and Child with standing Male Saint holding a staff at the Left and St. Catherine of Alexandria at the right, and Other Saints?, possibly The Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine, with an Angel playing a Lute in the center below.
L.12 Triumphal Arch Dedicated to Hope
L.13 Decoration of the Custom Officer's Station and of the Area between the Porta San Gallo and the forward Gate (Antiporta) related to the Triumphal Arch erected for the Return Entry of Pope Leo X into Florence, 22 December 1515.
L.14A Pictures and Portraits in Florentine Houses
L.14B Rosso? Self-Portrait as a Young Man
L.14C Rosso? Portrait
L.14D Rosso? St. John The Baptist
L.15 Dead Christ, altarpiece of the Chapel of the Confraternity of the Corpus Christi
L.16 A Small Chapel
L.17 Visitation with Mary Magdalen and King David
L.18 Rosso? Decoration of Rooms in Collaboration with Parmigianino
L.19 Beheading of St. John the Baptist
L.20 Adoration of the Magi
L.22 Resurrection
L.23 Model for the Fresco Project for the Church of S. Maria delle Lagrime, Arezzo
L.24 Two Drawings for the Fresco Project for the Church of S. Maria delle Lagrime, Arezzo
L.25 Drawing of Nudes for the Fresco Project for the Church of S. Maria delle Lagrime, Arezzo
L.26 Cartoons for the Fresco Project for the Church of S. Maria delle Lagrime, Arezzo
L.27 Two Drawings on Panel
L.28 A Drawing on Green Paper
L.29 Two Sibyls on Green Paper
L.30 Twenty-Eight Drawings of Nudes
L.31 Drawing of a Male Nude in Red Chalk
L.32 Eight Drawings
L.33 Design for a Chapel for the Fraternita di S. Maria della Misericordia, Arezzo
L.34 "Una Bellissima Notomia" Done in Borgo Sansepolcro while Executing the Christ in Glory
L.35 Judith with the Head of Holofernes
L.36 A Large Painting for Francis I
L.37 Model for a Tomb
L.38 Design for the Frame of Michelangelo's Leda
L.39-48 Lost Architecture Decorations
L.39 Architecture(?) and Fresco and Stucco Decoration of The Pavilion of Pomona
L.40 Garden Gate
L.41 Rosso? Decoration of The Small Gallery
L.42 Rosso? Pavillon des Poêles
L.43 Fresco and Stucco Decoration of The Salle Haute
L.44 Fresco and Stucco Decoration of The Galerie Basse
L.45 Rosso? Decoration of The Grande Salle des Poêles
L.46 Rosso? Long Gallery (Later Gallery of Ulysses)
L.47 Designs for Festival Decorations and for Triumphal Entries
L.48 Designs for the Decorations Created for the Visit of Charles V to Fontainebleau
L.49 Costume Designs
L.50 Designs for Horse Trappings
L.51 Designs of Various Kinds of Table Service Objects and Table Ornaments for Francis I
L.52 Miniatures for Francis I
L.53 Choir Screen
L.54 Plans for the Alteration of Vaults in Notre Dame in Paris
L.55 Cartoon or Drawing for a Work on a Vault in Notre Dame in Paris
L.56 A Work (A Wall Painting?) Left Unfinished
L.57 Cartoon for a Panel Painting for the "Congregazione Del Capitolo" in Paris where Rosso was a Canon
L.58 Augustus and the Tiburtine Sibyl
L.59. Design for a Large Silver Statue of Hercules with Two Columns
L.60 Drawings for an Anatomy Book to be Published in France
L.61 St. Michael
L.62 Rosso? Portrait of Queen Giovanna of Naples and Sicily
L.63 Rosso? Cephalus and Procris
L.64 Rosso? Penelope
L.65 Rosso? Mary Magdalen
L.66 Rosso? A Greek Woman Dressed in Red
L.67 Rosso? Male Nude
L.68 Rosso? Allegory of Love
Rejected Works
RS. Tomb Effigy of Alberto Pio of Savoy, Count of Carpi
RP.1 Dead Christ Supported by Nicodemus
RP.2 Portrait of a Young Man
RP.3 Madonna and Child with the Young St. John the Baptist
RP.4 Death of Cleopatra
RP.6 Madonna and Child in a Landscape
RP.7A Portrait of a Man and a Woman
RP.7B. Portrait of an Old Man in Profile
RP.8 Portrait of a Man Holding a Book and Glove
RP.9 Madonna and Child and the Young St. John the Baptist
RP.10 Madonna and Child with the Young St. John the Baptist
RP.11 Madonna and Child in a Landscape
RP.12 Madonna and Child and the Young St. John the Baptist
RP.13 Madonna and Child
RP.14 Portrait of Machiavelli
RP.15 Madonna Crowned by Two Angels
RP.16 Portrait of a Knight of St. John
RP.17 Bacchus, Venus, and Cupid
RP.18 Holy Family with Saint Elizabeth and the Young Saint John the Baptist
RP.19 Challenge of the Pierides
RP.20 Holy Family with the Young St. John the Baptist
RP.21. Assumption of the Virgin with Saint Thomas (Madonna della Cintola)
RP.22 Madonna in Glory
RP.23 Assumption of the Virgin with Saints Thomas, Anthony Abbot, Jacob, and Francis (Madonna della Cintola)
RD.1 Figure in Mask and Costume
RD.2 Seated Old Woman Holding a Book
RD.3 Draped Old Woman Carrying a Bundle on Her Head
RD.4 Copy of an Ignudo
RD.5 Draped Kneeling Woman
RD.6 Three Groups of Nude Men
RD.7 Group of Nine Nudes in Repose
RD.8 Nude Youth in Profile
RD.9 "Pompeian Scene:" Three Groups of Figures Widely Separated in a Barren Open Space
RD.10 Standing Nude Youth
RD.11 Draped Saint Gesturing with His Right Hand
RD.12 Nude Warrior with Staff and Shield Striding Energetically to the Right
RD.13 Standing Nude Youth Seen from the Back
RD.14 Nude Old Man with His Right Leg Bent and His Knee Resting on a Draped Stump Or Rock
RD.15 Two Draped Figures Seated Asleep on the Ground
RD.16 Meleager Offering the Head of the Caldyonian Boar to Atalanta
RD.17 Crucifixion
RD.18 Group of Eleven Men
RD.19 Old Testament Scene
RD.20 Lamentation
RD.21 Madonna and Child Copied from the Dei Altarpiece
RD.22 Design for a Covered Cup
RD.23 Assembly of the Gods in a Cartouche
RD.24 Bust Length Portrait of a Young Woman of the Medici Family
RD.25 Preaching of St. John the Baptist (?)
RD.26 Costumed Male Figure Carrying a Small Decorated Box (A Rattle?)
RD.27 Right Half of a Figured Frame (Cartouche) with a Term
RD.28 Scene of Incantation
RD.30 Elaborately Costumed Old Woman
RD.31 Group of Nude Warriors in a Landscape
RD.32 Partial Copy of Uccello's Flood
RD.33 Coat-of-Arms of Leo X with Two Cherubs
RD.34 Nude Youth Seated on a Parapet
RD.35 Two Old Women Conversing
RD.36 Venus and Cupid in a Chariot
RD.37 Nude Man Reclining on a Chariot
RD.38A-C Three Views of the Head of a Woman Wearing a Turban
RE.1 Amphiaraus
RE.2 Venus, Mars, and Cupid
RE.3 Two Skeletons and Two Flayed Male Figures
RE.4 Partial Cartouche
RE.5 Venus with Three Amorini
RE.6 Neptune and Thetis
RE.7 Procession of Infant Bacchantes
RE.8 Opis as an Old Hag
RE.9 Annunciation in Two Roundels
RE.10 St. Jerome
RE.11, 1-9 Nine Sheets of Designs of Various Objects for the Table
RE.12 Costumed Male Figure Holding Two Torches
RE.13, 1-12, Twelve Pairs of Masked Figures
RE.14 Sixteen or Twenty Panels of Ornament with Pagan Gods
RE.15 Twenty-Six Scenes of the Story of Jason
RE.16 Hercules and Cacus
RE.17 Meleager Offering the Head of the Calydonian Boar to Atalanta
RE.18 Combat of Centaurs and Lapiths
RE.19 God the Father with Angels
RE.20 Monument to Vercingétorix
RE.21 Cartouche with Two Nude Men
RE.22 Vertical Cartouche with Male and Female Herms
RE.23 Cartouche with Two Reclining Nude Youths Framing a Seascape Set in an Oval
RE.24 Cartouche with a Stag's Head Framing a Landscape
RE.25 Nude Acrobats
RE.26 Philosopher in a Niche
RE.27 Abduction of Helen?
RE.28 Forge of Vulcan
RE.29 Prudence Conquering Blind Ignorance
Biographical Documents
DOC.1 Florence, March 9, 1494 (modern style)
DOC.1a Florence, November 21, 1508
DOC.1b Florence, November 27, 1508
DOC.1c Florence, August 8, 1510
DOC.1d Florence, January 18, 1513
DOC.1e Florence, March 29, 1514
DOC.1f Florence, August 22, 1515
DOC.2 Florence, February 26, 1517 (modern style)
DOC.2a Florence, June 30, 1518
DOCS. 3-6 Florence, Trial Records
DOC.3 Florence, December 18, 1517
DOC.3a Florence, November 5, 1518
DOC.4 Florence, November 17, 1518
DOC.6 Florence, December 1, 1518
DOC.6a Florence, 1523-1524
DOC.6b Piombino, January 11, 1521
DOC.7 Volterra, April 8, 1521
DOC.7a Florence, September 9, 1521
DOC.7b Florence, October 2, 1522
DOC.8 Arezzo, April 18, 1524
DOC.9 Rome, October 6, 1526
DOC.9a (?) Rome, around 1526
DOC.10 Rome, May 8, 1527
DOC.11 Borgo Sansepolcro, January 22, 1528
DOC.12 Arezzo, February 23, 1529 (modern style)
DOC.12a Arezzo, March 25, 1529
DOC.13 Arezzo, March 12, 1532 (modern style)
DOC.13a Florence, September 19, 1532
DOC.14 Late 1530-1532
DOC.15 July, 1531
DOC.16 October 1 – December 31, 1531
DOC.17 Around December 10, 1531
DOC.18 December 23, 1531
DOC.19 January 2, 1532 (modern style)
DOC.20 January 11, 1532 (modern style)
DOC.21 1532
DOC.22 February 21, 1532 (modern style)
DOC.23 May 31, 1532
DOC.25 August 14, 1532
DOC.26 October 31, 1532
DOC.28 January 17, 1533 (old and modern styles)
DOC.29 1534?
DOC.30 July 5, 1534
DOCS.31-40
DOC.31 September 25-26, 1537
DOC.32 November 9, 1537
DOC.33 November 18, 1537
DOC.35 February 7, 1538
DOC.38 January 2, 1540
DOC.39 November 19 (?), 1537 – June 28, 1540
DOC.41 February?, 1539 (modern style)
DOCS.42-54, On Rosso's Death
DOC.43 November 20, 1540, Saturday
DOC.44 December 20, 1540, Monday
DOC.46 March 9, 1541
DOC.47 March 11, 1541 (modern style)
DOC.49 June 9, 1541
DOC.50 June 11, 1541
DOC.51 July 27, 1541
DOC.53 August 1544
DOC.55 March 1, 1544 (modern style)
Bibliographical Abbreviations (working)
Bibliographical Abbreviations
Vasari's Life of Rosso
D.74 Leda
London, Royal Academy, no. 156.
Fig.D.74a
Fig.D.74b bw, head
Fig.D.74c bw, swan
Fig.D.74d bw, legs
Fig.D.74e bw, foot
Black chalk, 170.1 x 248.8, composed probably of sixteen sheets of paper, each c. 44 x c. 64, or of more sheets, some this size and others c. 44 x c. 32, depending on whether or not what could be vertical creases are instead edges of sheets of paper1; some tears and losses that have been repaired, with possibly some redrawing here and there and some abrasion; Franklin, 1988, 325, as fragile, and as showing traces of white heightening and several watermarks.
PROVENANCE: French Royal Collection? (see below); 1771, William Lock, the Elder (see below, Serie degli uomini). William Lock, the Younger; presented to the Royal Academy in 1821.
Believing that this large drawing is by Rosso, it would in all probability have to be one of the "cartoons" mentioned in Vasari, 1568, II, 211 (Vasari-Milanesi, V, 171): "…si trovarono anco fra le sue cose dopo, che [Rosso] fu morto due bellissimi cartoni, in uno de'quali è una Leda, che è cosa singolare…" Cassiano del Pozzo (Pozzo-Muntz, 1886, 268-269; Kusenberg, 1931, 102, 201, n. 232) mentions having seen in the Galerie des Peintures at Fontainebleau on 14 August 1625 five works by Rosso, three of which he specifies as paintings, the fourth as a portrait, and the fifth as "una Leda col Cigno, fatta dal disegno di quella di Michel Angnolo." Not specified as a painting, but rather as a work made from Michelangelo's "disegno" (drawing, cartoon, but also, perhaps, meaning simply design), this Leda and the Swan could be the "cartoon" mentioned by Vasari. The inventories of the king's pictures by Le Brun, in 1683, and by Houasse, in 1691, mention a drawing of Leda by Michelangelo "à la pierre noire sur du papier blanc" and measuring 165 x 222, according to Roy, 1923, 78; it was also inventoried sometime before 1710 as by Michelangelo with dimensions equivalent to 162.4 x 219.18.2 As Michelangelo's cartoon is reported to have been sent back to Florence in the sixteenth century (see below) and, according to Bottari (Vasari-Bottari, 1759-1760, III, 245-246, n. 1), was apparently still there, in Casa Vecchietti, in 1760, the one owned by the French king in the seventeenth century could not have been his (but see below). Hence it is possible that the king's drawing was the same work that Pozzo saw at Fontainebleau in 1625. However, the measurements of the Royal Academy drawing do not coincide with those of the drawing inventoried in the seventeenth century. But the latter measurements need not be correct, for while the height is very close to that of the London drawing, the width is far less, indicating a dimension that may be too short for its height in relation to the proportions of Michelangelo's image. What has, however, to be recognized is that this series of references does not constitute a sure history of the "cartoon" that was found after Rosso's death, nor a provenance for the work that was owned by Lock the Elder in London in 1771 and is now in the Royal Academy. The source from which Lock obtained the cartoon he had does not seem to be known.
Some hesitation might be had in calling the Royal Academy drawing a cartoon when there is no other evidence that it was made to serve in the making of a painting, however much this would seem to be the case.
Serie degli uomini…, Florence, 1772, 48; the author of the essay on Michelangelo in this publication, a friend of the Englishman Ignaz Hugford, who made and provided the drawings from which the portraits in the book were made, states that Michelangelo's original Leda cartoon, "che è nominata dal Vasari, dal Borghini, dal Bocchi, e da altri, e che esisteva in Casa dei Signori Vecchietti, è al presente in Londra posseduto dal Sig. Lock…" This comment, published only eleven years after Bottari's remark that Michelangelo's cartoon was in the Casa Vecchietti, names the Royal Academy drawing as Michelangelo's that was in Florence. On stylistic grounds, the London drawing cannot be Michelangelo's. If it did come from Florence, it would mean that Vasari, who in 1568 (II, 743; Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 203) said that Michelangelo's cartoon was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti, as well as all other writers thereafter through the middle of the eighteenth century, believed that the Royal Academy drawing was Michelangelo's. This is unlikely, especially in view of the fact that Ammannati's small sculptured Leda, in the Museo Nazionale in Florence, is not based upon the drawing in London but upon some other image, which in all likelihood was Michelangelo's cartoon.3 It is, therefore, reasonable to believe that the author of the essay in the Serie degli uomini, while right to record that a Leda cartoon was then owned by Sig. Lock in London, perhaps as reported to him by Hugford, was wrong in his belief that it was the cartoon that was in the Casa Vecchietti. It is not known what happened to Michelangelo's cartoon.
Stendhal, 1817, II, 325, as Michelangelo's, in Lock's collection.
J.D. Passavant, Kunstreise durch England und Belgien, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1833, 33, as not by Michelangelo, according to Thode, and as at the Royal Academy.
Waagen, 1854, I, 351-352, as from the Casa Vecchietti and as once erroneously ascribed to Michelangelo, but rather an old copy of great merit of his cartoon.
Milanesi, in Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 1881, 203, n. 1, stated that the cartoon owned by the Vecchietti was in Bottari's time acquired by Lock and taken to London.
A. Michaelis, "Michelangelos Leda and ihr antikes Vorbild," Strassburger Festgruss an Anton Springer, Berlin, 1885, 31-43.
Symonds, 1893, 433, as a copy after Michelangelo.
Thode, II, 1908, 314, 317, III, 1913, 260, no. 553, as Michelangelo's cartoon owned by the Vecchietti.
Dorez, 1916, 469, mentions the opinion that it is by Michelangelo.
National Gallery Catalogue, London, 1920, 187, under no. 186, states that Michelangelo's cartoon in Vasari's time was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti, that in Bottari's time, Lock acquired a cartoon of Leda and took it to London, and that the Royal Academy drawing has generally been accepted as Michelangelo's.
Roy, 1923, 77-78 (1929, 133-134), as by Rosso and the cartoon by him found after his death, the picture in the National Gallery, London, as also by Rosso; Roy believes both were done before July 1531 from a drawing of Michelangelo's image that Rosso had brought to France in 1530.
W.T. Whitley, Art in England 1821-37, Cambridge, 1930, 16.
Kusenberg, 1931, 47, 137, 143, no. 54, 191, n. 101, as Rosso's, executed in Florence in 1529-1530, and used later in France to paint the Leda in the National Gallery, London; also as the cartoon found at Rosso's death.
Paintings and Sculpture in the Diploma & Gibson Galleries, London, 1931, 142, Fig.
Tolnay, III, 1948, 192-193, Fig. 280, seems to accept the attribution to Rosso, and, recapitulating Roy's arguments, states that Rosso would have made a drawing in Italy of Michelangelo's Leda, from which he painted his picture in the National Gallery in London before Michelangelo's work arrived in France.
Papini, 1949, 224, as by Rosso. Barocchi, 1950, 78-80, Fig. 53, as a copy of the Leda in the National Gallery, which she believes is by Rosso.
Goldscheider, 1951, Fig. 173, as by Rosso, c. 1531.
Adhémar, Dessins, 1954, 105, thought Vasari may have been wrong that there was a Leda cartoon by Rosso.
Wilde, 1957, 277-278, as a copy of Michelangelo's cartoon, probably on the scale of the original, but not by Rosso.
Maison, 1960, 46, Fig. 15, 214, no. 16 (actually referring to Fig. 15), as a contemporary copy of Michelangelo's cartoon, the attribution to Rosso not generally accepted.
Barocchi, in Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo, III, 1962, 1124-1125, reviews all the literature on it, repeating her earlier comment that the drawing is probably a copy of the picture in the National Gallery, London.
Gould, 1962, 98, as attributed to Michelangelo.
St. John Gore, in Treasures of the Royal Academy, London, 1963, 30-31, no. 70, as after Michelangelo, but its association with Rosso open to considerable doubt.
Carroll, 1964 (1976), I, Bk. I, 224-226, II, Bk. II, 343-355, D.36, Bk. III, Fig. 98, as Rosso, c. 1532-1533.
Grossman, in Between Renaissance and Baroque, 1965, 102, no. 342, as after Michelangelo.
Béguin, 1966, 57, agreed with Wilde and Grossman.
Carroll, 1966, 176, n. 43, as probably made by Rosso around 1532-1533.
S.C. Hutchison, History of the Royal Academy, London, 1968, 97, as artist unknown.
St. John Gore in Royal Academy of Arts Bicentenary, 1768-1968, London, 1968, 253, no. 878. Art into Art, 1971, 20, no. 79, as by an unknown artist, about 1530(?).
Béguin, in EdF, 1972, 181, 182, Fig., 183, no. 205, as Rosso, done early in his French period.
Cox-Rearick, 1972, 39-40, no. 47, as Rosso?, and believes it comes from the French Royal Collection and is the work that Del Pozzo saw in 1625.
Miles, 1973, 32, as not certainly by Rosso.
Evelina Borea, in Primato del disegno, 1980, 191-192, no. 454, as by Rosso, but cannot be determined if derived from Michelangelo's painting or from his cartoon for it.
Lévêque, 1984, 71, 163, Fig., as Rosso, indicating that he painted a copy of Michelangelo's picture.
Vasari-Darragon, 1984, 193, n. 52, the attribution to Rosso controversial.
McGovern, 1985, 187-188, Fig. 50, as Rosso, copied from Michelangelo's lost picture.
Béguin, in Delay, 1987, 76, that Rosso had made a copy of Michelangelo's Leda seen by Pozzo, but not known if it was a cartoon or a painting.
Carroll, 1987, 10, 30, 31, 318-327, no. 102, with Figs.
Béguin, 1988 (1989), 7, its attribution to Rosso debated.
Boorsch, 1988, as Rosso.
Rosand, 1988, 31, as by Rosso.
Franklin, 1989, 325, as stylistically not by Rosso.
Costamagna, 1991, 53, 60, n. 13, as Rosso's cartoon mentioned by Vasari.
Miller, 1992, 112, commented on the difficulty of attributing cartoons, but that the Leda bears a plausible similarity to Rosso's style.
Scalliérez, 1992, 14, 19, Fig. 13, as by Rosso and done in 1531.
Béguin, 1992 (1987), 91, n. 10, as without doubt not by Rosso.
Costamagna, 1994, 98, n. 7.
The only primary evidence that makes it possible to entertain the possibility that the large drawing in the Royal Academy is Rosso's is Vasari's remark that a cartoon by Rosso representing Leda was found among his possessions at the time of his death in November 1540. Vasari had this information second hand and he makes no mention that this cartoon was based on Michelangelo's image. But as the London drawing cannot, on stylistic grounds, be Michelangelo's, and as Rosso certainly knew Michelangelo's image in France, it is reasonable to look at the surviving drawing with Rosso's name in mind. Such an investigation is made plausible by the quality of the drawing, which is worthy of Rosso, and by the fact that the drawing is not a literal copy after Michelangelo's Leda, but shows modifications of it that are compatible with Rosso's style.
Although it is on the basis of style that the drawing ultimately will be acceptable as Rosso's, there is a certain amount of documentary evidence that should be reviewed to indicate where and when Rosso was in a position to make such a drawing after Michelangelo's Leda. But it should here be pointed out that the large drawing in London, which does not show the prolepsis – the birth of Castor and Pollux from Leda's egg – and other details that are found in Bos's engraving (Fig.Bos) of Michelangelo's lost painting (see below), would seem to have been derived not from that painting but from the lost cartoon of Michelangelo's picture. All the known painted replicas of this image would also seem to be dependent upon that lost drawing.4
Michelangelo executed the Leda and the Swan, the cartoon and the painting, in Florence between November 1529 and 22 October 1530, working on them during the Siege of that city, which lasted until August of 1530.5 Rosso had fled from Arezzo to Borgo Sansepolcro in mid-September 1529 and there painted his Christ in Glory (P.20). In mid-April 1530, he went, via Pesaro, to Venice. From Venice he traveled to France and was in Paris by November 1530. He could not have seen Michelangelo's Leda before leaving Italy because the Siege of Florence would have prevented him from visiting the city, and by August he was in Venice, very probably already negotiating his move to France. In 1531, Michelangelo gave the Leda and the cartoon for it to his pupil Antonio Mini so that he might sell them in France.6 Michelangelo also gave to him other cartoons, as well as drawings and "modegli," and these, or some of them, together with the Leda painting, were packed in two cases and sent to France. We know that the Leda cartoon also went to France because Vasari comments upon its return from there to Florence after Mini's death in that country. It is, however, not definitely known if it was in one of the two cases that were sent from Florence or whether Mini carried it himself on his trip north. Mini himself set out for France with Benedetto del Bene in November 1531 and arrived in Lyons on 20 December.7 For two months they awaited the arrival of Michelangelo's painting. However, before its arrival, and before 11 February 1532, Mini and del Bene had already begun a copy of the Leda, which seems later to be the one referred to as by the latter alone. But as this copy was not made from Michelangelo's painting, it could have been and most likely was made from the cartoon, which would therefore have been in Lyons before the painting. By 27 February 1532, the painting had arrived and Mini, while awaiting the opportunity to sell it to King Francis I, gave it to the banker Leonardo Spina for safekeeping. Now everyone seems to have wanted a copy of the Leda. On 9 March 1532, Mini wrote to Michelangelo that he had three Ledas to paint from the cartoon: "Sapiate che di quello cartone n'arò a fare 3 de le Lede…" Before 8 May 1532, Mini made two trips to Paris in an attempt to see the king who was, however, away, and, Mini was told, would not return for a year. He deposited "2 tavole" with Giuliano Buonaccorsi, the king's treasurer of Province, in Paris. These two pictures would have been Michelangelo's painting and a copy made most likely from the cartoon, probably the copy by Benedetto del Bene.8 Shortly thereafter, Mini took these two pictures back, and, following a trip to Nantes where, it appears, he went, unsuccessfully, to see the king, he traveled once more to Paris in August 1532 and again left two pictures, Michelangelo's and, as we know for sure, a copy by Benedetto del Bene, with Buonaccorsi.9 This copy may have been the same one deposited earlier.
It was after this time, but still within 1532, that Rosso's name first appears in connection with these paintings. Writing from Paris to Francesco Tedaldi in Lyons – Mini had borrowed half the value of Michelangelo's painting from Tedaldi to finance the further pursuit of the selling of the picture – Mini states that "le Lede sieno inte [ite] cossi tra Rosso, M. Luigi [Alamanni] e sere Buonacorso" and speaks of the very close friendship between Rosso and Buonaccorsi. Mini also says that Rosso had made a very large and very heavy frame (adornamento), which in the content of the letter must mean a frame for one of the Ledas (see L.38). This would seem to have been a frame for Michelangelo's original painting.
Mini tried to get the two pictures back from Buonaccorsi and on 6 August 1533 started legal proceedings to accomplish this. But at the end of that year Mini died without having gotten the two paintings back. After Mini's death, Tedaldi and Mini's uncle tried to have Michelangelo's picture returned to them or to receive compensation for it, but to no avail. Then in September 1536, Rosso was paid to have a painting of Leda shipped from the house of Buonaccorsi, in Paris presumably, to the king's château at Fontainebleau.10 This Leda would seem to have been Michelangelo's. It was probably sent to Fontainebleau in the frame that Rosso had designed for it (L.38), which would account for his having been occupied with the transportation of the painting. It is not known what happened to Benedetto del Bene's copy, although it is just possible that one of the surviving painted copies, made from the Michelangelo cartoon, is his (but see below). Michelangelo's original painting may have survived until the middle of the seventeenth century, although Cassiano del Pozzo does not record it at Fontainebleau in 1625.
The last mention of Michelangelo's cartoon in France is that in Mini's letter of 9 March 1532 where he writes of having three Ledas to paint from it. It is likely that he still had it at the time of his death. Subsequently it returned to Florence where, according to Vasari in 1568, it was owned by Bernardo Vecchietti. The earliest known moment that it was in Florence is between October 1540 and mid-July 1541 when Vasari made a painting from it.11 It could, however, have been there earlier.
As stated above, the large drawing in the Royal Academy is most probably derived from Michelangelo's lost cartoon and not from Michelangelo's lost painting. This painting is known from Cornelius Bos's reversed engraving (Fig.Bos), which shows several details – the prolepsis, Leda's discarded dress, and the arrangement of her hair – that are not found in the London drawing. These differences relate the drawing to the two sixteenth century painted replicas in London and in Venice of Michelangelo's image, both of which seem ultimately also to be dependent upon Michelangelo's cartoon and not upon the lost painting.12 What cannot be known is whether or not the Royal Academy drawing is directly derived from that lost cartoon. The large drawing in London could have been made from a painting that was executed from the lost cartoon, although the drawing was almost certainly not done from either of the two surviving sixteenth century painted versions in London and Venice. However, it might have been made from Benedetto del Bene's copy if his is not one of the two sixteenth century Leda paintings mentioned above.13 Del Bene's copy was left by Mini in Paris, first probably early in 1532, and then again in August of the same year. From that moment on, Rosso could have known it until his death, as this copy was never returned to Mini or to Tedaldi or to Mini's heirs after the latter's death. Rosso probably could not have known Michelangelo's cartoon until after Mini's death late in 1533. But it is not at all certain that Rosso actually knew the cartoon at all. There is no evidence that the cartoon was ever in Paris or at Fontainebleau and it could have left France not very long after Mini died. It may, however, have still been in France at the time of Rosso's death in November of 1540.
If Rosso did not know Michelangelo's cartoon, then the large drawing in the Royal Academy would, as Rosso's, have been done after a copy of the lost cartoon. As Rosso most probably knew Del Bene's painting done from Michelangelo's cartoon, then it is quite likely that Rosso, knowing the cartoon only second hand, knew it from that painted copy. Although Rosso would also have known Michelangelo's painting, he may not have had access to it long enough to make the large and carefully executed London drawing, while Del Bene's copy, not being so valuable and not having the kind of claims made on it as were being made on Michelangelo's original work, could have been kept by Rosso in his studio. In 1536 the original painting was still held by Buonaccorsi in Paris until the time that Rosso was paid to have it shipped to Fontainebleau in September of that year.
As Michelangelo's cartoon is lost, as well as, it would seem, Benedetto del Bene's painted version of it, the Royal Academy drawing has to be judged and evaluated by comparisons with Cornelius Bos's reversed engraving of Michelangelo's lost picture and with the painting in the National Gallery in London that appears to be the most faithful copy of Michelangelo's cartoon. These comparisons are fully made in Chapter IX and indicate the drawing's particular stylistic character that identifies it closely with that of Rosso's Pietà of around 1538 in the Louvre (Fig.P.23a). What may be repeated here is how much the head of the Leda, with its squarish forms, so unlike what appears in the National Gallery painting and in Bos's engraving, resembles the Magdalen's in the Louvre painting, and how much Leda's right foot looks like Christ's in the same picture. Also, the subtle elongation of the figure, which differentiates it from the figure of Leda in Bos's engraving and in the London painting, relates it to the whole figure of Christ and to the entire design of the Louvre Pietà. What needs to be more fully considered here is the draughtsmanship of the drawing.
Although the handling of the large drawing has a degree of breadth that would seem required by the size of the drawing, the draughtsmanship of it is not so special as to suggest that it would be totally unlike that of the smaller drawings done by the same artist. The Royal Academy work can be quite easily compared with several chalk drawings by Rosso that are executed in a remarkably similar manner.
Rosso's black chalk Head of a Woman of 1525-1527, in the Fogg Museum (Fig.D.20), has parallel shading quite like that in the large London drawing. The comparison is especially close in the area around Leda's ear and on the face of the head in the Fogg drawing. The profile of this head, although not gone over to the extent that the contours in the Leda have been, is, nevertheless, modulated with the same kind of sensitivity as are the contours in the large drawing. These same graphic characteristics are also found in Rosso's red chalk drawings, such as the Roman St. Roch Distributing His Inheritance to the Poor (Fig.D.13) and the very late Empedocles-St. Roch (Fig.D.80a). It is true that these drawings have a slightly less smooth texture than that of the larger Leda, but it is quite easy to see that what appears in the latter is only a somewhat broader handling of the terms of these and many other smaller drawings by Rosso. But the continuous and fine texture of the shadows in the large drawing can also be found in some of the passages of Rosso's late red chalk Reclining Nude Woman in the British Museum (Fig.D.79a). Given all of these similarities between the draughtsmanship of the Leda and that of several drawings by Rosso, it is only reasonable to recognize him as also the author of the London drawing.
Reflecting a kind of draughtsmanship used by Rosso over an extended period of time and, furthermore, having a breadth that is not precisely like that of his smaller drawings, the execution of the large drawing cannot be used to determine when it was done. Other factors must be considered to date it. As stated above, Rosso could not have known Michelangelo's Leda to make a copy of it before he went to France in the autumn of 1530. In February 1532, Michelangelo's painting and the cartoon of it were with Mini, in Lyons. Some time before early May 1532, and again in August of that year, Mini took the original painting and a copy of it to Paris, where he deposited them with Giuliano Buonaccorsi. It is most likely that only after this latter date could Rosso have made his large drawing, most probably from the painted copy of it by Benedetto del Bene. At this time, Rosso was working on the first compositions for the Gallery of Francis I, but none of the figures of these early designs are closely related to the Leda. Even if the Nymph of Fontainebleau, engraved by Milan and Boyvin (Fig.E.103), reflects a knowledge of Michelangelo's figure, it does not, either in its pose or in its elongated proportions, indicate a serious study of Michelangelo's Leda. It is only in the second phase of Ross's activity in the gallery that Michelangelo's influence is first strongly felt, in such works as the Enlightenment of Francis I (Fig.P.22, VII S a) and the Revenge of Nauplius (Fig.P.22, III N a). But none of the figures that seem to have been done in this period suggest the Leda. Where the specific and broadly effective study of this figure does appear is in the reclining nude woman in the lower left corner of the Death of Adonis wall (Fig.P.22, III S c) and in the figure of Adonis himself in the central fresco (Fig.P.22, III S a). The pose of the reclining woman has several aspects in common with that of the Leda and the proportions of the figures are similar, although the reclining woman is slightly stockier. The headdresses of these figures are also very much alike. Adonis's turning body is, aside from the difference of sex, not strikingly like Leda's, but the positioning of his legs is similar to the placement of hers. It is very likely, then, that Rosso's Leda was not done before the last phase of his activity in the gallery, when the Death of Adonis wall was designed, that is, not before August 1536. Other figures decorating this wall, as well as the nudes, of about the same time, flanking the Education of Achilles (Fig.P.22, II N a), also indicate an intensive study of Michelangelo's art in this period.
But it may not be necessary to date Rosso's Leda exactly at this time, although it was in this period that he first gave Michelangelo's Leda serious attention. There is an elegance in Rosso's figure – in the alignment of her left breast, shoulder, and arm, and in the smoothly continuous and stretched arched forms and contours of her left leg – that mitigates the physical robustness of Michelangelo's image and suggests a somewhat later date for the Royal Academy drawing. Attenuated slightly beyond the proportions of Michelangelo's figure and given a grace and a surface smoothness that were, apparently, not found in the lost original cartoon and painting of Leda, Rosso's Leda is most closely related to his Pietà in the Louvre, probably done in 1538. Rosso's large drawing would seem to have been done about the same time. However, it is possible that the Royal Academy drawing was executed first and that the making of it had its effect in shaping the subtly Michelangelesque character of the Louvre Pietà.
It is reasonable to assume that this drawing was made to be executed as a painting, but there is no record that one was ever made. The Leda by Rosso that Cassiano del Pozzo saw at Fontainebleau in 1625 could have been the Royal Academy drawing. As Rosso's "cartoon" was found at his death along with another "cartoon" that was, apparently, never executed as a painting, it is possible to assume that both were "cartoons" that his death in November 1540 prevented him from executing as painted works. This supposition gives some further indication that the Leda drawing is a late work by Rosso. One is even inclined, therefore, to think that the Leda was done after 1538, and, hence, the Louvre Pietà as well. But stylistically both appear to precede those works the style of which seems to represent a moment later than that of the Royal Academy drawing and the painting in the Louvre.
1 A Bolognese foglio reale measures about 44.5 x 61.5 (see Master Drawings, 30, 1, 1992, 3), indicating the Leda drawing is probably made-up of sixteen fogli.
2 From Cox-Rearick, 1972, 40, 55: Charles Le Brun, Inventaire des tableaux du Cabinet du Roy, 18 October 1683, Paris, Archives nationales, 0119648, no. 369; Inventaire des tableaux et dessins du Roy étant à la garde du sieur Houasse à Paris, 18 juin 1691, Paris, Archives nationales, 011964, no. 369.1; on the third inventory see Engerund, Fernand, Inventaire des Tableaux du Roy rédigé en 1709 et 1710 par Nicolas Bailly, Paris, 1899, 623, as "hault de 5 pieds; large de 6 pieds 9 pouces."
3 Ammannati's statue, done, according to Ciardi Dupré (1961, 15-16), between 1535 and 1540, or in the following decade, according to Micheletti (Primato del Disegno, 1980, 57-58, no. 22, Fig.), and which is in the same direction as Michelangelo's original image, shows Leda's hair and headdress more as they appear in Bos's (reversed) engraving than as they look in the London drawing. The statue presents the swan's front wing as extending to the tip of Leda's foot, as in the Royal Academy drawing, which goes back to Michelangelo's cartoon, and not longer, as in the engraving. Also, the statue shows generalized drapery, as in the London drawing, rather than a dress, as in the print derived from Michelangelo's lost painting. The appearance of all these details in the sculpture indicates that it was made from Michelangelo's original cartoon and not from the drawing in London where Leda's hair and headdress are different.
4 The absence of the prolepsis from all the painted copies is the most important factor in concluding that they are all ultimately dependent upon Michelangelo's lost cartoon rather than upon the lost painting. This detail could, of course, have simply been eliminated if the copies were made from the painting. But the paintings in London, Dresden, and Venice (see Tolnay, III, 1948, 192-193, and Figs. 282-284; on the London picture see also n. 11) are also lacking the elaborate description of Leda's dress that appears in Bos's engraving. This second omission strengthens the supposition that all the painted copies go back to the lost cartoon. A fourth painted copy in Berlin (formerly? K. Schloss) is unknown to me but it also lacks the prolepsis (Thode, II, 1908, 319-320, suggested that it is by Vasari; see also Tolnay, III, 1948, 192, 193).
5 See Tolnay, III, 1948, 11, 190. Florence surrendered on 12 August 1530.
6 On the history of Michelangelo's Leda, the painting and the cartoon, see Vasari, 1558, II, 743 (Vasari-Milanesi, VII, 202-203); Thode, II, 1908, 311-324; Dorez, 1916, 448-470; Dorez, 1917, 193-196, 199-203; and Tolnay, III, 1948, 190-193; and especially Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo, III, 1962, 1101-1126.
7 On Lyons and its four annual international fairs, see Lucien Romier, "Lyons and Cosmopolitanism at the Beginning of the French Renaissance," in French Humanism 1470-1600, ed. Werner L. Gunderheimer, London, 1969, 91-94.
8 Tolnay, III, 1948, 191, states that the two pictures that Mini took to Paris were Michelangelo's original painting and the original cartoon. But Mini's letter of 8 May 1532 (Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo, III, 1962, 1113) specifically mentions that it was "2 tavole" that Mini took to Paris, indicating that both works were paintings.
9 See the memorandum of Francesco Tedaldi of 1 July 1540 (Vasari-Barocchi, Michelangelo, III, 1962, 1114).
10 The document is transcribed in P.22 under September 1536; see also Laborde, I, 1877, 104; Roy, 1923, 70; and Venturi, IX, 5, 198.
11 See Kallab, 1908, 68-69, no. 90, and Thode, 1908, 315. See n. 3 above on a copy of the Leda in Berlin that could be by Vasari.
12 On these two paintings and the third sixteenth century painted copy in Berlin, see n. 3. On the London painting, see also n. 13.
13 Mini speaks of the two pictures he took to Paris before 8 May 1532 (see n. 6) as "tavole," apparently indicating that the copy, which may have been by Benedetto del Bene, as well as Michelangelo's original painting, were panel paintings. But Tedaldi in 1540 (see n. 7) mentions Benedetto del Bene's picture that was left in Paris in August 1532 merely as "un'altra" Leda. Hence, it cannot be known for sure whether Benedetto del Bene's copy was on panel or on canvas, although if his was the one also left in Paris before early May 1532 then it is likely that it was a panel painting. The copy in the National Gallery in London (Fig.National Gallery Leda), on which see below, is on canvas and therefore on purely technical grounds could possibly be eliminated as Benedetto's picture. The painting in the Museo Correr in Venice is on panel, but it seems to be a later picture. The support of the picture in Berlin, which Thode thought might be by Vasari (see n. 3), is not known to me. Although no certain conclusion can be reached on the authorship of these paintings, it is likely that none is by Benedetto del Bene. Adhémar, Dessins, 1954, 105, believes the London painting to be by Rosso and thinks that Vasari may have been mistaken in his reference to a Leda cartoon by Rosso found at the time of his death.
The London painting, National Gallery, no. 1868, (canvas, 105 x 135, cut on all sides and remounted, very poor condition), has been attributed to Rosso; in addition to what appears under LITERATURE above, see: Fréderic Reiset, "Une visite aux musées de Londres," GdBA, 1877, I, 246, as Michelangelo and from Fontainebleau; Dimier, 1904, 148, repeated Reiset; Kusenberg, 1935, as Rosso, 1530-1531; Delacre, 1938, 444, as Rosso; Dimier, 1942, 24, as by Rosso and from Fontainebleau. Becherucci, 1944, 31-32 (1949, 31), as possibly Rosso, in 1536. Adhémar, Dessins, 1954, 105, as Rosso; Gould, 1962, 97-99, as possibly from Fontainebleau and by Rosso; Erwin Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic, New York, 1969, 146, and Fig. 153, as Rosso. Art into Art, 1971, 20, no. 81, as by an unknown artist of the second quarter of the sixteenth century. Paul F. Watson, "Titian and Michelangelo. The Danaë of 1545-1546," in Collaboration in Italian Renaissance Art, ed. by W. Stedman Sheard and J. T. Paoletti, New Haven-London, 1978, 246, 258, and Fig. 14.3, as Rosso; Evelina Borea, in Primato del disegno, 1980, 192, under no. 454, as generally considered an anonymous copy of Michelangelo's painting or cartoon. Bober and Rubenstein, 1986, 54, under no. 5, Fig. 5c, as Rosso? M. Boeckle, in Zauber der Medusa, 1987, 87, under no. III, 19, as from the circle of Rosso.
Although Roy in 1923 tried to prove that this picture is by Rosso, neither its provenance nor any other documentary evidence supports this attribution. The extremely poor condition of the work makes it unlikely that an attribution of it to a specific artist can be made. But it has no stylistic features that can be identified as Rosso. It is certainly not based on the Royal Academy drawing, where the proportions of the figure, the description of details, and the alignment of forms are different.
Dimier, 1925, 50, apparently attributed Louvre drawing, Inv. 815 (Fig.Paris, 815), to Rosso, as a study from life for his repetition of Michelangelo's Leda (red chalk, 19.8 x 29.6; inscribed in ink in the lower right corner: Michelangelo). Thode, II, 1908, 316, III, 1913, 226, no. 550, had given it to Michelangelo. Roy, 1923, 78, believed the drawing was from the late seventeenth century. Delacre, 1938, 445, Fig. 276, and Tolnay, III, 1948, 192, did not think it was by Michelangelo but also did not give it to Rosso. Barocchi, 1950, 225-226, Fig. 223, did not accept Kusenberg's attribution to Rosso. Dussler, 1959, 297, no. 674, as neither by Michelangelo nor by Rosso.
This is a drawing that looks much, much finer in reproduction. The only drawing by Rosso with which it could be compared is his Reclining Nude Woman in London (Fig.D.79a), but the similarities are not sufficiently close to recognize Rosso's hand in the Louvre drawing. The position of the legs and the head are different from what appears in the Royal Academy drawing.


text:
Led by Professor Maggie Snowling, Professor Charles Hulme and Dr Emma Hayiou-Thomas this six-year longitudinal study from 2007, funded by the Wellcome Trust, investigated the nature of the developmental relationships between dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI).
It is widely accepted that children who have pre-school speech or language difficulties often develop reading difficulties and that children who go on to develop dyslexia have early language weaknesses. This study traced the development of three groups of children from the age of ~3 to 8–9 years old:
children from a family where there was a history of dyslexia;
children who had pre-school speech and/or language difficulties;
children who had neither a family risk of dyslexia nor a pre-school language difficulty.
The Wellcome Language and Reading project had the following aims:
Trace the language and literacy development of children at family-risk (FR) of dyslexia, children with SLI and controls, and to find out how common reading difficulties are in these groups of children at 8 years old
Investigate the co-occurrence of dyslexia and SLI
Investigate the contribution of home environment to the development of literacy skills in 'at-risk' and typically developing children
Investigate whether intervention could improve the reading skills of children whose reading development was delayed at 6 years old
Consider how a child's response to intervention relates to the severity of their underlying cognitive and language deficits
Contribute to genetic studies of dyslexia and SLI
Plan of investigation
The project was divided into six phases. Each phase involved assessing children on a battery of tests specifically designed to look at language, literacy and phonological skills. There were 260 children in the initial sample and the children were seen at annual intervals at approximately 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7–8 and 9 years old.
To confirm whether or not a child was at risk of dyslexia, the team aimed to assess both parents of each child in the study. Parents also completed a self-report questionnaire. More than 350 parents were formally assessed on tests of literacy and phonological skills (see M. J. Snowling, P. Dawes, H. Nash & C. Hulme (2012) Validity of a Protocol for Adults Self-Report of Dyslexia and Related Difficulties). Aside from using these data to validate self-report of dyslexia, we noticed that a worrying number of parents who have poor literacy are not aware that they themselves could be 'dyslexic' (see R. Leavett, H. Nash & M. J. Snowling (2014) Am I Dyslexic? Parental Self-Report of Literacy Difficulties). Many parents also report attentional difficulties. They may be in need of advice on how best to support their child's learning. In addition it is important to help them with ways of ensuring that their child's progress in reading and writing is 'on track'.
Summary of the key findings from the project
Research implications
Presentations on our findings
Partners and linked projects


text:
Q: Асинхронно получать прогресс загрузки файла из другого потока (WPF) Есть WPF приложение с кнопкой загрузки файла.
При нажатии на эту кнопку обработчик кнопки вызывает асинхронно метод класса-сервиса, который некоторое время загружает этот файл во внешний ресурс.
Вопрос в следующем:
Как мне получать прогресс о загрузке файла, если загрузка происходит в другом потоке?
Сам процесс загрузки файла можно условно представить циклом с Thread.Sleep(1000) между итерациями.

A: Предложенный вариант работы (см комментарий 2 выше) через Progress подошёл. У объекта этого класса можно подписаться на событие ProgressChanged и, соответсвенно, в теле метода-обработчика использовать получаемый прогресс.
Например:
IProgress<int> progressIndicator = new Progress<int>();

progressIndicator.ProgressChanged += (o, progress) => { button.Content = progress; };

или так:
IProgress<int> progressIndicator = new Progress<int>(progress => button.Content = progress);

ну и конечно же нужно реализовать метод где объект progressIndicator будет применяться и откуда он будет сообщать о прогрессе.
Вызвать можно так:
progressIndicator.Report(100);

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


I've said many times that I've found my spiritual home as a Quaker. I identify myself as a Christ-Centered Quaker. I'm going to take a stab at trying to write some of the reasons why.
I'll start with things that are important and meaningful, but aren't necessarily the most fundamental reasons: I married into a family with deep Quaker roots. I'm put off by hierarchy and energized by community. Silence as a worship form has become an open door for me to encounter the Divine Other. Out of, say, the top 50 most influential people in my life, a good 85% are Quakers. Friends' serious commitment to living moment by moment in the light and joy and direction of the Holy Spirit is so incredibly rich.
But I suppose the fundamental reason I'm a Quaker is this radical way of life where an intimate, alive relationship with God is married to a holistic, all-encompassing, action-oriented embrace of social justice. It's the beautiful bonding of the vertical and horizontal relationships in our lives, the bewildering balance of mysticism and activism.
George Fox's spiritual searching led him to a field where he could hear these famous words: "There is one who can speak to thy condition, Christ Jesus." It's easy to see how that opening would lead to an intense, mystical, spiritual encounter with God. What's absolutely mind-blowing to me is how that opening broadened. From Fox to the present, Friends have believed that any person can hear from God, and that God is alive and active in every single person on the planet. That potential for each person to be a recipient of Divine Grace becomes the basis upon which social justice is built. If God can speak to anyone, without exception, then each and every person has worth and value in God's sight. It becomes our responsibility to fight the social structures which devalue persons into "things" or "animals" or "them" or "enemies".
Each Quaker distinctive–plain speech, plain dress, pacifism, everyone a minister, etc.– and each Quaker social movement–education reform, prison reform, abolition, women's sufferage, etc.– has its foundation in the belief that all are equal before God. What makes us equal is our origin (as children of God) and our opportunity (to hear the still small voice, to be illuminated by the Light of Christ). The reason for social action and the empowerment for social action is the individual's encounter with the living God. I love that combination, and find Quakers to be in the minority of Christians who try to bring them together.
That's part of why I'm a Quaker.
Gregg, that was beautiful! I couldn't have said it any better. You've captured my thoughts exactly!
I too love the combination of the mystical with the quest for social justice. (To me they go hand in hand.) Quakers seem to be the only ones who truly do this.
What makes us equal is our origin (as children of God) and our opportunity (to hear the still small voice, to be illuminated by the Light of Christ).
What a wonderful way to articulate these core elements of Quakerism, Gregg. Thank you.
Richard, I've been so encouraged in this blog experiment to find so many people who are passionate and alive in their pursuit of God from a Quaker perspective. Thanks for your words, and I hope you find encouragement from the others that have encouraged me.
Thank you, Liz, for making the time to read and comment. Your queries for blog posting are ones I'm holding often.


text:
Nefrotoxicidade é o efeito venenoso de algumas substâncias, tanto químicos tóxicos como medicamentos, sobre os rins. Existem várias formas de toxicidade. Não deve ser confundida com o facto de alguns medicamentos que são excretados sobretudo pela via renal e que necessitam que a sua dose seja ajustada em caso de função renal diminuída (p.e. heparina). Os efeitos nefrotóxicos da maioria das drogas são mais profundos em pacientes que já sofrem de diminuição da função renal. Algumas drogas podem afetar a função renal em mais de uma maneira.

Tipos de toxicidade

Cardiovascular
 Geral: diuréticos, betabloqueadores, agentes vasodilatadores
 Local: IECAs, ciclosporina, tacrolimus.

Efeito tubular direto
 Túbulo contorcido proximal: Antibióticos de aminoglicosídeos (p.e. gentamicina), anfotericina B, cisplatina, meios de radiocontraste media, imunoglobulinas, manitol
 Túbulo contorcido distal: AINEs (p.e. aspirina, ibuprofeno, diclofenac), IECAs, ciclosporina, sais de lítio, ciclofosfamida, anfotericina B
 Obstrução tubular: sulfonamidas, metotrexato, aciclovir, polietilenoglicol.

Nefrite intersticial aguda
 antibióticos betalactâmicos, vancomicina, rifampicina, sulfonamidas, ciprofloxacina, AINEs,  ranitidina, cimetidina, furosemida, tiazidas, fenitoína.

Glomerulonefrite aguda
 Penicilamina.

Causas de diabetes insipidus
 Sais de lítio
 Anfotericina B—reversível em doses baixas, irreversível em doses elevadas
 Fluoreto
 Demeclociclina
 Foscarnet.

Outras nefrotoxinas
 Metais pesados interferem com enzimas do metabolismo energético.
 Ácido aristolóquico, encontrado em algumas plantas e, mais perigosamente, em alguns suplementos de ervas derivados dessas plantas, tem efeitos nefrotóxicos em humanos.

Vigilância
A nefrotoxicidade é geralmente monitorizada por meio de uma simples análise de sangue. Uma diminuição da depuração da creatinina indica função renal diminuída. Os níveis normais de depuração da creatinina são entre 80 - 120 μmol/L.

A medição da concentração de creatinina no sangue é outra medida da função renal, a qual pode ser mais útil clinicamente quando se trata de pacientes com doença renal pouco avançada.

Ver também
 Toxicidade
 Neurotoxicidade
 Ototoxicidade

Toxicologia
Nefrologia


text:
Q: I have PHP code I need to use—how do I install it? I'm trying to get some code set up to use an particular company's API.
I have experience with Perl and if I need a module installed, I type cpan ModuleName and most of the time it Just Works. How does that work with PHP code of similar complexity?
The company in question have a github repository with PHP Client system to access their API, which looks much the same as a perl Module.
I can git clone it, I can download it, but then what? Do I have to install it? There are no installation instructions. Or do I just start using it? There's a composer.json file in there. Do I need to run a composer command so it can figure out and install its dependencies like a CPAN module would? Will it install into system folders or just right there in whatever directory it happens to be in? I feel like there ought be some kind of official installation process because there's a /tests/ folder in the files I downloaded.
Their example code literally starts like this:
<?php

    /* @var $CompanyName \CompanyName_Api */
    $CompanyName = new \CompanyName_Api();
    /* do interesting stuff */

and that's it. Of course nothing works if I just do that because it doesn't know where the CompanyName_Api files are. It works if I add this:
<?php
    include('/full/path/to/downloaded/files/CompanyName/src/Api.php');

is that all I need to do?

A: In order to install all dependencies defined in composer.json you would run the following command inside the project directory:
composer install

This will find and download the dependencies into the vendor directory and it will also generate an optimized autoloader.
To autoload your own source files you'll need to add it to the autoload section in the composer.json file:

A: First your need to install an PHP environment like PHP, Apache and all stuff, then you need to clone that file from the git repository or just download it, then navigate to the dir and fire the command composer install.  It will install all of the dependencies required for that package. After that, run the code from the browser -- the package api code may have the auto loader file which you need to include in your current package and autoloader will do all the stuff for you. Add your folder structure and file structure so that you get a better answer on this.


The show has in the past been predominantly focused on classic/early water-cooled Volkswagen vehicles but over the years this has evolved and we are delighted to welcome the entire spectrum of the Volkswagen fleet, plus those who would love to own one, to join us to relax and enjoy a weekend of camping, music, trading and show 'n' shine in a chilled out, laid back environment.
Club members will have half price entry and tickets will be available in advance. Any members who wish to help with some duties over the weekend will however get their entry reimbursed. This show is for our members and we welcome any feedback.
Please email us at dubodysseytraders@hotmail.com to enquire about trading at Dub Odyssey.