nc33/multispan_quoref huggingface dataset:
John Michael Wright, who at the height of his career would interchangeably sign himself "Anglus" or "Scotus", is of uncertain origin. The diarist John Evelyn called him a Scotsman, an epithet repeated by Horace Walpole and tentatively accepted by his later biographer, Verne. However, writing in 1700, the English antiquarian Thomas Hearne claims Wright was born in Shoe Lane, London and, after an adolescent conversion to Roman Catholicism, was taken to Scotland by a priest.  A London birth certainly seems supported by a baptismal record, dated 25 May 1617, for a "Mighell Wryghtt", son of James Wright, described as a tailor and a citizen of London, in St Bride's Church, Fleet Street, London.What is known is that, on 6 April 1636, the 19-year-old Wright was apprenticed to George Jamesone, an Edinburgh portrait painter of some repute. The Edinburgh Register of Apprentices records him as "Michaell, son to James W(right), tailor, citizen of London". The reasons for this move to Scotland are unclear, but may have to do with familial connections (his parents may have been London Scots) or the advent of plague in London. During his apprenticeship, Wright is likely to have lodged at the High Street tenement near the Netherbow Gate that served as Jameson's workplace. The apprenticeship was contracted for five years, but may have been curtailed by Jameson's imprisonment in late 1639. There is no record of any independent work by Wright from this period (his earliest known painting being a small portrait of Robert Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury, painted in the early 1640s during his time in Rome).It is also possible that Wright met his wife during his Scottish residency. Nothing is known of her, except from a statement of thirty years later which describes her as "related to the most noble and distinguished families of Scotland." If this is accurate, it may explain how Wright was later able to find aristocratic patronage. All that is known for certain is that Wright had at least one child by her, a son, Thomas.

Question: What is the first name of the person who, during his apprenticeship, is likely to have lodged at the High Street tenement near Netherbow Gate?
Answer: John
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the name of the person who was employed by the Archduke as an advisor on antiquities?
Answer: Wright
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the first name of the person who was the younger brother of Emperor Ferdinand II of Spain?
Answer: Leopold
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the first name of the person who was the cousin of Phillip IV of Spain, with the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities??
Answer: Leopold
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the first name of the Archduke who enjoyed a period of cordial relations with the Lord Protector of England in 1655?
Answer: Leopold
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the first name of the person who commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens?
Answer: Leopold
In 1654, after a decade in Rome, Wright travelled to Brussels where his abilities were recognised by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria then governor of the Spanish Netherlands. Leopold employed him not as an artist, but as an advisor on antiquities. As the younger brother of the Emperor Ferdinand III and cousin of Philip IV of Spain, the Archduke had the wherewithal to amass a large collection of paintings and antiquities. Moreover, in the spring of 1655, the Archduke was enjoying a period of cordial relations with Oliver Cromwell, then Lord Protector of England. (Indeed, the two had been exchanging gifts of horses, and Leopold had provided Cromwell with choice tapestries and other artefacts for the refurbishment of the Palace of Whitehall. Cromwell also received an embassy from the Habsburgs congratulating him on his new office.) 
Since the execution of Charles I in 1649, Leopold had been purchasing artworks from the royal collections and those of various aristocrats, and, against this background, commissioned Wright to travel to London and acquire further specimens. A passport was issued to him as "'Juan Miguel Rita, pintor Ingles, qua va a Inglaterra a procurar pinturas, medalas, antiguedades, y otras costa señaladas, que le hemosencargado..." to allow him to travel to England. The passport is dated 22 May 1655, and signed by the Archduke at Brussels, indicating that Wright had left Italy for Flanders by this time. (The addition of the saint's name name, John, probably marks his conversion to Roman Catholicism at some time prior.)
As one on an official mission, Wright would probably have offered greetings to Leopold's ambassador extraordinary in London, the Marqués de Lede, and to Alonso de Cárdenas, the regular Habsburg ambassador, who had also been engaged since 1649 in art procurement for the Spanish Monarch. The lack of records means that the timing and duration of this visit remain uncertain. However, de Lede left in late June, and de Cárdenas a few weeks later – as relations between Cromwell and the Habsburgs deteriorated – so Wright probably arrived back in Flanders, with any acquisitions he had made, just in time to learn of the Archduke's impending departure – and that of his huge art collection – from Brussels in the autumn of 1655.

Question: What is the first name of the Archduke about whose impending departure to Brussels Wright learned on the return to Flanders?
Answer: Leopold
Charles II, who promoted a number of Roman Catholics at court, granted Wright a measure of royal art patronage. In 1661, soon after the coronation, he painted a formalised portrait of the monarch, seated in front of a tapestry representing the Judgement of Solomon, wearing St. Edward's Crown, the robes of the Garter, and carrying the orb and sceptre. Wright was also commissioned to paint an allegorical ceiling for the King's bedchamber at Whitehall Palace, and he was further appointed in 1673 to the office of "picture drawer in ordinary", allowing him to exercise his right to sign his pictures "Pictor Regis". However, to his disappointment, he did not receive the coveted office of King's Painter, which was held in the 1660s by Sir Peter Lely alone. In contrast to Wright's sympathetic realism, and carefully observed landscape backgrounds, Lely had a more glamorous style, favoured by the court, and based on Van Dyck's pre-Civil War style. This prompted the diarist Samuel Pepys to remark, after an enjoyable visit to Lely's studio, "thence to Wright's the painters: but Lord, the difference that is between their two works".Unlike Lely, who was knighted, Wright never received significant recognition from King Charles. However, at least one admirer thought he did deserve it. In 1669, Wright and the miniaturist Samuel Cooper had met Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Cosimo later called at Wright's studio where he commissioned a portrait of the Duke of Albemarle from Wright. On 3 March 1673, perhaps some time after Wright had painted his state picture of Charles II (now in the Royal Collection), a strange letter was sent from an obscure "Mairie Lady Hermistan" (evidently a fellow Roman Catholic) to Cosimo, asking him to intercede with the King to grant Wright a baronetcy. However, nothing came of the request.

Question: What is the name of the person Wright painted a formalised portrait of?
Answer: Charles II
Charles II, who promoted a number of Roman Catholics at court, granted Wright a measure of royal art patronage. In 1661, soon after the coronation, he painted a formalised portrait of the monarch, seated in front of a tapestry representing the Judgement of Solomon, wearing St. Edward's Crown, the robes of the Garter, and carrying the orb and sceptre. Wright was also commissioned to paint an allegorical ceiling for the King's bedchamber at Whitehall Palace, and he was further appointed in 1673 to the office of "picture drawer in ordinary", allowing him to exercise his right to sign his pictures "Pictor Regis". However, to his disappointment, he did not receive the coveted office of King's Painter, which was held in the 1660s by Sir Peter Lely alone. In contrast to Wright's sympathetic realism, and carefully observed landscape backgrounds, Lely had a more glamorous style, favoured by the court, and based on Van Dyck's pre-Civil War style. This prompted the diarist Samuel Pepys to remark, after an enjoyable visit to Lely's studio, "thence to Wright's the painters: but Lord, the difference that is between their two works".Unlike Lely, who was knighted, Wright never received significant recognition from King Charles. However, at least one admirer thought he did deserve it. In 1669, Wright and the miniaturist Samuel Cooper had met Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Cosimo later called at Wright's studio where he commissioned a portrait of the Duke of Albemarle from Wright. On 3 March 1673, perhaps some time after Wright had painted his state picture of Charles II (now in the Royal Collection), a strange letter was sent from an obscure "Mairie Lady Hermistan" (evidently a fellow Roman Catholic) to Cosimo, asking him to intercede with the King to grant Wright a baronetcy. However, nothing came of the request.

Question: What was the name of the person wearing St. Edward's Crown in Wright's formalised portrait?
Answer: Charles II
Charles II, who promoted a number of Roman Catholics at court, granted Wright a measure of royal art patronage. In 1661, soon after the coronation, he painted a formalised portrait of the monarch, seated in front of a tapestry representing the Judgement of Solomon, wearing St. Edward's Crown, the robes of the Garter, and carrying the orb and sceptre. Wright was also commissioned to paint an allegorical ceiling for the King's bedchamber at Whitehall Palace, and he was further appointed in 1673 to the office of "picture drawer in ordinary", allowing him to exercise his right to sign his pictures "Pictor Regis". However, to his disappointment, he did not receive the coveted office of King's Painter, which was held in the 1660s by Sir Peter Lely alone. In contrast to Wright's sympathetic realism, and carefully observed landscape backgrounds, Lely had a more glamorous style, favoured by the court, and based on Van Dyck's pre-Civil War style. This prompted the diarist Samuel Pepys to remark, after an enjoyable visit to Lely's studio, "thence to Wright's the painters: but Lord, the difference that is between their two works".Unlike Lely, who was knighted, Wright never received significant recognition from King Charles. However, at least one admirer thought he did deserve it. In 1669, Wright and the miniaturist Samuel Cooper had met Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Cosimo later called at Wright's studio where he commissioned a portrait of the Duke of Albemarle from Wright. On 3 March 1673, perhaps some time after Wright had painted his state picture of Charles II (now in the Royal Collection), a strange letter was sent from an obscure "Mairie Lady Hermistan" (evidently a fellow Roman Catholic) to Cosimo, asking him to intercede with the King to grant Wright a baronetcy. However, nothing came of the request.

Question: What was the name of the person Write was commissioned to paint an allegorical ceiling for?
Answer: paint an allegorical ceiling for
Charles II, who promoted a number of Roman Catholics at court, granted Wright a measure of royal art patronage. In 1661, soon after the coronation, he painted a formalised portrait of the monarch, seated in front of a tapestry representing the Judgement of Solomon, wearing St. Edward's Crown, the robes of the Garter, and carrying the orb and sceptre. Wright was also commissioned to paint an allegorical ceiling for the King's bedchamber at Whitehall Palace, and he was further appointed in 1673 to the office of "picture drawer in ordinary", allowing him to exercise his right to sign his pictures "Pictor Regis". However, to his disappointment, he did not receive the coveted office of King's Painter, which was held in the 1660s by Sir Peter Lely alone. In contrast to Wright's sympathetic realism, and carefully observed landscape backgrounds, Lely had a more glamorous style, favoured by the court, and based on Van Dyck's pre-Civil War style. This prompted the diarist Samuel Pepys to remark, after an enjoyable visit to Lely's studio, "thence to Wright's the painters: but Lord, the difference that is between their two works".Unlike Lely, who was knighted, Wright never received significant recognition from King Charles. However, at least one admirer thought he did deserve it. In 1669, Wright and the miniaturist Samuel Cooper had met Cosimo III de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Cosimo later called at Wright's studio where he commissioned a portrait of the Duke of Albemarle from Wright. On 3 March 1673, perhaps some time after Wright had painted his state picture of Charles II (now in the Royal Collection), a strange letter was sent from an obscure "Mairie Lady Hermistan" (evidently a fellow Roman Catholic) to Cosimo, asking him to intercede with the King to grant Wright a baronetcy. However, nothing came of the request.

Question: What was the last name of the person who was allowed to exercise his right to sign his pictures "Pictor Regis?"
Answer: Wright
Much of the scholarly appreciation of Wright's work is fairly recent. In 1982, an exhibition of his work: ‘John Michael Wright – The King’s Painter’ – in the Scottish National Portrait Gallery – led to a renewed interest in his contributions, and the catalogue (edited by Sara Stevenson and Duncan Thomson) re-wrote and uncovered much of the known biographical details. New works continue to be discovered and previously known ones re-attributed to him. Wright is now viewed as amongst the most successful of seventeenth-century Britain's indigenous artists, and is rated alongside contemporaries such as Robert Walker and William Dobson. One modern exhibition catalogue described him as "the finest seventeenth century British-born painter". Certainly, he was one of the few who painted the elite aristocracy of his day, and was responsible for some of the most magnificent royal portraiture surviving. This achievement is particularly significant in an age where even British patrons had tended to favour foreign artists like Holbein and Van Dyck, and would continue to favour immigrants such as Lely and Kneller. Indeed, part of the reason for Wright's success is recognised as being his unusually cosmopolitan training: no prior British artist had so much exposure to European influence. During his Italian sojourn, and his participation in the Accademia di San Luca, not only had Wright collected works attributed to continental giants like Michelangelo, Raphael and Titian, he had also been influenced by, and even copied, much of their tone and style.

Question: What is the first name of the person who is now viewed as amongst the most successful of seventeenth-century Britain's indigenous artists?
Answer: John
In his field and day, Wright was certainly eclipsed by his rival the more prolific Lely, to whom he is often compared. One critic, Millar, observes that any comparisons undertaken would "ruthlessly expose Wright's weaknesses and mannerisms" but that positively "they would also demonstrate his remarkable independence, his unfailing integrity and charm, the sources of which must partly lie in his unusual origins, fragmented career and attractive personality". Millar suggests that a particularly useful comparison can be made between Lely and Wright's respective portrayals of the Duchess of Clevland (Barbara Villiers) (above). Whereas Lely portrayed her as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet", the more seriously minded Wright, who was not really in sympathy with the morality of the new court and its courtesans, rendered a more puppet-like figure.However, even if Lely was considered the more masterly and fashionable of the two in seventeenth-century Britain, Wright is generally accepted as portraying the more lively and realistic likenesses of his subjects, a fact that reinforces Pepys's observation that Lely's work was "good but not like". Neither should Wright's realism be confused with a prudishness; as can be seen, for example, in his portrait the lady, thought to be Ann Davis (right). The picture, with the sitter's clothing left undone and her modesty barely preserved by a red drape, has been described as exhibiting a fresh – even risky – reality: erotic by contemporary standards. Whereas Wright's contemporaries might have used the ‘disguise’ of presenting the sitter in the guise of a classical goddess to protect against accusation of  salaciousness, Wright's portrait rather depends on his realism, notably in his flesh tones, and depth.

Question: What is the name of the person who was portrayed as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet?"
Answer: Duchess of Clevland
In his field and day, Wright was certainly eclipsed by his rival the more prolific Lely, to whom he is often compared. One critic, Millar, observes that any comparisons undertaken would "ruthlessly expose Wright's weaknesses and mannerisms" but that positively "they would also demonstrate his remarkable independence, his unfailing integrity and charm, the sources of which must partly lie in his unusual origins, fragmented career and attractive personality". Millar suggests that a particularly useful comparison can be made between Lely and Wright's respective portrayals of the Duchess of Clevland (Barbara Villiers) (above). Whereas Lely portrayed her as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet", the more seriously minded Wright, who was not really in sympathy with the morality of the new court and its courtesans, rendered a more puppet-like figure.However, even if Lely was considered the more masterly and fashionable of the two in seventeenth-century Britain, Wright is generally accepted as portraying the more lively and realistic likenesses of his subjects, a fact that reinforces Pepys's observation that Lely's work was "good but not like". Neither should Wright's realism be confused with a prudishness; as can be seen, for example, in his portrait the lady, thought to be Ann Davis (right). The picture, with the sitter's clothing left undone and her modesty barely preserved by a red drape, has been described as exhibiting a fresh – even risky – reality: erotic by contemporary standards. Whereas Wright's contemporaries might have used the ‘disguise’ of presenting the sitter in the guise of a classical goddess to protect against accusation of  salaciousness, Wright's portrait rather depends on his realism, notably in his flesh tones, and depth.

Question: To whom is Millar referring when he observes that, positively, any comparisons undertaken would demonstrate his remarkable independence, his unfailing integrity and charm?
Answer: Wright
In his field and day, Wright was certainly eclipsed by his rival the more prolific Lely, to whom he is often compared. One critic, Millar, observes that any comparisons undertaken would "ruthlessly expose Wright's weaknesses and mannerisms" but that positively "they would also demonstrate his remarkable independence, his unfailing integrity and charm, the sources of which must partly lie in his unusual origins, fragmented career and attractive personality". Millar suggests that a particularly useful comparison can be made between Lely and Wright's respective portrayals of the Duchess of Clevland (Barbara Villiers) (above). Whereas Lely portrayed her as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet", the more seriously minded Wright, who was not really in sympathy with the morality of the new court and its courtesans, rendered a more puppet-like figure.However, even if Lely was considered the more masterly and fashionable of the two in seventeenth-century Britain, Wright is generally accepted as portraying the more lively and realistic likenesses of his subjects, a fact that reinforces Pepys's observation that Lely's work was "good but not like". Neither should Wright's realism be confused with a prudishness; as can be seen, for example, in his portrait the lady, thought to be Ann Davis (right). The picture, with the sitter's clothing left undone and her modesty barely preserved by a red drape, has been described as exhibiting a fresh – even risky – reality: erotic by contemporary standards. Whereas Wright's contemporaries might have used the ‘disguise’ of presenting the sitter in the guise of a classical goddess to protect against accusation of  salaciousness, Wright's portrait rather depends on his realism, notably in his flesh tones, and depth.

Question: What is thought to be the full name of the person in the picture whose modesty is barely preserved by a red drape?
Answer: Ann Davis
In his field and day, Wright was certainly eclipsed by his rival the more prolific Lely, to whom he is often compared. One critic, Millar, observes that any comparisons undertaken would "ruthlessly expose Wright's weaknesses and mannerisms" but that positively "they would also demonstrate his remarkable independence, his unfailing integrity and charm, the sources of which must partly lie in his unusual origins, fragmented career and attractive personality". Millar suggests that a particularly useful comparison can be made between Lely and Wright's respective portrayals of the Duchess of Clevland (Barbara Villiers) (above). Whereas Lely portrayed her as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet", the more seriously minded Wright, who was not really in sympathy with the morality of the new court and its courtesans, rendered a more puppet-like figure.However, even if Lely was considered the more masterly and fashionable of the two in seventeenth-century Britain, Wright is generally accepted as portraying the more lively and realistic likenesses of his subjects, a fact that reinforces Pepys's observation that Lely's work was "good but not like". Neither should Wright's realism be confused with a prudishness; as can be seen, for example, in his portrait the lady, thought to be Ann Davis (right). The picture, with the sitter's clothing left undone and her modesty barely preserved by a red drape, has been described as exhibiting a fresh – even risky – reality: erotic by contemporary standards. Whereas Wright's contemporaries might have used the ‘disguise’ of presenting the sitter in the guise of a classical goddess to protect against accusation of  salaciousness, Wright's portrait rather depends on his realism, notably in his flesh tones, and depth.

Question: What is the first name of the person who Lely portrayed as a "full-blown and palpably desirable strumpet"?
Answer: Barbara
After a textual montage summarizing Edgar Allan Poe's life, the film begins in late September 1849 with Poe awakening from a hallucination where he is buried alive.  He prepares to take a trip to New York City via a ferry steamboat from Richmond, Virginia, to Baltimore, and from there, another ferry to New York City itself.  He discusses his plans to marry his childhood sweetheart Sarah Elmira Royster with a stranger taking the same steamboat, who suggests that he meet with a few potential investors for his planned magazine The Stylus.  Though Poe had intended only to pass through Baltimore, he agrees to meet the investors who, one by one, turn down his request for funding. 
Poe is depicted as having some type of memory loss, which is first evident when he offers to pay his boat fare twice after forgetting he had already paid. In Baltimore, he more than once forgets the arrangements he has made at his hotel as his stay in the city is extended.  One night, he chooses to dine in a local tavern rather than at the hotel.  There, he meets an old friend from his days at West Point.  In desperation, he asks his former classmate and the classmate's companion for money to help start a magazine, saying proudly he has already raised $1,000.  Poe leaves the tavern to retrieve his prospectus for the magazine.  His classmate follows him and beats him up to steal the $1,000 he had collected.
An injured and delirious Poe is then found by organizers of a cooping ring.  The author, along with several others, are forced to multiple polling locations around Baltimore to place multiple votes for the candidate for mayor.  A couple of victims of the scam die amidst the brutality of their captors.

Question: What is the last name of the person who has a hallucination that they are buried alive?
Answer: Poe
After a textual montage summarizing Edgar Allan Poe's life, the film begins in late September 1849 with Poe awakening from a hallucination where he is buried alive.  He prepares to take a trip to New York City via a ferry steamboat from Richmond, Virginia, to Baltimore, and from there, another ferry to New York City itself.  He discusses his plans to marry his childhood sweetheart Sarah Elmira Royster with a stranger taking the same steamboat, who suggests that he meet with a few potential investors for his planned magazine The Stylus.  Though Poe had intended only to pass through Baltimore, he agrees to meet the investors who, one by one, turn down his request for funding. 
Poe is depicted as having some type of memory loss, which is first evident when he offers to pay his boat fare twice after forgetting he had already paid. In Baltimore, he more than once forgets the arrangements he has made at his hotel as his stay in the city is extended.  One night, he chooses to dine in a local tavern rather than at the hotel.  There, he meets an old friend from his days at West Point.  In desperation, he asks his former classmate and the classmate's companion for money to help start a magazine, saying proudly he has already raised $1,000.  Poe leaves the tavern to retrieve his prospectus for the magazine.  His classmate follows him and beats him up to steal the $1,000 he had collected.
An injured and delirious Poe is then found by organizers of a cooping ring.  The author, along with several others, are forced to multiple polling locations around Baltimore to place multiple votes for the candidate for mayor.  A couple of victims of the scam die amidst the brutality of their captors.

Question: What is the last name of the person who discusses his plans to marry his childhood sweetheart?
Answer: Poe
After a textual montage summarizing Edgar Allan Poe's life, the film begins in late September 1849 with Poe awakening from a hallucination where he is buried alive.  He prepares to take a trip to New York City via a ferry steamboat from Richmond, Virginia, to Baltimore, and from there, another ferry to New York City itself.  He discusses his plans to marry his childhood sweetheart Sarah Elmira Royster with a stranger taking the same steamboat, who suggests that he meet with a few potential investors for his planned magazine The Stylus.  Though Poe had intended only to pass through Baltimore, he agrees to meet the investors who, one by one, turn down his request for funding. 
Poe is depicted as having some type of memory loss, which is first evident when he offers to pay his boat fare twice after forgetting he had already paid. In Baltimore, he more than once forgets the arrangements he has made at his hotel as his stay in the city is extended.  One night, he chooses to dine in a local tavern rather than at the hotel.  There, he meets an old friend from his days at West Point.  In desperation, he asks his former classmate and the classmate's companion for money to help start a magazine, saying proudly he has already raised $1,000.  Poe leaves the tavern to retrieve his prospectus for the magazine.  His classmate follows him and beats him up to steal the $1,000 he had collected.
An injured and delirious Poe is then found by organizers of a cooping ring.  The author, along with several others, are forced to multiple polling locations around Baltimore to place multiple votes for the candidate for mayor.  A couple of victims of the scam die amidst the brutality of their captors.

Question: What is the last name of the person who asks his former classmate for money?
Answer: Poe
After a textual montage summarizing Edgar Allan Poe's life, the film begins in late September 1849 with Poe awakening from a hallucination where he is buried alive.  He prepares to take a trip to New York City via a ferry steamboat from Richmond, Virginia, to Baltimore, and from there, another ferry to New York City itself.  He discusses his plans to marry his childhood sweetheart Sarah Elmira Royster with a stranger taking the same steamboat, who suggests that he meet with a few potential investors for his planned magazine The Stylus.  Though Poe had intended only to pass through Baltimore, he agrees to meet the investors who, one by one, turn down his request for funding. 
Poe is depicted as having some type of memory loss, which is first evident when he offers to pay his boat fare twice after forgetting he had already paid. In Baltimore, he more than once forgets the arrangements he has made at his hotel as his stay in the city is extended.  One night, he chooses to dine in a local tavern rather than at the hotel.  There, he meets an old friend from his days at West Point.  In desperation, he asks his former classmate and the classmate's companion for money to help start a magazine, saying proudly he has already raised $1,000.  Poe leaves the tavern to retrieve his prospectus for the magazine.  His classmate follows him and beats him up to steal the $1,000 he had collected.
An injured and delirious Poe is then found by organizers of a cooping ring.  The author, along with several others, are forced to multiple polling locations around Baltimore to place multiple votes for the candidate for mayor.  A couple of victims of the scam die amidst the brutality of their captors.

Question: What is the last name of the person who is beaten up and had money stolen from them?
Answer: Poe
Jimmy and Fletch are two friends living in London, experiencing life problems. Jimmy is dumped by his unscrupulous girlfriend, and Fletch is fired from his job as a clown for punching a child. They decide to escape their woes and hike to a remote village in Norfolk that they find on an old map. As they arrive at a pub in the village, with Jimmy upset about Fletch destroying his phone, they see a number of attractive foreign female history students leaving.
Hoping to find more beautiful women inside, they are greeted by a morose crowd of men and approached by a seemingly crazed vicar who believes Jimmy is a long lost descendant of a local vampire slayer. As the barman offers the two men free ale as an apology for the vicar, they learn the students they saw earlier are going to a cottage, where they are to stay the night. Jimmy and Fletch pursue the students' van, catching up to it as the engine has broken down, and are introduced to four girls (Heidi, Lotte, Anke and Trudi). They are invited to join a party on the bus.
The group arrives at their destination, only to learn that a curse rests over the village and that every female child turns into a lesbian vampire on her 18th birthday. There is an old legend stating that the Vampire Queen, Carmilla, descended on the village during the night of a blood moon, killed its menfolk and seduced its women to her evil. When the ruler of the land, Baron Wolfgang Mclaren (Jimmy's great ancestor) returned from the Crusades, he discovered one of the women corrupted by Carmilla was his wife, Eva. The baron forged a sacred sword, then defeated Carmilla, but before dying, Carmilla cursed the village, adding that when the blood of the last of Mclaren's bloodline mixed with a virgin girl's blood, Carmilla would be resurrected.

Question: What's the full name of the person that the former clown's friend descends from?
Answer: Baron Wolfgang Mclaren
Jimmy and Fletch are two friends living in London, experiencing life problems. Jimmy is dumped by his unscrupulous girlfriend, and Fletch is fired from his job as a clown for punching a child. They decide to escape their woes and hike to a remote village in Norfolk that they find on an old map. As they arrive at a pub in the village, with Jimmy upset about Fletch destroying his phone, they see a number of attractive foreign female history students leaving.
Hoping to find more beautiful women inside, they are greeted by a morose crowd of men and approached by a seemingly crazed vicar who believes Jimmy is a long lost descendant of a local vampire slayer. As the barman offers the two men free ale as an apology for the vicar, they learn the students they saw earlier are going to a cottage, where they are to stay the night. Jimmy and Fletch pursue the students' van, catching up to it as the engine has broken down, and are introduced to four girls (Heidi, Lotte, Anke and Trudi). They are invited to join a party on the bus.
The group arrives at their destination, only to learn that a curse rests over the village and that every female child turns into a lesbian vampire on her 18th birthday. There is an old legend stating that the Vampire Queen, Carmilla, descended on the village during the night of a blood moon, killed its menfolk and seduced its women to her evil. When the ruler of the land, Baron Wolfgang Mclaren (Jimmy's great ancestor) returned from the Crusades, he discovered one of the women corrupted by Carmilla was his wife, Eva. The baron forged a sacred sword, then defeated Carmilla, but before dying, Carmilla cursed the village, adding that when the blood of the last of Mclaren's bloodline mixed with a virgin girl's blood, Carmilla would be resurrected.

Question: Who was the local vampire slayer's wife?
Answer: Eva
Jimmy and Fletch are two friends living in London, experiencing life problems. Jimmy is dumped by his unscrupulous girlfriend, and Fletch is fired from his job as a clown for punching a child. They decide to escape their woes and hike to a remote village in Norfolk that they find on an old map. As they arrive at a pub in the village, with Jimmy upset about Fletch destroying his phone, they see a number of attractive foreign female history students leaving.
Hoping to find more beautiful women inside, they are greeted by a morose crowd of men and approached by a seemingly crazed vicar who believes Jimmy is a long lost descendant of a local vampire slayer. As the barman offers the two men free ale as an apology for the vicar, they learn the students they saw earlier are going to a cottage, where they are to stay the night. Jimmy and Fletch pursue the students' van, catching up to it as the engine has broken down, and are introduced to four girls (Heidi, Lotte, Anke and Trudi). They are invited to join a party on the bus.
The group arrives at their destination, only to learn that a curse rests over the village and that every female child turns into a lesbian vampire on her 18th birthday. There is an old legend stating that the Vampire Queen, Carmilla, descended on the village during the night of a blood moon, killed its menfolk and seduced its women to her evil. When the ruler of the land, Baron Wolfgang Mclaren (Jimmy's great ancestor) returned from the Crusades, he discovered one of the women corrupted by Carmilla was his wife, Eva. The baron forged a sacred sword, then defeated Carmilla, but before dying, Carmilla cursed the village, adding that when the blood of the last of Mclaren's bloodline mixed with a virgin girl's blood, Carmilla would be resurrected.

Question: What is the title of the one responsible for turning the girls of Norfolk into lesbian vampires?
Answer: Vampire Queen
Jimmy and Fletch are two friends living in London, experiencing life problems. Jimmy is dumped by his unscrupulous girlfriend, and Fletch is fired from his job as a clown for punching a child. They decide to escape their woes and hike to a remote village in Norfolk that they find on an old map. As they arrive at a pub in the village, with Jimmy upset about Fletch destroying his phone, they see a number of attractive foreign female history students leaving.
Hoping to find more beautiful women inside, they are greeted by a morose crowd of men and approached by a seemingly crazed vicar who believes Jimmy is a long lost descendant of a local vampire slayer. As the barman offers the two men free ale as an apology for the vicar, they learn the students they saw earlier are going to a cottage, where they are to stay the night. Jimmy and Fletch pursue the students' van, catching up to it as the engine has broken down, and are introduced to four girls (Heidi, Lotte, Anke and Trudi). They are invited to join a party on the bus.
The group arrives at their destination, only to learn that a curse rests over the village and that every female child turns into a lesbian vampire on her 18th birthday. There is an old legend stating that the Vampire Queen, Carmilla, descended on the village during the night of a blood moon, killed its menfolk and seduced its women to her evil. When the ruler of the land, Baron Wolfgang Mclaren (Jimmy's great ancestor) returned from the Crusades, he discovered one of the women corrupted by Carmilla was his wife, Eva. The baron forged a sacred sword, then defeated Carmilla, but before dying, Carmilla cursed the village, adding that when the blood of the last of Mclaren's bloodline mixed with a virgin girl's blood, Carmilla would be resurrected.

Question: Whose seduction was the vampire slayer's wife affected by?
Answer: Carmilla