nc33/multispan_quoref huggingface dataset:
After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre".
In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm description of Barbara's portrait—"the mother of Albrecht Dürer in oil colors on wood, [but] there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Dürer"—led Brand Philip to conclude that Albrecht's panel was likely sold individually as the more accomplished and marketable of the two. The attribution is widely accepted today. In 2013 Stephan Kemperdick noted the sophistication of the Nuremberg portrait and that its three-dimensional modeling of the head displays a level of skill beyond Wolgemut and his circle.The two panels were reunited in 2012 during a Dürer exhibition in Nuremberg having been separated since sometime between 1588 and 1628.

Question: What is the full name of the person whose portrait was last accounted for, prior to 1977, in the inventory books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff?
Answer: Barbara Holper
After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre".
In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm description of Barbara's portrait—"the mother of Albrecht Dürer in oil colors on wood, [but] there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Dürer"—led Brand Philip to conclude that Albrecht's panel was likely sold individually as the more accomplished and marketable of the two. The attribution is widely accepted today. In 2013 Stephan Kemperdick noted the sophistication of the Nuremberg portrait and that its three-dimensional modeling of the head displays a level of skill beyond Wolgemut and his circle.The two panels were reunited in 2012 during a Dürer exhibition in Nuremberg having been separated since sometime between 1588 and 1628.

Question: What is the first name of the person who attentively describes the subject's hands in the paintings?
Answer: Albrecht
After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre".
In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm description of Barbara's portrait—"the mother of Albrecht Dürer in oil colors on wood, [but] there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Dürer"—led Brand Philip to conclude that Albrecht's panel was likely sold individually as the more accomplished and marketable of the two. The attribution is widely accepted today. In 2013 Stephan Kemperdick noted the sophistication of the Nuremberg portrait and that its three-dimensional modeling of the head displays a level of skill beyond Wolgemut and his circle.The two panels were reunited in 2012 during a Dürer exhibition in Nuremberg having been separated since sometime between 1588 and 1628.

Question: What is the first name of the person who created the charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63?
Answer: Albrecht
After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre".
In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm description of Barbara's portrait—"the mother of Albrecht Dürer in oil colors on wood, [but] there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Dürer"—led Brand Philip to conclude that Albrecht's panel was likely sold individually as the more accomplished and marketable of the two. The attribution is widely accepted today. In 2013 Stephan Kemperdick noted the sophistication of the Nuremberg portrait and that its three-dimensional modeling of the head displays a level of skill beyond Wolgemut and his circle.The two panels were reunited in 2012 during a Dürer exhibition in Nuremberg having been separated since sometime between 1588 and 1628.

Question: What is the first name of the person who speculated that the father's portrait had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria?
Answer: Fedja
After the painter's death in 1528, the portraits were held by his brother, and then his brother's widow before they passed into the collection of Willibald Imhoff, a grandson of Dürer's friend Willibald Pirckheimer. Inventories from the Imhoff collection from 1573–74, 1580 and 1588 list both panels. The next surviving Imhoff inventory, of 1628, again lists the mother's portrait, but it disappears after mention in the 1633–58 account books of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff, after which its whereabouts became unknown. Dürer expert Matthias Mende described the missing portrait of Barbara Holper as "among the most severe losses in the Dürer oeuvre".
In 1977, art historian Lotte Brand Philip proposed that Unknown Woman in a Coif, held by the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg, was the original portrait of Barbara Holper. The Nuremberg panel was previously thought to have originated from a member of Wolgemut's workshop, a Franconian artist in his circle, or the anonymous Mainz painter Master W. B. Brand Philip's attribution was based on striking similarities in composition and its shared tone, theme and size with the father panel at the Uffizi. In both works the sitters are holding rosary beads, and Dürer attentively describes their hands. Both portraits show the sitter in the same pose, against a similarly coloured background. Both are lit from the upper left. The boards are identically cut in width and depth, although 3 cm was removed from the left edge of Barbara's panel. Brand Philip noted the similarities between the panel and Dürer's 1514 charcoal drawing Portrait of the Artist's Mother at the Age of 63. Fedja Anzelewsky agreed with the attribution, noting that both portraits bear, on their reverse, the catalogue number recorded in the Imhoff inventories, as well as "precisely the same design of masses of dark clouds".Anzelewsky speculated that the father's portrait, which was not listed in the 1628 Imhoff inventory, had been broken off and sold to Rudolph II of Austria. Hans Hieronymus Imhoff's lukewarm description of Barbara's portrait—"the mother of Albrecht Dürer in oil colors on wood, [but] there are many who do not believe it to be a work of Dürer"—led Brand Philip to conclude that Albrecht's panel was likely sold individually as the more accomplished and marketable of the two. The attribution is widely accepted today. In 2013 Stephan Kemperdick noted the sophistication of the Nuremberg portrait and that its three-dimensional modeling of the head displays a level of skill beyond Wolgemut and his circle.The two panels were reunited in 2012 during a Dürer exhibition in Nuremberg having been separated since sometime between 1588 and 1628.

Question: What is the last name of the subject of the painting that Hans Hieronymus Imhoff gave a lukewarm description for?
Answer: Holper
Boxwood is a dense hardwood with fine grain, resistant to splitting and chipping—ideal for wood carving. In the 16th century, woodcut blocks used for woodblock printing were usually made of boxwood. Uses for boxwood were similar to those for ivory in medieval carvings, but boxwood was a far less expensive option than ivory. Designs were overseen by master craftsmen who must have had access to prints and woodcuts of contemporary works of art, and who were apparently influenced by diptych and triptych panel paintings.Boxwood grows slowly, so the trunk remains fairly narrow, a fact that limits the size of any carvings made from any single piece. The wood assumes an even, soft and tactile surface if polished or frequently handled, such as was the case for prayer nuts. The wood loses its tactility when painted, explaining why most of the miniatures are in monochrome. Polychromy reduced the legibility of the carvings, "quite apart from the difficulty of effectively coloring such tiny and complex scenes" as the art historian Frits Scholten has noted.The tools used in production were similar to those used in the production of larger altarpieces; they included saws, planes, card scrapers, chisels, augers, braces, and gimlets. Wood was cut into the required dimensions as blocks, after which the joints were carved out. Prayer beads were turned on a lathe. The woodcutters carved a single block of boxwood into a sphere, cut it in half, hollowed it out, and attached a fastening hinge and carrying loops. The carvings in the interiors were typically made separately from the smaller hemispheres and later fitted onto an outer shell. In some cases, these wooden shells were placed in silver housing.
Because of the diminutive scale of the pieces, magnifying glasses were used in their production. The very small wood pieces were difficult to brace (hold in place) during carving. They were likely positioned on a bench, between two posts, so that they could be turned around. Domed spaces, intended to evoke church architecture, were drilled or carved, and these were divided using compasses and a straightedge into pie-shaped segments. A surface plane was established onto which the reliefs were added. These were created from multiple separate wood sheets, individually produced before being joined in layers. Major figures, usually saints, were carved from single blocks of wood. Relief components were either glued into prefixed niches, or they were bound with pegs, which were sometimes functional and obviously visible or implanted into the relief form. Because of this layered structure, they are often fragile.

Question: What were the designs for that were overseen by master craftsmen who were influenced by diptych and triptych panel paintings?
Answer: medieval carvings
Boxwood is a dense hardwood with fine grain, resistant to splitting and chipping—ideal for wood carving. In the 16th century, woodcut blocks used for woodblock printing were usually made of boxwood. Uses for boxwood were similar to those for ivory in medieval carvings, but boxwood was a far less expensive option than ivory. Designs were overseen by master craftsmen who must have had access to prints and woodcuts of contemporary works of art, and who were apparently influenced by diptych and triptych panel paintings.Boxwood grows slowly, so the trunk remains fairly narrow, a fact that limits the size of any carvings made from any single piece. The wood assumes an even, soft and tactile surface if polished or frequently handled, such as was the case for prayer nuts. The wood loses its tactility when painted, explaining why most of the miniatures are in monochrome. Polychromy reduced the legibility of the carvings, "quite apart from the difficulty of effectively coloring such tiny and complex scenes" as the art historian Frits Scholten has noted.The tools used in production were similar to those used in the production of larger altarpieces; they included saws, planes, card scrapers, chisels, augers, braces, and gimlets. Wood was cut into the required dimensions as blocks, after which the joints were carved out. Prayer beads were turned on a lathe. The woodcutters carved a single block of boxwood into a sphere, cut it in half, hollowed it out, and attached a fastening hinge and carrying loops. The carvings in the interiors were typically made separately from the smaller hemispheres and later fitted onto an outer shell. In some cases, these wooden shells were placed in silver housing.
Because of the diminutive scale of the pieces, magnifying glasses were used in their production. The very small wood pieces were difficult to brace (hold in place) during carving. They were likely positioned on a bench, between two posts, so that they could be turned around. Domed spaces, intended to evoke church architecture, were drilled or carved, and these were divided using compasses and a straightedge into pie-shaped segments. A surface plane was established onto which the reliefs were added. These were created from multiple separate wood sheets, individually produced before being joined in layers. Major figures, usually saints, were carved from single blocks of wood. Relief components were either glued into prefixed niches, or they were bound with pegs, which were sometimes functional and obviously visible or implanted into the relief form. Because of this layered structure, they are often fragile.

Question: Why does the dense hardwood that was used for 16th-century woodcut blocks grow on a tree that has a fairly narrow trunk?
Answer: Boxwood grows slowly
Because of shared characteristics, including common use of horror vacui, similar spatial approaches and use of depth, as well as similar hinges and methods of construction, Leeuwenberg has suggested that production of a number of the miniatures was overseen by a single master named Adam Dircksz, Dircksz was first identified through a signature on a prayer nut now in the Statens Museum Copenhagen, reading "Adam Theodrici me fecit" (Adam Dircksz has made me). The Latin name "Adam Theodrici" may be translated into English as "Adam of Theodoric", but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz. Although it was rare in the 16th century for artists to sign a work, when done, it usually took the "me fecit" (made me) form, in effect of making the object speak.Almost nothing is known about Dircksz except that the works were produced c. 1500–30. The signature may indicate that he was a woodcutter, sculptor, medallist, or just simply the patron. Dircksz is thought to have been active between 1500 and 1530, and responsible for some sixty of the surviving examples. He may have led a workshop in the southern Netherlands, given that Flemish inscriptions appear on some of the carvings. Alternatively, it was located more northerly, possibly in the north of Brabant or at Delft in Holland. In any case, apart from Henry VIII and Catherine, all of the original owners come from the Netherlands.Regardless of the number of works that Dircksz or his workshop can be attributed with, art historians often debate what the artistic and technical precedents for the miniatures might be. Scholten observes how, to a large extent, it seems "as if this exquisite sculpture was born ex nihilo around 1500", but points out that "giant strides are rarely made in art history", pointing to affinities with silversmith's art, especially the miniature architectural elements often found in ecclesiastical silver and ornaments.

Question: In what country did Adam Dircksz lead a workshop?
Answer: Netherlands
Because of shared characteristics, including common use of horror vacui, similar spatial approaches and use of depth, as well as similar hinges and methods of construction, Leeuwenberg has suggested that production of a number of the miniatures was overseen by a single master named Adam Dircksz, Dircksz was first identified through a signature on a prayer nut now in the Statens Museum Copenhagen, reading "Adam Theodrici me fecit" (Adam Dircksz has made me). The Latin name "Adam Theodrici" may be translated into English as "Adam of Theodoric", but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz. Although it was rare in the 16th century for artists to sign a work, when done, it usually took the "me fecit" (made me) form, in effect of making the object speak.Almost nothing is known about Dircksz except that the works were produced c. 1500–30. The signature may indicate that he was a woodcutter, sculptor, medallist, or just simply the patron. Dircksz is thought to have been active between 1500 and 1530, and responsible for some sixty of the surviving examples. He may have led a workshop in the southern Netherlands, given that Flemish inscriptions appear on some of the carvings. Alternatively, it was located more northerly, possibly in the north of Brabant or at Delft in Holland. In any case, apart from Henry VIII and Catherine, all of the original owners come from the Netherlands.Regardless of the number of works that Dircksz or his workshop can be attributed with, art historians often debate what the artistic and technical precedents for the miniatures might be. Scholten observes how, to a large extent, it seems "as if this exquisite sculpture was born ex nihilo around 1500", but points out that "giant strides are rarely made in art history", pointing to affinities with silversmith's art, especially the miniature architectural elements often found in ecclesiastical silver and ornaments.

Question: What is the name of the person that points out "giant strides are rarely made in art history"?
Answer: Scholten
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: What were passed from generation to generation?
Answer: Boxwood miniatures
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: What fell out of fashion in the early modern period?
Answer: Boxwood miniatures
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: What is the first name of the person who was not a purist?
Answer: Frédéric
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: What is the full name of the person who commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks?
Answer: Frédéric Spitzer
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: What is the first name of the person who augmented boxwood carvings?
Answer: Frédéric
Boxwood miniatures seemed to have served three original functions: aids to private devotion, luxury objects of status, and novel playthings. Later they became precious family heirlooms passed from generation to generation, but as medieval art fell out of fashion in the early modern period, their provenance was often lost. The earliest record of a collection is the 1598 inventory of the dukes of Bavaria, which contain several boxwood miniatures.Of the surviving works, over one hundred re-emerged in the 19th century Parisian antiquarian market, then the leading market for medieval art. During this period, they were acquired by collectors such as the British collector Richard Wallace (1818–1890), who purchased Count van Nieuwerkerke's (1811–1892) entire collection, including two boxwood prayer nuts, the Vienna-born collector of objets d'art Frédéric Spitzer (1815−1890), and Ferdinand de Rothschild (1839–1898). Spitzer was not a purist and commissioned metalsmiths to produce modern versions, or copies, of a variety of medieval artworks. Today, there are four surviving boxwood carvings he had augmented for the market.When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross, all of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The Canadian publishing magnate Kenneth Thomson was an important collector for over 50 years, and his collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures, including two skulls, two triptychs, and six prayer beads. These were bequeathed to the Art Gallery of Ontario, along with three other works collected by his family after his death.

Question: Whose collection included the world's largest gathering of boxwood miniatures?
Answer: Kenneth Thomson
In April 1942 in the Philippines, an American motor torpedo boat is destroyed by Japanese planes. The survivors, among them Ensign Chuck Palmer, make their way ashore on Cebu. Their commander orders them to split up. Chuck pairs up with Jim Mitchell and reaches Colonel Benson on Leyte, only to be told that he has been ordered by General Douglas MacArthur to surrender his forces soon.
Chuck helps Jeanne Martinez, a Frenchwoman married to a Filipino planter, get medical assistance for a pregnant woman. Jeanne pleads with Chuck to stay and fight, but he buys an outrigger canoe and recruits a crew of Air Corps soldiers in a desperate, but unsuccessful attempt to sail to Australia. When the boat founders, the crew is rescued by Miguel, a member of the Filipino resistance. The Americans evade capture and Chuck eventually meets Jeanne again, as well as her husband Juan, a secret supporter of the resistance movement.
Chuck is ordered to stay in the Philippines to help set up a network to gather intelligence on the Japanese. Later, Juan is beaten to death in front of Jeanne in an attempt to find out where the guerrillas are hiding out. Jeanne joins the resistance and is reunited with Chuck at Christmas 1943. They begin to fall in love.
After three years of fighting, Chuck, Jeanne, Jim and the rest of their band are trapped in a church by a Japanese patrol. Just when it looks as if they will be wiped out, squadrons of American planes appear overhead and explosions are heard, announcing the liberation of the Philippines is underway. The Japanese leave to face this greater threat.

Question: Who is married to the Frenchwoman?
Answer: Juan
Notorious outlaw Wes McQueen breaks out of jail and heads off to the Colorado Territory to meet the man who arranged the escape, his old friend Dave Rickard. Along the way, the stagecoach he is riding in is attacked by a gang of robbers. When the driver and guard are both killed, McQueen kills or drives off the remaining gunmen, earning the gratitude of the other passengers, dreamer Fred Winslow and his daughter Julie Ann. Winslow has bought a ranch sight unseen and looks forward to making his fortune.
McQueen arrives at the ghost town of Todos Santos, where Reno Blake and Duke Harris are waiting for him, along with Reno's part-Indian girlfriend, Colorado Carson. After looking them over (and not liking what he sees), he heads off to a nearby town to meet an ailing Rickard, who asks McQueen to pull off one last big train robbery so they can both retire.
With the exception of Rickard, McQueen distrusts everybody else in the gang, including ex-private detective Pluthner, who recruited Reno and Duke, and Homer Wallace, the railroad informant. McQueen wants to go straight, but agrees to do the job out of gratitude and friendship.
While waiting for the robbery, McQueen decides to keep Colorado with him to avoid stirring up trouble between Duke and Reno. Although Colorado falls for him and tells him so, McQueen still dreams of marrying Julie Ann and settling down. When he visits the Winslow ranch, he finds it a poor, arid place. Winslow warns him that Julie Ann loves Randolph, a rich man back east. Winslow took her away because Randolph would never have married so far beneath him socially. McQueen, however, is undeterred.

Question: What is the first name of the father of the girl on the stagecoach that the outlaw protects?
Answer: Fred
Notorious outlaw Wes McQueen breaks out of jail and heads off to the Colorado Territory to meet the man who arranged the escape, his old friend Dave Rickard. Along the way, the stagecoach he is riding in is attacked by a gang of robbers. When the driver and guard are both killed, McQueen kills or drives off the remaining gunmen, earning the gratitude of the other passengers, dreamer Fred Winslow and his daughter Julie Ann. Winslow has bought a ranch sight unseen and looks forward to making his fortune.
McQueen arrives at the ghost town of Todos Santos, where Reno Blake and Duke Harris are waiting for him, along with Reno's part-Indian girlfriend, Colorado Carson. After looking them over (and not liking what he sees), he heads off to a nearby town to meet an ailing Rickard, who asks McQueen to pull off one last big train robbery so they can both retire.
With the exception of Rickard, McQueen distrusts everybody else in the gang, including ex-private detective Pluthner, who recruited Reno and Duke, and Homer Wallace, the railroad informant. McQueen wants to go straight, but agrees to do the job out of gratitude and friendship.
While waiting for the robbery, McQueen decides to keep Colorado with him to avoid stirring up trouble between Duke and Reno. Although Colorado falls for him and tells him so, McQueen still dreams of marrying Julie Ann and settling down. When he visits the Winslow ranch, he finds it a poor, arid place. Winslow warns him that Julie Ann loves Randolph, a rich man back east. Winslow took her away because Randolph would never have married so far beneath him socially. McQueen, however, is undeterred.

Question: What is the last name of the person that the ailing man wants to pull off a big train robbery?
Answer: McQueen
Notorious outlaw Wes McQueen breaks out of jail and heads off to the Colorado Territory to meet the man who arranged the escape, his old friend Dave Rickard. Along the way, the stagecoach he is riding in is attacked by a gang of robbers. When the driver and guard are both killed, McQueen kills or drives off the remaining gunmen, earning the gratitude of the other passengers, dreamer Fred Winslow and his daughter Julie Ann. Winslow has bought a ranch sight unseen and looks forward to making his fortune.
McQueen arrives at the ghost town of Todos Santos, where Reno Blake and Duke Harris are waiting for him, along with Reno's part-Indian girlfriend, Colorado Carson. After looking them over (and not liking what he sees), he heads off to a nearby town to meet an ailing Rickard, who asks McQueen to pull off one last big train robbery so they can both retire.
With the exception of Rickard, McQueen distrusts everybody else in the gang, including ex-private detective Pluthner, who recruited Reno and Duke, and Homer Wallace, the railroad informant. McQueen wants to go straight, but agrees to do the job out of gratitude and friendship.
While waiting for the robbery, McQueen decides to keep Colorado with him to avoid stirring up trouble between Duke and Reno. Although Colorado falls for him and tells him so, McQueen still dreams of marrying Julie Ann and settling down. When he visits the Winslow ranch, he finds it a poor, arid place. Winslow warns him that Julie Ann loves Randolph, a rich man back east. Winslow took her away because Randolph would never have married so far beneath him socially. McQueen, however, is undeterred.

Question: Who does woman that the outlaw wants to marry still love?
Answer: Randolph
Notorious outlaw Wes McQueen breaks out of jail and heads off to the Colorado Territory to meet the man who arranged the escape, his old friend Dave Rickard. Along the way, the stagecoach he is riding in is attacked by a gang of robbers. When the driver and guard are both killed, McQueen kills or drives off the remaining gunmen, earning the gratitude of the other passengers, dreamer Fred Winslow and his daughter Julie Ann. Winslow has bought a ranch sight unseen and looks forward to making his fortune.
McQueen arrives at the ghost town of Todos Santos, where Reno Blake and Duke Harris are waiting for him, along with Reno's part-Indian girlfriend, Colorado Carson. After looking them over (and not liking what he sees), he heads off to a nearby town to meet an ailing Rickard, who asks McQueen to pull off one last big train robbery so they can both retire.
With the exception of Rickard, McQueen distrusts everybody else in the gang, including ex-private detective Pluthner, who recruited Reno and Duke, and Homer Wallace, the railroad informant. McQueen wants to go straight, but agrees to do the job out of gratitude and friendship.
While waiting for the robbery, McQueen decides to keep Colorado with him to avoid stirring up trouble between Duke and Reno. Although Colorado falls for him and tells him so, McQueen still dreams of marrying Julie Ann and settling down. When he visits the Winslow ranch, he finds it a poor, arid place. Winslow warns him that Julie Ann loves Randolph, a rich man back east. Winslow took her away because Randolph would never have married so far beneath him socially. McQueen, however, is undeterred.

Question: What is the first name of the person that is in a relationship with the woman that falls for the outlaw?
Answer: Reno
The film opens with Tammy at cheerleader practice, while her boyfriend Michael walks in from football practice to observe. The two of them meet Byron, Tammy's gay friend, who approves of Michael as her new boyfriend. Shortly thereafter, Tammy's violent and jealous ex-boyfriend Billy arrives with his gang and harasses Michael. A fight erupts between the two. However, the police arrive to break up the fight and take Billy into custody, but Tammy, unable to deal with the events, breaks down and runs away in tears.
The scene then cuts to a figure of a T-Rex in a dark warehouse as two people, Dr. Wachenstein and his assistant Helga, walk through the doors. The lights come on and the T-Rex figure begins to move, being controlled by someone in a room. The Dr. is impressed by the robotic dinosaur's strength, and reveals his plan to implant a living human brain into the robot to give it consciousness, mobility and, "immortality".
Later that night, Michael sneaks out to see Tammy. They are soon interrupted by Billy and his thugs, who chase and catch Michael. They throw him into the wild Animal Park where lions and jaguars run loose. A lion mauls Michael and he is left in a comatose state. He is brought to a hospital where his intoxicated uncle watches over him.

Question: Whose ex-boyfriend shows up to harass Michael?
Answer: Tammy
The film opens with Tammy at cheerleader practice, while her boyfriend Michael walks in from football practice to observe. The two of them meet Byron, Tammy's gay friend, who approves of Michael as her new boyfriend. Shortly thereafter, Tammy's violent and jealous ex-boyfriend Billy arrives with his gang and harasses Michael. A fight erupts between the two. However, the police arrive to break up the fight and take Billy into custody, but Tammy, unable to deal with the events, breaks down and runs away in tears.
The scene then cuts to a figure of a T-Rex in a dark warehouse as two people, Dr. Wachenstein and his assistant Helga, walk through the doors. The lights come on and the T-Rex figure begins to move, being controlled by someone in a room. The Dr. is impressed by the robotic dinosaur's strength, and reveals his plan to implant a living human brain into the robot to give it consciousness, mobility and, "immortality".
Later that night, Michael sneaks out to see Tammy. They are soon interrupted by Billy and his thugs, who chase and catch Michael. They throw him into the wild Animal Park where lions and jaguars run loose. A lion mauls Michael and he is left in a comatose state. He is brought to a hospital where his intoxicated uncle watches over him.

Question: What are the names of the people who were fighting until police showed up?
Answer: Michael, Billy
The film opens with Tammy at cheerleader practice, while her boyfriend Michael walks in from football practice to observe. The two of them meet Byron, Tammy's gay friend, who approves of Michael as her new boyfriend. Shortly thereafter, Tammy's violent and jealous ex-boyfriend Billy arrives with his gang and harasses Michael. A fight erupts between the two. However, the police arrive to break up the fight and take Billy into custody, but Tammy, unable to deal with the events, breaks down and runs away in tears.
The scene then cuts to a figure of a T-Rex in a dark warehouse as two people, Dr. Wachenstein and his assistant Helga, walk through the doors. The lights come on and the T-Rex figure begins to move, being controlled by someone in a room. The Dr. is impressed by the robotic dinosaur's strength, and reveals his plan to implant a living human brain into the robot to give it consciousness, mobility and, "immortality".
Later that night, Michael sneaks out to see Tammy. They are soon interrupted by Billy and his thugs, who chase and catch Michael. They throw him into the wild Animal Park where lions and jaguars run loose. A lion mauls Michael and he is left in a comatose state. He is brought to a hospital where his intoxicated uncle watches over him.

Question: What is the full name of the person who plans on putting a human brain into a dinosaur robot?
Answer: Dr. Wachenstein