Letteratura scientifica selezionata sul tema "Baroness van"

The ‘Van Lynden Collection’ comprises forty-four paintings that were hung in the Lyndenstein country house in Beetsterzwaag by Baron van Lynden (1827-1896) and his mother Cornelia van Borcharen (1789-1864), and forty-six paintings purchased from 1860 onwards, when the baron married Maria Catharina, Baroness van Pallandt (1834-1905), for their residence in The Hague. The baroness’s involvement is not mentioned in archival documents because of women’s legal incapacity at the time. The article corrects this by referring to the Van Lynden-Van Pallandt Collection and discussing the history of all the works. Lyndenstein was home to an almost encyclopaedic selection of finely painted works by Dutch Romantic artists to which Van Lynden, when a young man, added paintings from exhibitions of Living Artists that mostly had already received awards. Louwrens Hanedoes, himself a painter and a relative, might have mediated and represented the baron in purchasing. In their Hague residence, Van Lynden and Van Pallandt hung modern French works painted in a loose or even sketchy manner. These were acquired during visits they made together to sales and galleries in Paris and through their commercial relationship with Goupil & Cie (from 1884 Boussod, Valadon & Cie) and the firm of Wisselingh & Co, both with branches in the Netherlands. The collection from Lyndenstein arrived in the Rijksmuseum in 1899; in 1900 it was followed by the Hague collection, which had also been bequeathed but was then donated by Baroness van Pallandt during her lifetime. It was not possible to keep the Van Lynden-Van Pallandt Collection together because of the rapid expansion of the collection of late nineteenth-century paintings, the changing appreciation of modern art and the nationalist preference for Dutch art in general and the Hague School in particular, and long-term loans to other institutions. A number of the French masterpieces were not hung permanently until after the Rijksmuseum had been renovated (2013).

Els paral·lelismes entre la futura Isabel II i Isabel I de Castella van ser explotats en els camps polític, literari i artístic pels òrgans propagandístics de la monarquia espanyola, des del naixement de la infanta, l’octubre de 1830, fins als primers dos anys de regència de Maria Cristina de Borbó. I és que Isabel la Catòlica va néixer en una època en què, a falta de fill baró, la successió a la Corona de la filla primogènita dels monarques estava permesa. Tanmateix, aquesta tradició castellana, regularitzada en el còdex de Las Siete Partidas d’Alfons X al segle XIII, va quedar invalidada amb l’Auto Acordat per Felip V el maig de 1713, que també donava prioritat als barons de branques laterals. Davant d’això i de l’amenaça que la Corona passés a mans de Carles Maria Isidre de Borbó, el 29 de març de 1830 es va aprovar la Pragmàtica Sanció que promulgava l’acord de Corts de 1789 amb què Carles IV va pretendre recuperar la vella consuetud castellana. Poc abans de la mort de Ferran VII, en els festeigs per l’acte de jurament i reconeixement de les Corts espanyoles a Maria Isabel Lluïsa de Borbó com a princesa d’Astúries, la tradició política i l’estètica medievals van adquirir un paper encara més rellevant, sobretot en pintures i arquitectures efímeres creades ex professo per adornar els carrers de moltes ciutats del Regne. L’organització de torneigs medievals, com el de Barcelona, o les vindicacions de comtes i vells sobirans en obres literàries adornades amb gravats, en arbres genealògics i en diversos gèneres de la literatura popular també van ser utilitzats per evocar la Catalunya de Guifré el Pilós o l’Espanya dels Reis Catòlics. Aquesta mirada cap al passat medieval va servir a la Corona espanyola per legitimar la successió femenina al tron, mentre que, de retruc, es va crear el marc idoni que permetria a certs sectors afins a Isabel manifestar públicament la seva inclinació per l’estil gòtic, el qual s’estava posant de moda entre les classes burgeses per influx del moviment romàntic.

AbstractFor more than a century the only eyewitness account of Rembrandt's Portrait of an old woman (fig. 1) was a description made by Wilhelm Bode in 1883. At the time, he was unable to decipher the date, 1632; nor did he know anything about Aeltje Uylenburgh or the history of the panel. However, the painting's provenance has since been revealed, and it can be traced back in an almost unbroken line to its commission, a rare occurrence in Rembrandt's oeuvre. A pendant portrait, now lost, featured the preacher Johannes Sylvius, who is also the subject of an etching by Rembrandt dating from 1633 (fig. 2). Rembrandt had a close relationship with the Sylvius couple and he married their cousin Saskia Uylenburgh in 1634. After Aeltje's death in 1644, the couple's son Cornelis Sylvius inherited the portraits. We know that Cornelis moved to Haarlem in 1647, and that in 1681 he made a will bequeathing the pendants to his son Johannes Sylvius Junior. For the most part of a century they remained in the family. We lose track of the portrait of Johannes Sylvius when, in 1721, Cornelis II Sylvius refurbishes a house on the Kruisstraat in Haarlem. However, thanks to a handful of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century copies, it has been possible to reconstruct the trail followed by Aeltje. In 1778, a copy from Dessau turned up at auction in Frankfurt. It was bought under the name of Johann Heinrich Roos by Henriette Amalie von Anhalt-Dessau. There is a copy of this copy in the museum of Marseilles, attributed Ferdinand Bol (fig. 3). In 2000 an article in the Tribune de Genève revealed that the original had belonged to the Burlamacchi Collection in the eighteenth century, and was then thought to be a portrait of Rembrandt's mother. Jean-Jacques Burlamacchi (1694-1748), a prominent Geneva collector, acquired major works of art, including probably the Rembrandt portrait, while travelling in Holland and Britain around 1720. It was the heirs of Burlamacchi, the Misses de Chapeaurouge, who opened the famous collection to the public. In 1790 or thereabouts, the Swiss portrait painter Marc-Louis Arlaud produced a copy, now in the museum at Lausanne (fig. 4), which for many years was thought to be an autograph work by Rembrandt. The painter Georges Chaix also made a copy, which he exhibited in Geneva in 1823. This work still belongs to the artist's family; unfortunately it has not been possible to obtain an image. After the Burlamacchi Collection was sold in about 1825, the painting was referred to somewhat nostalgically as 'Un Rembrandt "genevois"'. It was bought for 18,000 francs by the Paris art dealer Dubois, who sold it to the London banker William Coesvelt. In 1828, Coesvelt in turn sold the portrait through the London dealer John Smith, who described it as 'the painter's mother, at the age of 62'. We know that the picture was subsequently acquired from Albertus Brondgeest by the banker James de Rothschild (1792-1868) for his country house at Boulogne, as this is mentioned in the 1864 description of Rothschild's collection by Charles Blanc. Baron James's widow, Betty de Rothschild, inherited the portrait in 1868 and it was in Paris that the Berlin museum director Wilhelm Bode (fig. 5) first saw the painting. In his description of 1883 he states that the woman was not, in his opinion, Rembrandt's mother. In 1886 the portrait fell to Betty's son, Baron Alphonse (1827-1905). Bode published a heliogravure of the work in 1897, which remained for many years the only available reproduction (fig. 6). Rembrandt's portrait of a woman was a showpiece in Baron Alphonse's Paris smoking room (fig. 7). Few art historians came to the Rothschild residence and neither Valentiner nor Bredius, who published catalogues of Rembrandt in 1909 and 1935, respectively, had seen the painting. Alphonse's heir was Baron Edouard de Rothschild, who in 1940 fled to America with his daughter Bethsabée. The Germans looted the painting, but immediately after the war it was exhibited, undamaged, in a frame carrying the (deliberately?) misleading name 'Romney' (fig. 8). In 1949, Bethsabée de Rothschild became the rightful owner of the portrait. She took it with her when she moved to Israel in 1962, where under the name of Bathsheva de Rothschild she became a well-known patron of modern dance. In 1978, J. Bruyn en S. Levie of the Rembrandt Research Project (RRP) travelled to Tel Aviv to examine the painting. Although the surface was covered with a thick nicotine film, they were impressed by its condition. Bruyn and Levie were doubtful, however, that the panel's oval format was original, as emerges from the 'Rembrandt-Corpus' report of 1986. Not having seen the copies mentioned earlier, they were unaware that one nineteenth-century replica was also oval (fig. 9). Their important discovery that the woman's age was 62 was not further investigated at the time. Baroness Bathsheva de Rothschild died childless in 1999. On 13 December 2000 the painting was sold by Christie's, London, after a surprising new identity for the elderly sitter had been put forward. It had long been known that Rembrandt painted portraits of Aeltje Uylenburgh and her husband, the minister Cornelis Sylvius. Aeltje, who was a first cousin of Rembrandt's wife, Saskia Uylenburgh, would have been about 60 years old at the time. Given that the age of the woman in the portrait was now known to be 62, it was suggested that she could be Aeltje. The portrait was acquired for more than 28 million US dollars by the art dealer Robert Noortman, who put it on the market as 'Aeltje' with a question mark. In 2005, Noortman sold the portrait for 36.5 million to the American-Dutch collectors Mr and Mrs De Mol van Otterloo. At the time, the Mauritshuis in The Hague felt that trying to buy the portrait would be too extravagant, while the Rijksmuseum was more interested in acquiring a female portrait from Rembrandt's later period. Aeltje was thus destined to leave the Netherlands for good. A chronicle of the Sylvius family published in 2006 shows that Aeltje Uylenburgh would have been born in 1570 (fig. 10), demonstrating that she could indeed be the 62-year-old woman depicted by Rembrandt in 1632. We know that Aeltje was godmother to Rembrandt's children and that Saskia was godmother to Aeltje's granddaughter. Further evidence of the close ties between the two families is provided by Rembrandt's etching of Aeltje's son Petrus, produced in 1637. It is now generally accepted that the woman in the portrait is Aeltje. She was last shown in the Netherlands at the 'Dutch Portraits' exhibition in The Hague. In February 2008 the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston announced that it had received on long-term loan one the finest Rembrandts still in private ownership.

Este estudio tiene como objetivo presentar aquellas constantes relacionadas con la visión y papel social de la mujer casada en los cuentos del Valle Nuevo (Egipto), las cuales fueron extraídas tras la realización de un análisis comparativo de temas, personajes y símbolos. En el mundo de estos cuentos, lejos de «vivir felices y comer perdices», la protagonista femenina casada sufre duras pruebas de fidelidad y lealtad por parte del esposo, es víctima de los celos de mujeres de su nueva familia y padece la presión de engendrar hijos varones. Son elementos comunes al resto de las tradiciones orales, con un marcado acento dramático. A este conjunto se agregan componentes de esta sociedad particular: la llegada de una nueva adversaria al hogar, la coesposa, una amenaza para la estabilidad y privilegios de esta y de sus hijos; la preferencia por el uso de símbolos concretos referidos a la mujer; y la descripción de costumbres locales, como es la boda tradicional. Todo ello ayuda a revelar el modelo social y valores específicos que transmiten estos cuentos, habida cuenta de que su narración es en sí un acto de habla que influye sobre su receptor: describen, a la vez que legitiman y perpetúan, en un flujo bidireccional.***Aquest estudi té com a objectiu presentar aquelles constants relacionades amb la visió i el paper social de la dona casada en les rondalles de la Vall Nova (Egipte), les quals van ser extretes després de realitzar una anàlisi comparativa de temes, personatges i símbols. En el món d’aquestes rondalles, lluny de «viure feliços i menjar anissos», la protagonista femenina casada pateix dures proves de fidelitat i lleialtat per part del marit, és víctima de la gelosia de dones de la seva nova família i pateix la pressió d’engendrar fills barons. Són elements comuns a la resta de les tradicions orals, amb un marcat accent dramàtic. A aquest conjunt s’hi afegeixen components d’aquesta societat particular: l’arribada d’una nova adversària a la llar, la coesposa, una amenaça per a l’estabilitat i els privilegis d’aquesta i dels seus fills; la preferència per l’ús de símbols concrets referits a la dona; i la descripció de costums locals, com és el casament tradicional. Tot això ajuda a revelar el model social i valors específics que transmeten aquestes rondalles, tenint en compte que la seva narració és en si mateixa un acte de parla que influeix sobre el seu receptor: descriuen, alhora que legitimen i perpetuen, en un flux bidireccional.

Background:B-lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS) is increased in primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) and plays a role in the B-cell hyperactivity thought to contribute to pSS. Belimumab (BEL, anti-BLyS) and rituximab (RTX, anti-CD20) target B cells through distinct and potentially complementary mechanisms.Objectives:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) BEL/intravenous (IV) RTX combination (BEL/RTX) in patients with pSS.Methods:This Phase 2, double-blind study (GSK Study 201842; NCT02631538) randomised 86 adults with active pSS to 4 treatment arms stratified for baseline EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index (ESSDAI) scores 5-12 or >12: placebo (PBO; N=13), BEL/RTX (N=24; BEL 200 mg SC weekly to Week [Wk] 24 followed by weekly PBO SC to Wk 52 + RTX 1000 mg IV, Wk 8 + 10), BEL monotherapy (N=24; BEL 200 mg SC weekly to Wk 52) or RTX monotherapy (N=25; RTX 1000 mg IV, Wk 8 + 10). Follow-up was at Wk 68. Safety to Wk 68 was the primary endpoint (safety population; patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment). Secondary/other endpoints (completer population; patients completed treatment and follow-up phase) were ESSDAI score, stimulated salivary flow, CD20+ B-cell count within salivary gland biopsies, patient-reported oral dryness, and EULAR Sjögren’s Syndrome Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) score.Results:Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were similar among arms. Adverse events (AEs) were balanced across arms. Serious AEs were infrequent but occurred only in active treatment arms (Table). No unexpected safety issues were identified with BEL/RTX relative to BEL or RTX. Treatment phase and follow-up were completed by 60/86 patients. ESSDAI reductions with BEL/RTX were numerically greater over time than PBO, with greatest difference at Wk 68 (Table), but were not differentiated from monotherapy. Stimulated salivary flow showed a trend favouring BEL/RTX vs PBO over later time points (Table). In contrast with PBO, BEL, and RTX, salivary gland biopsies from BEL/RTX showed almost complete B-cell depletion (Wk 24). There was no clear evidence for a positive effect of BEL/RTX on patient-reported oral dryness or ESSPRI score.Table 1.Key safety endpoints and selected efficacy endpointsAEs – safety populationPBO(N=13)BEL/RTX (N=24)BEL(N=24)RTX(N=25)AEs, n (%)13 (100)24 (100)23 (96)24 (96)Drug-related AEs, n (%)10 (77)17 (71)16 (67)14 (56)AEs leading to discontinuation/withdrawal, n (%)1 (8)5 (21)3 (13)5 (20)SAEs, n (%)03 (13)2 (8)4 (16)Number of SAEs0427Deaths, n (%)01 (4)*00Infections and Infestations, n (%)†11 (85)19 (79)21 (88)18 (72)Efficacy – completer populationPBO (N=8)BEL/RTX (N=17)BEL (N=19)RTX (N=16)ESSDAI change, LS mean (SE) from BL over time‡Wk 12-2.00 (1.449)-4.85 (0.996)-3.87 (0.949)-4.22 (1.048)§Wk 24-2.87 (1.324)-5.32 (0.911)-3.87 (0.869)-5.25 (0.940)Wk 52-2.87 (1.294)-5.67 (0.890)-4.76 (0.850)-4.32 (0.919)Wk 68-1.75 (1.400)-5.73 (0.962)-3.87 (0.918)-4.38 (0.994)Stimulated salivary flow (ml/min), mean (SD)BL0.47 (0.247)0.71 (0.629)0.43 (0.329)0.62 (0.621)Wk 120.49 (0.205)0.75 (0.834)0.49 (0.373)0.58 (0.527)Wk 240.55 (0.305)0.78 (0.790)0.45 (0.411)0.72 (0.890)Wk 520.53 (0.378)1.00 (1.146)0.58 (0.608)0.69 (0.781)Wk 680.36 (0.163)0.88 (0.817)0.52 (0.450)0.73 (0.785)§*Aspiration (n=1); not considered related to treatment; patient died of food aspiration; †System organ class with the highest percent of AEs; ‡Analysis was performed using mixed model repeated measures; §n=15.BL, baseline; LS, Least square; SAEs, serious AEs; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard errorConclusion:No unexpected safety issues were identified with BEL/RTX relative to BEL or RTX. BEL/RTX showed a trend towards improvement in ESSDAI and stimulated salivary flow over time, which was sustained post treatment. BEL/RTX depleted B cells in minor salivary gland biopsies.Funding: GSKAcknowledgements:Medical writing assistance was provided by Katalin Bartus, PhD, Fishawack Indicia Ltd., UK, part of Fishawack Health, and was funded by GSK.Disclosure of Interests:Xavier Mariette Consultant of: BMS, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Servier, UCB, Grant/research support from: Servier, Chiara Baldini: None declared, Francesca Barone Consultant of: GSK, UCB, Roche, Actelion, Grant/research support from: GSK, UCB, Roche, Actelion, Employee of: Kintai therapeutics, Candel Therapeutics, Hendrika Bootsma Speakers bureau: BMS, Novartis, Consultant of: BMS, Roche, Novartis, MedImmune, UCB, Servier, Grant/research support from: BMS, Roche, Ken Clark Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Salvatore De Vita Consultant of: GSK, Roche, Karoline Lerang: None declared, Prafull Mistry Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Frederic Morin: None declared, Rajesh Punwaney Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Raphaèle Seror Consultant of: GSK, BMS, Fresenius Kabi, Boehringer, Jansen, Amgen, Pfizer, Roche, Paul LA van Daele: None declared, Andre van Maurik Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, Nicolas Wisniacki Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK, David Roth Shareholder of: GSK, Employee of: GSK

BackgroundToday, there are still no DMARDs licensed for primary Sjögren Syndrome (pSS) patients. Among the explanations, are the limitations of current outcome measures used as primary endpoints: e.g; high placebo response rate, evaluation of either symptoms or systemic activity, and important features not being assessed. The NECESSITY consortium (https://www.necessity-h2020.eu/), including pSS experts from academia, pharmaceutical industry and patient groups formed to develop a new composite responder index, the Sjögren’s Tool for Assessing Response (STAR) that solve the issues of current outcome measures in pSS and is intended for use in clinical trials as an efficacy endpoint.ObjectivesTo develop a composite responder index in primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS): the STAR.MethodsTo develop the STAR, the NECESSITY consortium used data-driven methods, based on 9 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and consensus techniques, involving 78 experts and 20 patients. Based on reanalysis of rituximab trials (TRACTISS and TEARS) and literature review, the Delphi panel identified a core set of domains to include in the STAR, with their respective outcome measures. STAR options combining these domains were designed and proposed to the panel to select and improve them. For each STAR option, sensitivity to change was estimated by the C-index (derived from Effect size) in all 9 RCTs. Delphi rounds were run for selecting STAR among these options. The Delphi panel also voted to classify trials as positive, negative or “in between” in regards to primary but also key secondary endpoints. For the options remaining before the final vote, meta-analyses of the RCTs were performed separately for positive and “in between” trials together, and for negative trials.ResultsThe Delphi panel identified 5 core domains (systemic activity, patient symptoms, lachrymal gland function, salivary gland function and biological parameters), and 227 STAR options, combining these domains, were selected to be tested for sensitivity to change. After two Delphi rounds, meta-analyses of the 20 remaining options were performed. The candidate STAR was selected by a final vote based on metrological properties and clinical relevance. In positive/in between trials, candidate STAR detected a difference between arms (OR 3.29, 95%-CI [2.07;5.22], whereas it did not in negative trials (OR 1.53, 95%-CI [0.81;2.91]).ConclusionThe candidate STAR is a composite responder index, including in a single tool all main disease features, and is designed for use as a primary endpoint in pSS RCTs. Its rigorous and consensual development process ensures its face and content validity. The candidate STAR showed good sensitivity and specificity to change. The candidate STAR will be prospectively validated in a dedicated three arms RCT of the NECESSITY consortium that will evaluate combination of synthetic DMARDs (hydroxychloroquine + lefunomide or hydroxychloroquine + mycophenolate vs placebo). We encourage the use of STAR in any ongoing and future trials.Table 1.Candidate STARDomainPointDefinition of responseSystemic activity3Decrease of clinESSDAI ≥ 3Patient reported outcome3Decrease of ESSPRI ≥ 1 point or ≥ 15%Lachrymal gland function1Schirmer:If abnormal score at baseline: increase ≥ 5 mm from baselineIf normal score at baseline: no change to abnormalOrOcular Staining Score:If abnormal score at baseline: decrease ≥ 2 points from baselineIf normal score at baseline: no change to abnormalSalivary gland function1Unstimulated Whole Salivary Flow:If score > 0 at baseline: increase ≥ 25% from baselineIf score is 0 at baseline: any increase from baselineorUltrasound:Decrease ≥ 25% in total Hocevar score from baselineBiological1Serum IgG levels: decrease ≥ 10%orRheumatoid Factor levels: decrease ≥ 25%Candidate STAR responder≥ 5 pointsESSDAI: EULAR Sjögren syndrome disease activity index; ESSPRI: EULAR Sjögren syndrome patient reported index; IgG: Immunoglobulin G;AcknowledgementsNECESSITY WP5 STAR development participants: Suzanne Arends (University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Groningen 9700 RB, Netherlands), Francesca Barone (Centre for Translational Inflammation Research, Institute of Inflammation and Ageing, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK), Albin Björk (Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden), Coralie Bouillot (Association Française du Gougerot Sjögren et des Syndromes Secs, France), Guillermo Carvajal Alegria (University of Brest, Inserm, CHU de Brest, LBAI, UMR1227, Brest, France; Service de Rhumatologie, Centre de Référence Maladies Autoimmunes Rares CERAINO, CHU Cavale Blanche, Brest, France), Wen-Hung Chen (GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA), Kenneth Clark (GlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research Centre, Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 2NY, United Kingdom), Konstantina Delli (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen (UMCG), University of Groningen, The Netherlands), Salvatore de Vita (Rheumatology Clinic, University Hospital of Udine, Italy), Liseth de Wolff (University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Groningen 9700 RB, Netherlands), Jennifer Evans (Novartis Pharmaceuticals corporation USA), Stéphanie Galtier (Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier (IRIS), Suresnes Cedex, France), Saviana Gandolfo (Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Medical area, University of Udine, ASUFC, 33100 Udine, Italy), Mickael Guedj (Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier (IRIS), Suresnes Cedex, France), Dewi Guellec (CHU de Brest, Service de Rhumatologie, Inserm, CIC 1412, Brest, France), Safae Hamkour (Center of Translational Immunology, Department of Immunology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht 3584 GA, Netherlands), Dominik Hartl (Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland), Malin Jonsson (Section for Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Norway), Roland Jonsson (Broegelmann Research Laboratory, Department of Clinical Science, University of Bergen, Department of Rheumatology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway), Frans Kroese (University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Groningen 9700 RB, Netherlands), Aike Albert Kruize (University Medical Center Utrecht, Department Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Utrecht, Netherlands), Laurence Laigle (Institut de Recherches Internationales Servier (IRIS), Suresnes Cedex, France), Véronique Le Guern (AP-HP, Hôpital Cochin, Centre de référence maladies auto-immunes et systémiques rares, service de médecine interne, Paris, France), Wen-Lin Luo (Department of Biometrics and Statistical Science, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey), Esther Mossel (University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Groningen 9700 RB, Netherlands), Wan-Fai Ng (Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK), Gaëtane Nocturne (Department of Rheumatology, Université Paris-Saclay, INSERM U1184: Centre for Immunology of Viral Infections and Autoimmune Diseases, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, Paris, France), Marleen Nys (Global Biometric Sciences, Bristol Myers Squibb, Braine L’Alleud, Belgium), Roald Omdal (Clinical Immunology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Stavanger University Hospital, PO Box 8100, 4068, Stavanger, Norway), Jacques-Olivier Pers (LBAI, UMR1227, University of Brest, Inserm, Brest, France and CHU de Brest, Brest, France), Maggy Pincemin (Association Française du Gougerot Sjögren et des Syndromes Secs, France), Manel Ramos-Casals (Department of Autoimmune Diseases, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona Institut Clinic de Medicinai Dermatologia, Barcelona, Catalunya, Spain), Philippe Ravaud (Centre d’Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France), Neelanjana Ray (Global Drug Development - Immunology, Bristol Myers Squibb Company, Princeton, New Jersey, USA), Alain Saraux (HU de Brest, Service de Rhumatologie, Univ Brest, Inserm, UMR1227, Lymphocytes B et Autoimmunité, Univ Brest, Inserm, LabEx IGO, Brest, France), Athanasios Tzioufas (Rheumatology Clinic, Department of Medical area, University of Udine, ASUFC, 33100 Udine, Italy), Gwenny Verstappen (University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology, Groningen 9700 RB, Netherlands), Arjan Vissink, Marie Wahren-Herlenius (Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden). We thank the following experts: Esen Karamursel Akpek, Alan Baer, Chiara Baldini, Elena Bartoloni, Marí-Alfonso Begona, Johan Brun, Vatinee Bunya, Laurent Chiche, Troy Daniels, Paul Emery, Robert Fox, Roberto Giacomelli, John Gonzales, John Greenspan, Robert Moots, Susumu Nishiyama, Elizabeth Price, Christophe Richez, Caroline Shiboski, Roser Solans Laque, Muthiah Srinivasan, Peter Olsson, Tsutomu Takeuchi, Frederick Vivino, Paraskevi Voulgari, Daniel Wallace, Ava Wu, Wen Zhang. We thank the anonymous patients from the NECESSITY Patient Advisory Group and the Sjögren Foundation for their valuable contribution to the Delphi process. We thank EW StClair and AN Baer who generated the baminercept data and made them publicly available.Disclosure of InterestsRaphaèle Seror Consultant of: GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer, Janssen and Novartis, Grant/research support from: GlaxoSmithKline and Amgen, Gabriel Baron: None declared, Marine Camus: None declared, Divi Cornec Consultant of: GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Amgen, Pfizer and Roche, Elodie Perrodeau: None declared, Simon J. Bowman Consultant of: Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Galapagos and Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Michele Bombardieri Consultant of: UCB, Amgen/Medimmune, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, Grant/research support from: Amgen/Medimmune, Janssen, and GlaxoSmithKline, Hendrika Bootsma: None declared, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, MSD, CSL-Behring and Genzyme, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, Benjamin Fisher Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb and Novartis, Consultant of: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen and Servier, Grant/research support from: Servier, Galapagos and Janssen, Wolfgang Hueber Shareholder of: Novartis Pharma, Employee of: Novartis Pharma, Joel van Roon: None declared, Valerie Devauchelle-Pensec: None declared, Peter Gergely Shareholder of: Novartis Pharma, Employee of: Novartis Pharma, Xavier Mariette Consultant of: Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, Grant/research support from: Ose Pharmaceuticals, Raphaël Porcher: None declared

It's impossible, now, to think of modernism without thinking about gender, sexuality, and the diverse movers and shakers of the early twentieth century. But this was not always so. This book examines biographical projects that modernist women writers undertook to resist the exclusion of their friends, colleagues, lovers, and companions from literary history. Many of these works were vibrant efforts of modernist countermemory and counterhistory that became casualties in a midcentury battle for literary legitimacy, but that now add a new dimension to our appreciation of such figures as Radclyffe Hall, Gertrude Stein, Hope Mirrlees, and Sylvia Beach, among many others. The book explores an extensive body of material, including Sylvia Townsend Warner's carefullly annotated letters to her partner Valentine Ackland, Djuna Barnes's fragmented drafts about the Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven, Margaret Anderson's collection of modernist artifacts, and Virginia Woolf's joke biography of her friend and lover Vita Sackville-West, the novel Orlando. Whether published in encoded desire or squirreled away in intimate archives, these “passion projects” recorded life then in order to summon an audience now, and stand as important predecessors of queer and feminist recovery projects that have shaped the contemporary understanding of the field. Arguing for the importance of biography, the book shows how women turned to this genre in the early twentieth century to preserve their lives and communities for future generations to discover.

Lynmere, at tea-time, returned from his ride, with a fixed plan of frightening or disgusting the baronet from the alliance; with Eugenia, herself, he imagined the attempt would be vain, for he did not conceive it possible any woman who had eyes could be...

This chapter highlights that farmers in the Hudson River Valley continued to rent the land they worked. It discusses the tenant farmers that had worked the same land for generations, paying rents to land barons who had secured their titles from the Dutch West India Company or the English crown in the seventeenth century. It also points out how the tenants were not necessarily poor but were economic dependents that rely on their landlords for access to acreage, firewood, water rights, and housing. The chapter focuses on the Hudson Valley tenant farmers that shared with the New England pioneers the dream of owning the ground they worked. It reviews a petition drafted by the tenants of the estate of Stephen Van Rensselaer that demanded for lower rents, debt relief, and a path to landownership.

Unlike the well-documented and almost fully researched Šibenik fortifications constructed in 16th and 17th century (St. Nicholas' Fortress, St. John's Fortress, Barone Fortress), the evolution, direction and spatial extent of earlier Šibenik fortifications have not been fully unraveled. St. Michael’s fortress (castello) above the city, which has been occupied since pre-Roman era, was extensively rebuilt by the Venetians in early 15th century. The city walls, descending from the fortress to the sea, were only completed in the second half of 15th century - we have no information about any early versions of the walls, although they surely existed. Two forts on the inner, eastern side of the channel linking the Šibenik harbour to the open sea were also considered a part of the medieval fortification system. Considering the limited number of written historical sources, the existence of several cartographic representations of Šibenik from the late 15th and early 16th century (Konrad von Grünenberg's 1486 veduta, and Venetian map of central Dalmatia from c.a. 1510, among others) is of particular value. Despite their different provenance and character, a detailed analysis of these graphic sources can offer some (but not all) answers to many open questions regarding the pre-bastion defence of Šibenik.