'Cape Fear'

Role: Robert De Niro as Max Cady

In Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear remake, the villainous Cady collects a number of fearsome tattoos during his incarceration. The piece de resistance is the crucifix version of the scales of justice, the ultimate symbol of Cady's demented thirst for vengeance.




Defining characteristics of chordates: In chordates, four common features appear at some point during development: a notochord, a dorsal hollow nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, and a post-anal tail.

a notochord

a dorsal hollow nerve cord

pharyngeal slits

post-anal tail


Comparison of some notable four-face clocks at the same scale.

Top-left: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower

Bottom-left: Allen-Bradley Clock Tower (previous record holder)

Middle: Abraj Al Bait

Top-right: Palace of Westminster clock tower

Bottom-right: Kremlin Clock

Drawing in Justus Lipsius, De cruce. Justin Martyr: "…being erect and having the hands extended…shows no other form than that of the cross"



Verse 4. - That which the palmer-worm hath left hath the locust eaten; and that which the locust hath left hath the cankerworm eaten; and that which the canker-worm hath left hath the caterpillar eaten. Some interpreters consider, and rightly, we think, that the prophet enumerates in this verse four different species of locusts. The common or general name is arbeh, from rabhah, to be many; the gazam, or palmer-worm, is the gnawer, or biter, from a root (guzam) which signifies "to gnaw, bite, or cut off;" the yeleq, or canker-worm, is the licker, from yalaqlaqaq, to lick, or lick off; the chasil, or caterpillar, is the devourer, from chasal, to cut off. Thus we have the locust, or multitudinous one, the gnawer, the licker, and the devourer, either as


(1) four different species of locust; or


(2) the gnawer, licker, and devourer are poetical epithets of the locust, or multitudinous one.


These names do not denote the locust


(1) at different stages, according to Credner. Nor


(2) can we with propriety understand them allegorically, with Jerome, Cyril, and Theodoret, of the enemies of the Jews, whether


(a) the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Chaldeans,


(b) Medes and Persians,


(c) Macedonians and successors of Alexander, especially Antiochus, and


(d) the Romans;


or the hostile kings,


(a) Shalmaneser,


(b) Nebuchadnezzar,


(c) Antiochus, and


(d) the Romans;


or those other kings,


(a) Tiglath-Pileser,


(b) Shalma-neser,


(c) Sennacherib, and


(d) Nebuchadnezzar.


The most celebrated Hebrew commentators understand the passage of locusts in the proper and literal sense. Thus Rashi says, "The palmer-worm locust, cankerworm, and caterpillar are species of locusts; and the prophet prophesies about them that they will come; and they came in those days, and they devoured all the fruit of the trees and every herb of the field." Abon Ezra says, "This the prophet prophesied in reference to the locust which should come to destroy the land. In the days of Moses there was one kind of locust alone, but now, with the arbeh, there are the gazam and yeleq and chasil, and these three kinds are joined." He also quotes Japhet as saying "that gazam is equivalent to gozez, cutting, and the mere is like mere in chinmam reykam; and yeleq, that which licks (yiloq) with its tongue... and chasil of some signification (yachsele-nenu) as shall consume it." In like manner Kimohi gives the derivation of the words as follows: "Some say that gazam is so called because it cuts (gozez) the increase; and arbeh, because it is numerous in species; and yeleq, because it licks and depastures by licking the herb; and chasil, became it cuts the whole, from 'And the locust shall consume it' (Deuteronomy 28:38)." When, however, Kimchi distributes the comings of the locusts into four separate and successive years, we must reject his interpretation in that respect. He says, "What the gazam left in the first year, the locust ate in the second year; for the four kinds did not come in one year, but one after another in four years; and he says, ' I will restore to you the years the locust hath eaten.'"


Ampim has a specific concern about the painting of the "Table of Nations" in the Tomb of Ramses III (KV11). The "Table of Nations" is a standard painting that appears in a number of tombs, and they were usually provided for the guidance of the soul of the deceased.[72][80] Among other things, it described the "four races of men" as follows: (translation by E.A. Wallis Budge:[80]"The first are RETH, the second are AAMU, the third are NEHESU, and the fourth are THEMEHU. The RETH are Egyptians, the AAMU are dwellers in the deserts to the east and north-east of Egypt, the NEHESU are the black races, and the THEMEHU are the fair-skinned Libyans."

The archaeologist Richard Lepsius documented many ancient Egyptian tomb paintings in his work Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien. In 1913, after the death of Lepsius, an updated reprint of the work was produced, edited by Kurt Sethe. This printing included an additional section, called the "Ergänzungsband" in German, which incorporated many illustrations that did not appear in Lepsius's original work. One of them, plate 48, illustrated one example of each of the four "nations" as depicted in KV11, and shows the "Egyptian nation" and the "Nubian nation" as identical to each other in skin color and dress. Professor Ampim has declared that plate 48 is a true reflection of the original painting, and that it "proves" that the ancient Egyptians were identical in appearance to the Nubians, even though he admits no other examples of the "Table of Nations" show this similarity. He has further accused "Euro-American writers" of attempting to mislead the public on this issue.[81]


1820 drawing of a Book of Gatesfresco of the tomb of Seti I, depicting (from left) four groups of people: Libyans ("Themehu"), a Nubian("Nehesu"), an Asiatic ("Aamu"), and an Egyptian ("Reth").









The aleph is the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet and has the number value 1. Because we see God as the beginning of all things the aleph represents God in the alphabet and in the bible. This is embodied in the structure of the first letter and the first verse of the bible. So we look first at the inner structure of the aleph. This letter is constructed out of three/two other letters of the alphabet. Two jods and a vav. The vav connects the jod from above with the jod beneath. The vav has the meaning of hook or nail and is usually translated as the word 'and'. In this way it is the connecting element. The sum of these letters is: 10+6+10=26. This is the number value of the name of God: Yahweh, , 5+6+5+10=26.




This interpretation is very common known. Nevertheless when we use the gematria Millui (full) for these two jods and vav, then the sum is: (4+6+10)+(6+6)+(4+6+10)=20+12+20=52. This also turns out to be the gematria in 'n' (the letter places in the alphabet) of God, Elohim, : 24+10+5+12+1=52. In fact we find here 2x26.

The number value of the name Yahweh, , is equal to the sum of the proceeding numbers 5, 6, 7 and 8:




Of these four numbers we can make an other kind of triangular counting where we count the numbers two by two until there is one number left. The result is the 52, equal to the gematria in 'n' of Elohim:



Riksdag of the Estates (formally: Swedish: Riksens ständer; informally: Swedish: Ståndsriksdagen) was the name used for the Estates of Sweden when they were assembled. Until its dissolution in 1866, the institution was the highest authority in Sweden next to the king. It was a Diet made up of the Four Estates, which historically were the lines of division in Swedish society:






The archipelago consists of 6,852 islands ("island" defined as land more than 100 m in circumference), of which 430 are inhabited.[2] The four main islands, from north to south, are HokkaidoHonshuShikoku, and Kyushu; Honshu is the largest and referred to as the Japanese mainland.[3]


Shikoku (四国, "four provinces") is the smallest (225 km or 139.8 mi long and between 50 and 150 km or 31.1 and 93.2 mi wide) and least populous (3.8 million as of 2015) of the four main islands of Japan, located south of Honshu and east of the island of Kyushu. Its ancient names include Iyo-no-futana-shima (伊予之二名島), Iyo-shima (伊予島), and Futana-shima (二名島). The current name refers to the four former provinces that made up the island: AwaTosaSanuki, and Iyo.[2]



In 1980, a group of ice hockey players in Minnesota were looking for a way to practice during the summer.[1] Scott and Brennan Olson formed the company Rollerblade, Inc., to sell skates with four polyurethane wheels arranged in a straight line on the bottom of a padded boot.[1]



Double/Triple/Quadruple Tailwhip

The rider instead of only allowing the tail of the bike to rotate around once they use more force to spin it twice/three/four times. The triple tailwhip was first landed by Joe Johnson. Others who have landed it are James Foster, Dave Mirra, Cameron White, Dennis Enarson, Nicholi Rogatkin, Mike Spinner, Daniel Dhers, Scotty Cranmer, Brandon Dosch, Brett Banasiewicz, and many more. Francisco Zurita was the first to pull a triple whip on the Vert ramp. And the quadruple is incredibly rare. First landed by Mike Spinner at the Dew Tour in Cleveland in 2008. Andy Buckworth, Nicholi Rogatkin, and Logan Martin have also pulled the trick.[citation needed]

Illustration of the four different types of glial cells found in the central nervous system: ependymal cells (light pink), astrocytes (green), microglial cells (dark red), and oligodendrocytes (light blue).



Peters A (May 2004). "A fourth type of neuroglial cell in the adult central nervous system". Journal of Neurocytology. 33 (3): 345–57. PMID 15475689. doi:10.1023/B:NEUR.0000044195.64009.27.


The spinal cord is made from part of the neural tube during development. There are four stages of the spinal cord that arises from the neural tube: The neural plate, neural fold, neural tube, and the spinal cord.



Giovanni Arduino (October 16, 1714 – March 21, 1795) was an Italian geologist who is known as the "Father of Italian Geology".


Arduino was born at Caprino Veronese, Veneto. He was a mining specialist who developed possibly the first classification of geological time, based on study of the geology of northern Italy. He divided the history of the Earth into four periods: Primitive, Secondary, Tertiary and Volcanic, or Quaternary.



Arduino's stratigraphic section in the province of Vicenza (pen and ink) 1758

The scheme proposed by Arduino in 1759,[1] which was based on much study of rocks of the southern Alps, grouped the rocks into four series. These were (in addition to the Volcanic or Quaternary) as follows: the Primary series, which consisted of schists from the core of the mountains; the Secondary, which consisted of the hard sedimentary rocks on the mountain flanks; and the Tertiary, which consisted of the less hardened sedimentary rocks of the foothills. Because this arrangement did not always hold true for mountain ranges other than the Alps, the Primary and the Secondary were dropped in the general case. However the term 'Tertiary' has persisted in geological literature until its recent replacement by the Palaeogene and Neogene periods.



Oceania, where our story takes place, is run by the Party whose ideology is Ingsoc (English Socialism). London is the capital and the skyline is dominated by four pyramid-like structures, home of the Ministries:* The Ministry of Truth (MiniTrue), Ministry of Love (MiniLuv), Ministry of Peace (MiniPax) and Ministry of Plenty (MiniPlenty). They are bright white concrete and rising 300 meters into the air. On the front are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE”, “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY” and “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH”.


Ministry of Truth (Minitrue)

The Ministry of Truth is the only one we know of intimately, as this is where Winston Smith works. It has 3000 rooms above ground. Underground is probably devoted to huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after being put down memory holes, small grates at each person’s desk.


Minitrue deals with information and how it is distributed to the masses, both Party officials and the Proles. It is involved with the news media, entertainment, the fine arts, and educational books. Since the Party’s rules are constantly changing, the media has to change along with it to reflect whatever truth the Party wants at the moment. This is where Winston comes in. He works in an office that helps change this information. Once something is changed, it is regarded as truth and also regarded as always have been true. For example, if Big Brother made a prediction and the prediction came out wrong, then workers like Winston re-write the prediction so it’s accurate.


The Records Department is just a small sector of Minitrue. A huge part of Minitrue was to


“…supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programs, plays novels—-with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child’s spelling book to a Newspeak dictionary. And the Ministry had not only to supply the multifarious needs of the Party but also to repeat the whole operation at a lower level for the benefit of the proletariat. There was a whole chain of separate departments dealing with proletarian literature, music, drama, and entertainment generally. Here were produced rubbishy newspapers, containing almost nothing except sport, crime, and astrology, sensational five-cent novelettes, films oozing with sex, and sentimental songs which were composed entirely by mechanical means on a special kind of kaleidoscope known as a versificator. There was even a whole subsection–Pornosec, it was called in Newspeak–engaged in producing the lowest kind of pornography, which was sent out in sealed packets and which no Party member, other than those who worked on it, was permitted to look at.”


The different departments that are mentioned:


• Records Department (Recdep)

• Fiction Department (Ficdep)

• Pornography (Pornosec)

• Propaganda Department (Propdep)

• Tele-Programmes Department (Teledep)

• Research Department (Resdep)

• Music Department (Musdep)


Ministry of Peace (Minipax)

Minipax serves as the defense in Oceania and is in charge of the Ministry of Plenty. It is in charge of the armed forces, the navy and the army. It is one of the main Ministries as the state is always in a perpetual war.


What we know of Minipax is from Emmanuel Goldstein’s book. He tells us that the reason the state is in a perpetual war is so it uses up all the surplus resources, keeping the citizens in lives of constant hardships–and thus preventing them from learning the true nature of their society.


Ministry of Plenty (Miniplenty)

Miniplenty is in charge of Oceania’s planned economy. It ties in with Minipax in that it controls the food, supplies and goods. It regulates giving the population short supplies in order to give them a hard life so they will not realize the true motives of the Party. It gives the population useless and synthetic supplies or weapons for use in the war, while they have no access to the means of production. Thus, a poor, weak populace is easier to rule than a wealthy, powerful one. Throughout the novel the telescreens often make reports on how Big Brother has been able to increase economic production, even when production has actually gone down. Miniplenty also hands out statistics that are nonsense.


Ministry of Love (Miniluv)

Minilove is the truly scary one. It enforces loyalty and love of Big Brother through fear and brainwashing. The building it is housed in has no windows and is surrounded by barbed wire entanglements, steel doors, hidden machine-gun nests, and guards armed with “jointed truncheons”. It is “the place where there is no darkness”, as the interior lights are never shut off. The Thought Police is part of Miniluv.


Miniluv contains Room 101 which has “the worst thing in the world” inside it. Namely whatever the prisoner’s greatest fear is.

* The Ministries, specifically MiniTrue, is based on Senate House in London. Senate House was the headquarters of the Ministry of Information during World War II and is now owned by the University of London. Orwell’s wife, Eileen O’Shaugnessy, worked here for a short time during the war.



It is generally agreed that the Deuteronomistic history originated independently of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers (the first four books of the Torah, sometimes called the "Tetrateuch", whose sources are the Priestly source, the Jahwist and the Elohist), and the history of the books of Chronicles; most scholars trace all or most of it to the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), and associate it with editorial reworking of both the Tetrateuch and Jeremiah.[3]



Noth also published commentaries on all the five books of the Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Noth considered that the book of Deuteronomy was more closely related to the following books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings (the Deuteronomistic History), thus he preferred the term Tetrateuch to refer to the first four books of the Old Testament.[5]



The documentary hypothesis (DH) is one of three models used to explain the origins and composition of the first five books of the Bible, called collectively the Torah or Pentateuch, the other two being the supplementary hypothesis and the fragmentary hypothesis.[1][2][Note 1] All three agree that the Torah is not a unified work from a single author (traditionally Moses) but is made up of sources combined over many centuries by many hands. They differ on the nature of these sources and how they were combined. According to the documentary hypothesis there were four sources, each originally a separate and independent book (a "document"), joined together at various points in time by a series of editors ("redactors").[3] Fragmentary hypotheses see the Torah as a collection of small fragments, and supplementary hypotheses as a single core document supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.[4]


A version of the documentary hypothesis, frequently identified with the German scholar Julius Wellhausen, was almost universally accepted for most of the 20th century, but the consensus has now collapsed.[5] As a result, there has been a revival of interest in fragmentary and supplementary approaches, frequently in combination with each other and with a documentary model, making it difficult to classify contemporary theories as strictly one or another.[6] Modern scholars increasingly see the completed Torah as a product of the time of the Achaemenid Empire (probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place its production in the Hellenistic period (333–164 BCE) or even the Hasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE).[7] Of its constituent sources, Deuteronomy is generally dated between the 7th and 5th centuries;[8] there is much discussion of the unity, extent, nature, and date of the Priestly material.[9] Deuteronomy continues to be seen as having had a history separate from the first four books, and there is a growing recognition that Genesis developed apart from the Exodus stories until joined to it by the Priestly writer.[10]


The Torah (or Pentateuch) is the collective name for the first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.[11] According to tradition they were dictated by God to Moses,[12] but when modern critical scholarship began to be applied to the Bible it was discovered that the Pentateuch was not the unified text one would expect from a single author.[13] As a result, the Mosaic authorship of the Torah had been largely rejected by leading scholars by the 17th century, and the modern consensus is that it is the product of a long evolutionary process.[14][15][Note 2]


In the mid-18th century, some authors started a critical study of doublets (parallel accounts of the same incidents), inconsistencies, and changes in style and vocabulary.[14] In 1780 Johann Eichhorn, building on the work of the French doctor and exeget Jean Astruc's "Conjectures" and others, formulated the "older documentary hypothesis": the idea that Genesis was composed by combining two identifiable sources, the Jehovist ("J"; also called the Yahwist) and the Elohist ("E").[16] These sources were subsequently found to run through the first four books of the Torah, and the number was later expanded to three when Wilhelm de Wette identified the Deuteronomist as an additional source found only in Deuteronomy ("D").[17] Later still the Elohist was split into Elohist and Priestly ("P") sources, increasing the number to four.[18]


These documentary approaches were in competition with two other models, the fragmentary and the supplementary.[19] The fragmentary hypothesis argued that fragments of varying lengths, rather than continuous documents, lay behind the Torah; this approach accounted for the Torah's diversity but could not account for its structural consistency, particularly regarding chronology.[4] The supplementary hypothesis was better able to explain this unity: it maintained that the Torah was made up of a central core document, the Elohist, supplemented by fragments taken from many sources.[4] The supplementary approach was dominant by the early 1860s, but it was challenged by an important book published by Hermann Hupfeld in 1853, who argued that the Pentateuch was made up of four documentary sources, the Priestly, Yahwist, and Elohist intertwined in Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and the stand-alone source of Deuteronomy.[20] At around the same period Karl Heinrich Graf argued that the Yahwist and Elohist were the earliest sources and the Priestly source the latest, while Wilhelm Vatke linked the four to an evolutionary framework, the Yahwist and Elohist to a time of primitive nature and fertility cults, the Deuteronomist to the ethical religion of the Hebrew prophets, and the Priestly source to a form of religion dominated by ritual, sacrifice and law.[21]


In 1878 Julius Wellhausen published Geschichte Israels, Bd 1 ("History of Israel, Vol 1"); the second edition he printed as Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels ("Prolegomena to the History of Israel"), in 1883, and the work is better known under that name.[25][26] (The second volume, a synthetic history titled Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte ["Israelite and Jewish History"], did not appear until 1894 and remains untranslated.) Crucially, this historical portrait was based upon two earlier works of his technical analysis: "Die Composition des Hexateuchs" ("The Composition of the Hexateuch") of 1876/77 and sections on the "historical books" (Judges–Kings) in his 1878 edition of Friedrich Bleek's Einleitung in das Alte Testament ("Introduction to the Old Testament").


Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis owed little to Wellhausen himself but was mainly the work of Hupfeld, Eduard Eugène Reuss, Graf, and others, who in turn had built on earlier scholarship.[27] He accepted Hupfeld's four sources and, in agreement with Graf, placed the Priestly work last.[18] J was the earliest document, a product of the 900s and the court of Solomon; E was from the 8th century BCE in the northern Kingdom of Israel, and had been combined by a redactor (editor) with J to form a document JE; D, the third source, was a product of the 7th century BC, by 620 BCE, during the reign of King Josiah; P (what Wellhausen first named "Q") was a product of the priest-and-temple dominated world of the 6th century; and the final redaction, when P was combined with JED to produce the Torah as we now know it, took place in the mid-5th century, possible by the hand of the scribe and sacrificator Ezra by 450 BCE, during the reign of Ezra.[28][29]


Wellhausen's explanation of the formation of the Torah was also an explanation of the religious history of Israel.[29] The Yahwist and Elohist described a primitive, spontaneous and personal world, in keeping with the earliest stage of Israel's history; in Deuteronomy he saw the influence of the prophets and the development of an ethical outlook, which he felt represented the pinnacle of Jewish religion; and the Priestly source reflected the rigid, ritualistic world of the priest-dominated post-exilic period.[30]


His work, notable for its detailed and wide-ranging scholarship and close argument, entrenched the newer documentary hypothesis as the dominant explanation of Pentateuchal origins from the late 19th to the late 20th centuries.[18][Note 3]


The consensus around the documentary hypothesis has partly collapsed in the last decades of the 20th century.[5] The groundwork was laid with the investigation of the origins of the written sources in oral compositions, implying that the creators of J and E were collectors and editors and not authors and historians.[31] Rolf Rendtorff (1925–2014), building on this insight, argued that the basis of the Pentateuch lay in short, independent narratives, gradually formed into larger units and brought together in two editorial phases, the first Deuteronomic, the second Priestly.[32] This led to the current position which sees only two major sources in the Pentateuch, the Deuteronomist (confined to the Book of Deuteronomy) and the Priestly (confined to the books Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers).[33]


The majority of scholars today continue to recognise Deuteronomy as a source, with its origin in the law-code produced at the court of Josiah as described by De Wette, subsequently given a frame during the exile (the speeches and descriptions at the front and back of the code) to identify it as the words of Moses.[34] Most scholars also agree that some form of Priestly source existed, although its extent, especially its end-point, is uncertain.[35] The remainder is called collectively non-Priestly, a grouping which includes both pre-Priestly and post-Priestly material.[33] The final Torah is increasingly seen as a product of the Persian period (539–333 BCE, probably 450–350 BCE), although some would place it somewhat later, in the Hellenistic (333–164 BCE) or even Hasmonean (140–37 BCE) periods[36] – the latter remains a minority view, but the Elephantine papyri, the records of a Jewish colony in Egypt dating from the last quarter of the 5th century BCE, show no knowledge of a Torah or of an exodus.[37][38] There is also a growing recognition that Genesis developed separately from Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers, and was joined to the story of Moses by the Priestly writer.[10]


A revised version of the documentary hypothesis still has adherents, especially in North America and Israel.[39][40][41] The revised or neo-documentary hypothesis distinguishes sources by means of plot and continuity rather than stylistic and linguistic concerns, and does not tie them to stages in the evolution of Israel's religious history.[39] Its resurrection of an E source is probably the single element most often criticised by other scholars, as European scholars have largely rejected it as fragmentary or non-existent (it is rarely distinguishable from the classical J source).[42]


Julius Wellhausen, the father of the documentary hypothesis that dominated scholarship for much of the 20th century, used the sources of the Torah as evidence of changes in the history of Israelite religion as it moved from free, simple and natural to fixed, formal and institutional.[43] Modern reconstructions of Israel's religion have become much more circumspect in how they use the Old Testament, not least because comparative data (i.e., the comparison of ancient Israel with other cultures) and archaeology have led to the realisation that the Bible is not a reliable witness to the religion of ancient Israel and Judah.[44] It represents the beliefs of only a small segment of the ancient Israelite community, the members of a late Judean religious tradition centered in Jerusalem and devoted to the exclusive worship of the god Yahweh.[45]



P's God is majestic, and transcendent, and all things happen because of his power and will.[16] He reveals himself in stages, first as Elohim (a Hebrew word meaning simply "god", taken from the earlier Canaanite word meaning "the gods"), then to Abraham as El Shaddai (usually translated as "God Almighty"), and finally to Moses by his unique name, Yahweh.[18] P divides history into four epochs from Creation to Moses by means of covenants between God and Noah, Abraham and Moses.[19] The Israelites are God's chosen people, his relationship with them is governed by the covenants, and P's God is concerned that Israel should preserve its identity by avoiding intermarriage with non-Israelites.[16] P is deeply concerned with "holiness", meaning the ritual purity of the people and the land: Israel is to be "a priestly kingdom and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6), and P's elaborate rules and rituals are aimed at creating and preserving holiness.[20]



Blessing. Blessing is something God does for the world. It is an expression of his favor. There are four epochs of blessing in the Priestly History. Each epoch of blessing is a stage in the development of God's interaction with his creation, culminating in blessing to Israel.


"And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'" (Genesis 1:28)


"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth.'" (Genesis 9:1-2)


"I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojourning, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:8)


"Your name is Jacob; no longer shall your name be called Jacob, but Israel shall be your name. . . . I am God Almighty: Be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a group of nations will come from you; kings will come from your virility." (Genesis 35:10-11)



Hoo is the last part of Allah. If you repeat “Allah-Allah-Allah-Allah” continuously, by and by, it takes the shape of “Allahoo-Allahoo-Allahoo.” Then, by and by, the first part is to be dropped. It becomes “Lahoo-Lahoo-Lahoo.” Then even “Lah” is to be dropped. It becomes “Hoo-Hoo-Hoo.” It is very forceful, and it hits your sex center directly. It doesn’t hit your heart: it hits your sex center. 



In the final chapter, “The Intertwining—The Chiasm”, Merleau-Ponty turns directly to the positive project of describing his ontology of “flesh”. Intertwining [entrelacs] here translates Husserl’s Verflechtung, entanglement or interweaving, like the woof and warp of a fabric. Chiasm has two senses in French and English that are both relevant to Merleau-Ponty’s project: a physiological sense that refers to anatomical or genetic structures with a crossed arrangement (such as the optic nerves), and a literary sense referring to figures of speech that repeat structures in reverse order (AB:BA). For Merleau-Ponty, the chiasm is a structure of mediation that combines the unity-in-difference of its physiological sense with the reversal and circularity of its literary usage (see Toadvine 2012; Saint Aubert 2005). A paradigmatic example of chiasmic structure is the body’s doubling into sensible and sentient aspects during self-touch. Elaborating on Husserl’s descriptions of this phenomenon, Merleau-Ponty emphasizes three consequences: First, the body as sensible-sentient is an “exemplar sensible” that demonstrates the kinship or ontological continuity between subject and object among sensible things in general. Second, this relationship is reversible, like “obverse and reverse” or “two segments of one sole circular course” (V&I: 182/138). Third, the sentient and sensible never strictly coincide but are always separated by a gap or divergence [écart] that defers their unity.


Chiasm is therefore a crisscrossing or a bi-directional becoming or exchange between the body and things that justifies speaking of a “flesh” of things, a kinship between the sensing body and sensed things that makes their communication possible. Flesh in this sense is a “general thing” between the individual and the idea that does not correspond to any traditional philosophical concept, but is closest to the notion of an “element” in the classical sense (V&I: 184/139). Merleau-Ponty denies that this is a subjective or anthropocentric projection:


carnal being, as a being of depths, of several leaves or several faces, a being in latency, and a presentation of a certain absence, is a prototype of Being, of which our body, the sensible sentient, is a very remarkable variant, but whose constitutive paradox already lies in every visible. (V&I: 179/136)


The generality of flesh embraces an intercorporeity, an anonymous sensibility shared out among distinct bodies: just as my two hands communicate across the lateral synergy of my body, I can touch the sensibility of another: “The handshake too is reversible” (V&I: 187/142).


Sensible flesh—what Merleau-Ponty calls the “visible”—is not all there is to flesh, since flesh also “sublimates” itself into an “invisible” dimension: the “rarified” or “glorified” flesh of ideas. Taking as his example the “little phrase” from Vinteuil’s sonata (in Swann’s Way), Merleau-Ponty describes literature, music, and the passions as “the exploration of an invisible and the disclosure of a universe of ideas”, although in such cases these ideas “cannot be detached from the sensible appearance and be erected into a second positivity” (V&I: 196/149). Creative language necessarily carries its meaning in a similarly embodied fashion, while the sediments of such expression result in language as a system of formalized relations. What we treat as “pure ideas” are nothing more than a certain divergence and ongoing process of differentiation, now occurring within language rather than sensible things. Ultimately we find a relation of reversibility within language like that holding within sensibility: just as, in order to see, my body must be part of the visible and capable of being seen, so, by speaking, I make myself one who can be spoken to (allocutary) and one who can be spoken about (delocutary). While all of the possibilities of language are already outlined or promised within the sensible world, reciprocally the sensible world itself is unavoidably inscribed with language.


This final chapter of The Visible and the Invisible illustrates chiasmic mediation across a range of relations, including sentient and sensed, touch and vision, body and world, self and other, fact and essence, perception and language. There is not one chiasm but rather various chiasmic structures at different levels. As Renaud Barbaras notes,


It is necessary … to picture the universe as intuited by Merleau-Ponty as a proliferation of chiasms that integrate themselves according to different levels of generality. (1991, 352/2004, 307)


The ultimate ontological chiasm, that between the sensible and the intelligible, is matched by an ultimate epistemological chiasm, that of philosophy itself. As Merleau-Ponty writes in a working note from November 1960,


the idea of chiasm, that is: every relation with being is simultaneously a taking and a being held, the hold is held, it is inscribed and inscribed in the same being that it takes hold of. Starting from there, elaborate an idea of philosophy… . It is the simultaneous experience of the holding and the held in all orders. (V&I: 319/266; see also Saint Aubert 2005: 162–64)




These basic elements function in our psychology, and we can learn about them through self-observation. What we need to understand is that for spiritual growth to occur, these elements are used to test us, to purify us.

Observe the three mother letters—Aleph, Shin and Mem: air, fire and water. What is the fourth element? Where is the earth? It is your body. So here you are, spiritually, psychologically, as the four elements incarnated;

your body: earth

your mind: air

your heart: fire

your waters: sex

Obviously, this is a simplification, because remember, all of the elements have the other elements within. We are just describing the basic flavors.

If you want spiritual growth, all four elements need to be purified so the quintessence can emerge.

How does it happen? Are you going to do it on your own? Can you do it on your own? If you observe your mind, and you observe the density and strength of your psychological tendencies, and you compare that to the strength of your free Consciousness, you will quickly come to the realization that it is impossible to do it on your own. It is impossible, it cannot be done. It has never been done. You can only do it with the help of divnity within, with the help of the divine.

The one that showed us how to do it is David. In the myth of David, we see a young shepherd, powerless, with no training, no weapons, just a boy, but by circumstance he has to face and defeat the greatest warrior of the Philistine army, who is Goliath. The only thing David has to help him is his faith. Armored only with faith in divinity, he approaches is enemy and he picks up a stone, and kills Goliath with it, and then chops off his head.

That stone in Alchemy is called a Sophic Hydrolith. Sophic comes from Sophia, wisdom. Hydro is water. Lith is stone. So “the wise water stone.” The water is in your earth, in sexuality. So the Sophic hydrolith is sexual energy being utilized by Sophia, Christ. Wisdom is Chokmah. Wisdom is Christ. That trinity above will aid us by stimulating these elements in us so that we will see them for what they are. That is why those who begin to transmute their sexual forces, to work with the stone, which is centered in Yesod, the sexual energies, begin to receive ordeals, difficulties, psychological tests.

The Four Ordeals

Someone who is genuinely transmuting their sexual energy will also begin to face a lot of psychological difficulties, because this is how the work progresses. People enter into these types of studies and believe because of their training in pseudo-occultism that everything in the spiritual path is an ever-increasing ecstasy, and as soon as you become spiritual, life just becomes rosier and rosier. Spiritually, this is true, but psychologically it is not.

A genuine aspirant for full awakening has to face the entirety of their ego, all of it, step by step, and facing that is not something we do willingly. We do not want to face ourselves. We do not want to see how foolish we are, because we want to feel proud. We do not want to see that we are animals, psychologically. That we are beasts, filthy, we are not divine. We want our religion to tell us how divine we are. We want our spirituality to make us feel good. That is all lies. The truth is that we are dirty and we need cleansing. The cleansing comes from our own inner Being.

When we begin to transmute our sexual energy, we begin to nourish our spiritual growth, and the most important place that energy can be used is to clean us, not to give us experiences in the astral plane. We might get that from time to time, but that is not what is important. What is most important is that we become pure.

So our Innermost, our divinity, is the one who takes that energy to bring the ego up, to show the ego to us, so that we will face it and change. That comes through what we call the four ordeals. These four ordeals are related with these four elements. Do you get what I am explaining here?

When you transmute the sexual energy, you are transmuting Akash, the fifth element, and from that fifth element come the other four. When you transmute sexual energy, you give rise to the ordeals that you must face. Expect it. Don’t avoid ordeals. You need the ordeals. It is only through psychological tests that you will see what you are and be able to change. So you need to know how to use the four elements to your advantage in order to conquer the ordeals, to know how to face ordeals and overcome them. The four ordeals are related with the four elements.


The four ordeals, from Atalanta fugiens, by Michael Maier, 1618.


This image was crafted by an alchemist named Michael Maier. This image is four hundred years old. It shows the alchemist facing himself, one against four. Those four are the four elements. Who is the one? It is Akash, Ether, willpower, transmuted sexual energy. That is why he is raising the club over his head. That club is his will. It is the club of Heracles from the Greek mysteries. Heracles represents willpower, the Christic force, the Christic energy of willpower. That is how you overcome the four ordeals: christic, conscious willpower.

Each of these four is an element: one has fire, one has air, one has water and one has a stone, and they are all coming to get him, but they all are him. If you look closely at the drawing, you see that it is five of the same person. These drawings are of one man. You see, it is all the same person. He is facing himself. This is the psychology of Alchemy.

Our Being will give us these ordeals. We are going to describe them briefly so we can understand what to expect.

What are these ordeals? They are psychological tests, circumstances that cause your ego to be visible. Let me talk about what these ordeals are then we will talk about the specifics. Samael Aun Weor talked specifically about these ordeals in two of his books: The Revolution of Beelzebub, and The Perfect Matrimony. Any sincere student of Gnosis needs these books, and needs to study them deeply. They are very important. They are two books that he wrote first, and they set the foundation for everything else he wrote. So he wrote in The Revolution of Beelzebub:

“In the White Lodge, the four ordeals are given in order to examine the white disciple’s morals. For instance, in the ordeal of fire, the disciple is attacked by crowds of enemies who insult him. Instead of returning insults, the disciple offers love towards his enemies. This is how he triumphs in this ordeal, when, with serenity, he passes through the fire without being burned. {...}

“Therefore, the four ordeals of earth, fire, water, and air are presented simply for the moral examination of the disciple. All of our defects and moral faults are precisely the negative aspects of the four elements of Nature, and we have to convert ourselves into kings and queens of it.

“In the White Lodge, the four ordeals are accompanied by a verbal test in order to know what level of purification the disciple has reached.

“All of these ordeals occur in the Astral plane. The prepared disciple, that is to say, the disciple who has spiritual maturity, brings the memory of all of this to the physical plane, just as if he would have had a dream.” - Samael Aun Weor, The Revolution of Beelzebub

When we begin to transmute our sexual energy, we begin to receive these types of ordeals, and we receive them at our level. The beginners receive them for beginners, at their level, so they can see their ego and be tested.

These ordeals continue throughout the entire path until you are finished. In the beginning, we face four symbolic ordeals that represent how each ordeal functions throughout the rest of the path. Those four symbolic ordeals occur in the astral plane. Most beginners do not remember these experiences.

Every initiate faces these ordeals throughout life, both in the astral plane, and in the physical plane. We have to face them physically because we create the ego physically. We have ego physically, here, now, therefore we need to deal with it here.

Ordeals get harder if we continually fail them. Ordeals also get harder as we succeed and go deeper into the ego. It is especially happens when we are failing ordeals constantly in the internal worlds, that those tests can happen physically. So if you have a dream related with one of these ordeals, and you fail, be prepared: the ordeal might come physically, too.

In every case, all ordeals are given to us in relation with our karma. We face our karma, our ego, through ordeals. This means that the ordeals I face will be determined by the content of my egos, and will be different from yours.

The four ordeals, from Atalanta fugiens, by Michael Maier, 1618.



Modern trumpets have three (or infrequently four) piston valves, each of which increases the length of tubing when engaged, thereby lowering the pitch. The first valve lowers the instrument's pitch by a whole step (2 semitones), the second valve by a half step (1 semitone), and the third valve by one-and-a-half steps (3 semitones). When a fourth valve is present, as with some piccolo trumpets, it usually lowers the pitch a perfect fourth (5 semitones). Used singly and in combination these valves make the instrument fully chromatic, i.e., able to play all twelve pitches of classical music. For more information about the different types of valves, see Brass instrument valves.




The smallest trumpets are referred to as piccolo trumpets. The most common of these are built to play in both B♭ and A, with separate leadpipes for each key. The tubing in the B♭ piccolo trumpet is one-half the length of that in a standard B♭ trumpet. Piccolo trumpets in G, F and C are also manufactured, but are less common. Many players use a smaller mouthpiece on the piccolo trumpet, which requires a different sound production technique from the B♭ trumpet and can limit endurance. Almost all piccolo trumpets have four valves instead of the usual three — the fourth valve lowers the pitch, usually by a fourth, to assist in the playing of lower notes and to create alternate fingerings that facilitate certain trills. Maurice André, Håkan Hardenberger, David Mason, and Wynton Marsalis are some well-known trumpet players known for their additional virtuosity on the piccolo trumpet.



The flugelhorn is built in the same B♭ pitch as many trumpets and cornets. It usually has three piston valves and employs the same fingering system as other brass instruments, but four-piston valve and rotary valve variants also exist. It can thus be played without too much trouble by trumpet and cornet players, though some adaptation to their playing style may be needed. It is usually played with a more deeply conical mouthpiece than either trumpets or cornets (though not as conical as a horn mouthpiece).


Some modern flugelhorns feature a fourth valve that lowers the pitch a perfect fourth (similar to the fourth valve on some euphoniums, tubas, and piccolo trumpets, or the trigger on trombones). This adds a useful low range that, coupled with the flugelhorn's dark sound, extends the instrument's abilities. More often, however, players use the fourth valve in place of the first and third valve combination, which is somewhat sharp (compensated for on trumpets and cornets and some three-valve flugelhorns by an easily-movable slide for the first or third valve).



On any modern trumpet, cornet, or flugelhorn, pressing the valves indicated by the numbers below produces the written notes shown. "Open" means all valves up, "1" means first valve, "1-2" means first and second valve simultaneously, and so on. The sounding pitch depends on the transposition of the instrument. Engaging the fourth valve, if present, usually drops any of these pitches by a perfect fourth as well. Within each overtone series, the different pitches are attained by changing the embouchure. Standard fingerings above high C are the same as for the notes an octave below (C♯ is 1-2, D is 1, etc.)



A four-document hypothesis or four-source hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. It was proposed by Burnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, who refined the two-source hypothesis into a four-source hypothesis.[1]


According to Streeter's analysis the non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be distinguished into at least two sources, Q and L. In a similar way he argued that Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well as Q. Luke did not know M, and Matthew did not know L. Source M has the Judaistic character (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews), it suggests a Jerusalem origin, source L he assigned to Caesarea, and source Q connected with Antioch. The document Q was an Antiochene translation of a document originally composed in Aramaic — possibly by the Apostle Matthew for Galilean Christians. Gospel of Luke developed in two phases (see picture).


According to this view the first gospel is a combination of the traditions of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, while the third gospel represents Caesarea, Antioch, and Rome. The fact that the Antiochene and Roman sources were reproduced by both Evangelists Matthew and Luke was due to the importance of those Churches. Streeter thought there is no evidence that the other sources are less authentic.


Streeter hypothesized a proto-Luke document, an early version of Luke that did not incorporate material from Mark or the birth narrative.[2] According to this hypothesis, the evangelist added material from Mark and the birth narratives later.[2] Telling against this hypothesis, however, the gospel has no underlying passion tradition separate from Mark, and Luke's travel account is evidently based on Mark 10.[2] A contemporary version of the four-source theory omits proto-Luke, with the evangelist combining Mark, Q, and L directly.[3] Still, the gospel might have circulated originally without the birth narrative in the first two chapters.[4]

Streeter's Four Document Hypothesis



The Cynics – First of Four Important Schools of Philosophy


In “Cynics and Sceptics” in his History of Western Philosophy, Bertrand Russell explains that four Schools of Philosophy were founded around the time of Alexander the Great, and these were the Cynics, the Sceptics, the Stoics and the Epicureans.

Purebred dogs of one breed are genetically distinguishable from purebred dogs of other breeds,[142] but the means by which kennel clubs classify dogs is unsystematic. DNA microsatellite analyses of 85 dog breeds showed they fell into four major types of dogs that were statistically distinct.[142] These include the "old world dogs" (e.g., Malamute and Shar Pei), "Mastiff"-type (e.g., English Mastiff), "herding"-type (e.g., Border Collie), and "all others" (also called "modern"- or "hunting"-type).[142][143]




Constantine lies at the foot of the tent pole like a figure of Adam at the foot of the Cross. With this motif, Piero shows the death of paganism at the birth of Christianity.




The divine messenger descends from on high, showing the Cross made of light to the emperor deep in sleep, to whom he communicates the certainty of victory if the army moves under the sign of the Cross: "In hoc signo vinces".



From the star-studded heavens above, an angel streaks down, extending toward the sleeping general a tiny, glowing [formerly gold] cross, the divine illumination of which lights up the darkness.

According to the legend surrounding the battle, Constantine and Maxentius both being Romans, no blood could be shed. Maxentius had devised a ruse by which Constantine’s army would be drowned in the Tiber. Part of Constantine’s revelation was that his victory was assured by the power of the Cross. He thus entered the fray with only the angelic gift, and he won.

At the left margin of the tier a portion of a horse's head is represented. With this detail, Piero implies that there is more of the army yet to come out from behind the wall. Amid a forest of lances and thundering hoofs, the cavalry, surmounted by a glorious imperial eagle flag, calms as it moves left to right and stops at the figure of Constantine, erect on his white horse. He extends his arm to display the tiny cross, the talisman of righteous power, faith, and victory. [1]



In the distance the tents of his army were lit by moonlight

But another kind of radiance lit the face of Constantine

And in the morning light

The artist, seeing his work was done

Saw that it was good


In this sign shall thou conquer


He let his brush drop and passed into a sleep of his own

And he dreamed of Constantine carrying into battle in his right hand

An immaculate, undefiled single white Cross

Piero della Francesca, as his brush stroked the wall

Was filled with a torpor

And fell into a dream of his own

[Patti Smith, Constantine’s Dream)


The History of the True Cross or The Legend of the True Cross is a sequence of frescoes painted by Piero della Francesca in the Basilica of San Francesco in Arezzo. It is his largest work, and generally considered one of his finest, and an early Renaissance masterpiece.

Its theme, derived from the popular 13th century book on the lives of saints by Jacopo da Varagine, the Golden Legend, is the triumph of the True Cross – the legend of the wood from the Garden of Eden becoming the Cross on which Jesus Christ was crucified. This work demonstrates Piero’s advanced knowledge of perspective and colour, his geometric orderliness and skill in pictorial construction.

The main episodes depicted are:

  • Death of Adam (390 x 747 cm). According to the legend, the tree from which the cross was made was planted, at the urging of angels, at the burial of Adam by his son, using a branch or a seed from the apple tree of the garden of Eden.

  • The Queen of Sheba in Adoration of the Wood and The Meeting of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba (336 x 747 cm). According to the legend, the Queen of Sheba worshiped the beams made from the tree, and informed Solomon that the Saviour would hang from that tree, and thus dismember the realm of the Jews. This caused Solomon to hew it down and bury it, until it was found by the Romans.

  • Exaltation of the Cross (390 x 747 cm).

  • Constantine's Dream (329 x 190 cm) Emperor Constantine the Great, before the battle of Milvian Bridge, is awakened by an angel who shows him the cross in heaven. With the cross on his shield, he slew the enemy, and later converted to Christianity.

  • Discovery and Proof of the True Cross (356 x 747 cm). Helena, Constantine's mother, finds the cross in Jerusalem. It was not easy to get information and "when the queen had called them and demanded them the place where our Lord Jesus Christ had been crucified, they would never tell... her. Then commanded she to burn them all" or cast them into a dry pit for seven days and there torment them with hunger. The Jew is shown in one fresco being pulled from the pit by a rope, whereupon he confessed that Jesus was his lord and where the cross was located. The proof of the cross was that it was used to resurrect a dead man.

  • Battle between Heraclius and Khosrau (329 x 747 cm). The cross played a role in battles during the war between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sassanid Empire (early 7th century).

Piero diverged from his source material in a few important respects, including the story of King Solomon's meeting with the Queen of Sheba in a chronologically inaccurate place and giving greater emphasis to the two battles in which Christianity triumphs over paganism.

The cycle ends with a depiction of the Annunciation, not strictly part of the Legend of the True Cross but probably included by Piero for its universal meaning.

Dating of the frescoes is uncertain, but they are believed to date from after 1447, when the Bacci family, commissioners of the frescoes, are recorded as having paid an unknown painter. It would have been finished around 1466. Most of the choir was painted in the early- to mid-1450s. Although the design of the frescoes is evidently Piero's, he seems to have delegated parts of the painting to assistants, as was usual. The hand of Giovanni da Piamonte, in particular, can be recognised in some of the frescoes.




Heraclius’ vision is not contained in the Legenda Aurea; it is a topos from a crusader genre. It is likely an analogy to Constantine’s vision. Thus Heraclius becomes the new Constantine. 


In the center, Heraclius has a dream wherein he receives a vision from an angel above the tent holding a wooden cross before battle that signifies his devotion to God; he is pictured reclining in his tent, leaning on his elbow, and gazing up at the vision; above the tent floats the cross and an angel. And on the far right is the climax in which Heraclius administers the final blow to defeat Chosroes’ son in single combat on the bridge over the Danube. 


Emperor Heraclius lies outstretched on his bed in a tent and looks toward the angel, floating above him, who forecast his victory. The combat Chosroës's son, from which Heraclius emerged victorious, is shown to the right of the tent.

Born into a family of painters in Florence, Agnolo Gaddi followed an artistic lineage from his father Taddeo Gaddi (1300-1366), a painter and architect, and grandfather Gaddo Gaddi, an artist. Agnolo Gaddi is known as the last major Florentine artist who was stylistically influenced by his father’s teacher, Giotto di Bondone (1267-1337). In the 1380s he executed his most ambitious works, a series of frescoes in the choir of Santa Croce in Florence illustrating the “Legend of the True Cross”.


The Eastern Emperor Heraclius wages war on the Persian King and, having defeated him, returns to Jerusalem with the Holy Wood. But a divine power prevents the emperor from making his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. So Heraclius, setting aside all pomp and magnificence, enters the city carrying the Cross in a gesture of humility, following Jesus Christ's example.

The True Cross became famous over the centuries as it performed miracle after miracle. According to the legend, the Sassanian king Chosroes II (590-628; Khosrau in Persian) coveting its power, stole the relic and used it to subjugate his citizens. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium, in A.D. 528 came with his troops to rescue the cross by force. 

Piero della Francesca interpreted the encounter as a complex battle spreading across the wall from left to right, full of blood and heavy weaponry. Painted in exquisite detail, the procession to victory can be read in the flags, moving from the imperial eagle to the standards of Islam, one, decorated with Moorish figures, in tatters, the other with crescent moons, falling to the ground. The warriors on both sides wear all sorts of armor, including colorful Roman molded leather cuirasses and Renaissance style harnesses of polished laminated steel, reflecting the real light that streams from the window on the altar wall. A war-weary bugler in a tall white hat sounds his horn, while all around him weapons fly through the air. At the right-hand edge of the battle, a mounted knight receives a dagger-thrust to the throat, and as he falls back seems to regurgitate the cross from his very mouth.  



At the far right, the cross forms part of the blasphemous Trinitarian tabernacle the Chosroes had set up. He called himself God, mounting the cross on his right as the Son, and a cock on a column on his left as the Holy Spirit. Having refused baptism, Chosroes leaves his throne empty and kneels awaiting the executioner’s sword. Around him are his judges, in the guise of members of the Bacci family, the fifteenth-century patrons of the chapel. By showing Chosroes with the same features as God-the-Father (Who appears around the corner in the Annunciation scene), Piero defines visually his criminal blasphemy. [4]

Piero della Francesca, Battle between Heraclius and Chosroes, c. 1466, fresco, 329 x 747 cm, San Francesco, Arezzo





The four Raphael Rooms (Italian: Stanze di Raffaello) form a suite of reception rooms in the palace, the public part of the papal apartments in the Palace of the Vatican. They are famous for their frescoes, painted by Raphael and his workshop. Together with Michelangelo's ceiling frescoes in the Sistine Chapel, they are the grand fresco sequences that mark the High Renaissance in Rome.