input: After the film's release, certain publications, including Private Eye, noted strong similarities between the film and the 1941 novel No Bed for Bacon, by Caryl Brahms and S. J. Simon, which also features Shakespeare falling in love and finding inspiration for his later plays. In a foreword to a subsequent edition of No Bed for Bacon (which traded on the association by declaring itself "A Story of Shakespeare and Lady Viola in Love") Ned Sherrin, Private Eye insider and former writing partner of Brahms', confirmed that he had lent a copy of the novel to Stoppard after he joined the writing team, but that the basic plot of the film had been independently developed by Marc Norman, who was unaware of the earlier work. The film's plot can claim a tradition in fiction reaching back to Alexandre Duval's "Shakespeare amoureux ou la Piece a l'Etude" (1804), in which Shakespeare falls in love with an actress who is playing Richard III. The writers of Shakespeare in Love were sued in 1999 by bestselling author Faye Kellerman. She claimed that the plotline was stolen from her 1989 novel The Quality of Mercy, in which Shakespeare romances a Jewish woman who dresses as a man, and attempts to solve a murder. Miramax Films spokesman Andrew Stengel derided the claim, filed in the US District Court six days before the 1999 Academy Awards, as "absurd", and argued that the timing "suggests a publicity stunt". An out-of-court settlement was reached but the sum agreed between the parties indicates that the claim was "unwarranted".

Answer this question "what else happened with the suit?"
output: Miramax Films spokesman Andrew Stengel derided the claim, filed in the US District Court six days before the 1999 Academy Awards, as "absurd", and argued

input: A notable thesis propagated by Trevor-Roper was the "general crisis of the 17th century". He argued that the middle years of the 17th century in Western Europe saw a widespread break-down in politics, economics and society caused by demographic, social, religious, economic and political problems. In this "general crisis," various events, such as the English Civil War, the Fronde in France, the climax of the Thirty Years' War in Germany, troubles in the Netherlands, and revolts against the Spanish Crown in Portugal, Naples and Catalonia, were all manifestations of the same problems. The most important causes of the "general crisis" in Trevor-Roper's opinion were conflicts between "Court" and "Country"; that is between the increasingly powerful centralizing, bureaucratic, sovereign princely states, represented by the Court, and the traditional, regional, land-based aristocracy and gentry, representing the country. In addition, he said that the religious and intellectual changes introduced by the Reformation and the Renaissance were important secondary causes of the "general crisis." The "general crisis" thesis generated controversy between supporters of this theory, and those, such as the Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis," but saw the problems of 17th century Europe as more economic in origin than Trevor-Roper would allow. A third faction denied that there was any "general crisis," for example the Dutch historian Ivo Schoffer, the Danish historian Niels Steengsgaard, and the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya. Trevor-Roper's "general crisis" thesis provoked much discussion, and led experts in 17th century history such as Roland Mousnier, J. H. Elliott, Lawrence Stone, E. H. Kossmann, Eric Hobsbawm and J. H. Hexter to become advocates of the pros and cons of the theory. At times the discussion became quite heated; the Italian Marxist historian Rosario Villari, speaking of the work of Trevor-Roper and Mousnier, claimed that: "The hypothesis of imbalance between bureaucratic expansion and the needs of the state is too vague to be plausible, and rests on inflated rhetoric, typical of a certain type of political conservative, rather than on effective analysis." Villari accused Trevor-Roper of downgrading the importance of what Villari called the English Revolution (the usual Marxist term for the English Civil War), and insisted that the "general crisis" was part of a Europe-wide revolutionary movement. Another Marxist critic of Trevor-Roper the Soviet historian A. D. Lublinskaya attacked the concept of a conflict between "Court" and "Country" as fiction, arguing there was no "general crisis;" instead she maintained that the so-called "general crisis" was merely the emergence of capitalism.

Answer this question "Did people agree with Trevor?"
output: Eric Hobsbawm, who agreed with him that there was a "general crisis,"

input: Zhang Heng is often credited with inventing the first odometer, an achievement also attributed to Archimedes (c. 287-212 BC) and Heron of Alexandria (fl. AD 10-70). Similar devices were used by the Roman and Han-Chinese empires at about the same period. By the 3rd century, the Chinese had termed the device the ji li gu che, or "li-recording drum carriage" (the modern measurement of li = 500 m/1640 ft). Ancient Chinese texts describe the mechanical carriage's functions; after one li was traversed, a mechanically driven wooden figure struck a drum, and after ten li had been covered, another wooden figure struck a gong or a bell with its mechanically operated arm. However, there is evidence to suggest that the invention of the odometer was a gradual process in Han Dynasty China that centered on the "huang men"--court people (i.e. eunuchs, palace officials, attendants and familiars, actors, acrobats, etc.) who followed the musical procession of the royal "drum-chariot". There is speculation that at some time during the 1st century BC the beating of drums and gongs was mechanically driven by the rotation of the road wheels. This might have actually been the design of Luoxia Hong (c. 110 BC), yet by at least 125 the mechanical odometer carriage was already known, as it was depicted in a mural of the Xiao Tang Shan Tomb. The south-pointing chariot was another mechanical device credited to Zhang Heng. It was a non-magnetic compass vehicle in the form of a two-wheeled chariot. Differential gears driven by the chariot's wheels allowed a wooden figurine (in the shape of a Chinese state minister) to constantly point to the south, hence its name. The Song Shu (c. AD 500 ) records that Zhang Heng re-invented it from a model used in the Zhou Dynasty era, but the violent collapse of the Han Dynasty unfortunately did not allow it to be preserved. Whether Zhang Heng invented it or not, Ma Jun (200-265) succeeded in creating the chariot in the following century.

Answer this question "What is the south-point chariot?"
output:
The south-pointing chariot was another mechanical device credited to Zhang Heng.