[Q]: Given the following context: Following the accession of James VII in 1685, Bruce gradually fell from favour, and was distrusted by the new regime. After the Revolution of 1688, and the accession of William of Orange as King, he was once again at odds with his Protestant rulers, and he refused to take up his seat in Parliament. As a staunch Episcopalian, Bruce was considered a potential Jacobite threat. In 1693 he was briefly imprisoned in Stirling Castle for refusing to appear before the Privy Council. He was incarcerated again at Stirling in 1694, and from 1696 in Edinburgh Castle. Bruce was expelled from parliament in 1702, his seat passing to his son John Bruce. Despite these imprisonments, he continued his architectural work, indeed the 1690s and 1700s were his most prolific years. Bruce was imprisoned at Edinburgh Castle again in 1708 and was only released a short time before his death, at the beginning of 1710.He was buried in the family mausoleum at Kinross Kirk. The ruins of the church still stand beside Kinross House, the mausoleum remains intact in the churchyard. Dating from 1675 it is probably by William Bruce in design, initially to house his parents. Bruce's surviving account books show purchases of books on music, painting and horticulture, as well as numerous foreign-language works, suggesting that William Bruce was a learned man. He studied horticulture extensively, and applied his knowledge of the subject in his own gardens at Kinross. He was a friend of James Sutherland of the Edinburgh Botanic Garden, and may have known John Evelyn and other English horticulturalists. answer the following question: What is the full name of the person that continued his architectural work despite being imprisoned?
****
[A]: William Bruce

input: Please answer the following: Given the following context: Markham had hoped for a fully-fledged Royal Naval expedition, but was warned by the Admiralty that "the present exigencies of the Naval Service [would] prevent them from lending officers..." However, the Admiralty agreed to release Scott and Charles Royds, and later allowed Michael Barne and Reginald Skelton to join the expedition. The remaining officers were from the Merchant Marine, including Albert Armitage, the second-in-command, who had experience with the JacksonHarmsworth Arctic expedition, 189497, and Ernest Shackleton, designated Third Officer in charge of holds, stores and provisions, and responsible for arranging the entertainments. The Admiralty also released around twenty petty officers and seamen, the rest of the crew being from the merchant service, or from civilian employment. Among the lower deck complement were some who became Antarctic veterans, including Frank Wild, William Lashly, Thomas Crean (who joined the expedition following the desertion of a seaman in New Zealand), Edgar Evans and Ernest Joyce. Although the expedition was not a formal Navy project, Scott proposed to run the expedition on naval lines, and secured the crew's voluntary agreement to work under the Naval Discipline Act.The scientific team was inexperienced. Dr George Murray, Gregory's successor as chief scientist, was due to travel only as far as Australia (in fact he left the ship at Cape Town), using the voyage to train the scientists, but with no part to play in the detailed work of the expedition. The only scientist with previous Antarctic experience was Louis Bernacchi, who had been with Borchgrevink as magnetic observer and meteorologist. The geologist, Hartley Ferrar, was a 22-year-old recent Cambridge graduate who Markham thought "might be made into a man." Marine biologist Thomas Vere Hodgson, from Plymouth Museum, was a more mature figure, as was the senior of the two doctors, Reginald Koettlitz, who, at 39, was the oldest member of the expedition. He, like Armitage, had been with the JacksonHarmsworth... answer the following question: What was the name of the person taht left the ship at Cape Town?
++++++++++
output: George Murray

Please answer this: Given the following context: The most significant early research of Early Netherlandish art occurred in the 1920s, in German art historian Max Jakob Friedlander's pioneering Meisterwerke der Niederlandischen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. Friedlander focused on the biographical details of the painters, establishing attribution, and examining their major works. The undertaking proved extremely difficult, given the scant historical record of even the most significant artists. Fellow-German Erwin Panofsky's analysis in the 1950s and 1960s followed and in many ways challenged Friedlander's work. Writing in the United States, Panofsky made the work of the German art historians accessible to the English-speaking world for the first time. He effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study, and raised its status to something similar to the early Italian renaissance. Panofsky was one of the first art historians to abandon formalism. He built on Friedlander's attempts at attribution, but focused more on social history and religious iconography. Panofsky developed the terminology with which the Netherlandish paintings are usually described, and made significant advances identifying the rich religious symbolism especially of the major altarpieces. Panofsky was the first scholar to connect the work of Netherlandish painters and illuminators, noticing the considerable overlap. He considered the study of manuscripts to be integral to the study of panels, though in the end came to view illumination as less significant than panel painting as a prelude to the truly significant work of the northern artists of the 15th and 16th centuries.Otto Pacht and Friedrich Winkler continued and developed on Panofsky's work. They were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience. The paucity of surviving documentation has made attribution especially difficult, a problem compounded by the workshop system. It was not until the late 1950s, after the... answer the following question: What are the full names of the two individuals who were key in identifying sources of iconography and ascribing attribution, or at least differentiating anonymous masters under names of convenience?
++++++++
Answer: Otto Pacht

Problem: Given the following context: In Spring 1989, sisters, Alex, and Annie Morrell, finish prep school and return home to start college. Their mother, publishing heiress Anne Scripps, welcomes them in her New York mansion. Anne has recently divorced her husband Tony, and is still struggling with the divorce. Nonetheless, she is happy with her new boyfriend, much younger Scott Douglas, a volatile-tempered young man whom she marries only months after their first meeting. From the start, Alex is uncertain if she should trust Scott, having heard stories about a possible violent past. When Anne announces that she will be having a baby, Scott is distrustful to notice how Alex reacts with doubt about the news. To get rid of her, he claims that he has found marijuana in Alex's bedroom. Alex denies the accusation, but Anne defends her boyfriend, who forces Alex to leave the house. Shortly after Anne and Scott's baby, Tori's, birth in June 1990, Scott gets violent and beats up Anne for inviting Tony's family for the baby's coming out party. Alex and Annie encourage their mom to leave Scott, but Anne forgives him after a couple of months. By June 1991, she and Scott are a happy couple again. On Alex's 21st birthday, Scott lashes out at Anne again when he finds her smoking in the same room as Tori, and then throws a guest, Stacey, off the stairs. Enraged, Alex dares Scott to hit her, and the police interrupts their fight, only to have Scott lie about the situation. A similar occurrence takes place at a formal ball, where Scott pushes around Anne in front of her friends. As they leave, the fight continues in the car, and Scott eventually throws her out while speeding. answer the following question: What is the full name of the person who is thrown out of a car?

A:
Anne Scripps