In this task, you're given passages that contain mentions of names of people, places, or things. Some of these mentions refer to the same person, place, or thing. Your job is to write questions that evaluate one's understanding of such references. Good questions are expected to link pronouns (she, her, him, his, their, etc.) or other mentions to people, places, or things to which they may refer. Do not ask questions that can be answered correctly without understanding the paragraph or having multiple answers. Avoid questions that do not link phrases referring to the same entity. For each of your questions, the answer should be one or more phrases in the paragraph, and it should be unambiguous.

Input: Consider Input: Passage: 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 research of Friedlander, Panofsky and Meyer Schapiro, that the attributions generally accepted today were established.

Output: What is the full name of the person who effectively legitimized Netherlandish art as a field of study?

Input: Consider Input: Passage: Most historians describe the contacts between the Mongol Empire and the Western Europeans as a series of attempts, missed opportunities, and failed negotiations. Christopher Atwood, in the 2004 Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire, summed up the relations between Western Europe and the Mongols: "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam."A few other historians argue there was an actual alliance, but do not agree on the details: Jean Richard wrote that an alliance began around 1263. Reuven Amitai stated that the closest thing to actual Mongol-Frankish military coordination was when Prince Edward of England attempted to coordinate activities with Abaga in 1271. Amitai also mentioned the other attempts towards cooperation, but said, "In none of these episodes, however, can we speak of Mongols and troops from the Frankish West being on the Syrian mainland at the same time." Timothy May described the alliance as having its peak at the Council of Lyon in 1274, but that it began to unravel in 1275 with the death of Bohemond, and May too admitted that the forces never engaged in joint operations. Alain Demurger, in his own book The Last Templar, said that an alliance was not sealed until 1300.There also continues to be debate about whether or not an alliance would have been a wise idea, and whether the Crusaders at that point in history were even relevant to the Persian-Mongol conflict. The 20th-century historian Glenn Burger said, "The refusal of the Latin Christian states in the area to follow Hethum's example and adapt to changing conditions by allying themselves with the new Mongol empire must stand as one of the saddest of the many failures of Outremer." This was similar to the view of Steven Runciman, who argued, "Had the Mongol alliance been achieved and honestly implemented by the West, the existence of Outremer would almost certainly have been prolonged. The Mameluks would have been crippled if not destroyed; and the Ilkhanate of Persia would have survived as a power friendly to the Christians and the West". However, David Nicolle, describing the Mongols as "potential allies", said that early historians were writing from the benefit of hindsight, and that overall the major players were the Mamluks and the Mongols, with Christians just "pawns in a greater game.".

Output: Who did Jean Richard claim had an alliance around 1263?

Input: Consider Input: Passage: Unusual for a 13th-century Gothic cathedral, most of the windows are of clear glass.
Looking at the windows running along the nave, John L. Ward observed that the window directly above the suspended crucifix is the only one whose uppermost portion is visible. That window directly faces the viewer, revealing intricately designed stained glass panels that show intertwined red and blue flowers. Because the window is so far back in the pictorial space, where perspective is becoming faint, the proximity of the flowers to the crucifix lends them the appearance of coming "forward in space, as if [they] had suddenly grown from the top of the crucifix in front of it."Ward does not believe this a trick of the eye resulting from loss of perspective towards the high reaches of the panel. Instead he sees it as a subtle reference to the iconography and mythology of the Book of Genesis' Tree of life, which he describes here as "reborn in Christ's death". He does acknowledge the subtlety of the illusion, and the fact that neither of the two well known near copies include the motif. The idea of flowers shown as if sprouting from the top of the cross may have been borrowed from Masaccio's c. 1426 Crucifixion, where flowers are placed on the upper portion of the vertical beam of the cross. Ward concludes than van Eyck took the idea even further by showing the flowers emanating from another source, and sought to depict the actual moment where the tree of life is reborn and "the cross comes to life and sprouts flowers as one watches".
Output: What is the last name of the person who does acknowledge the subtlety of the illusion, and the fact that neither of the two well known near copies include the motif?