OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Moral Pieces, in Prose and Verse/An Excuse for not Fulfilling an Engagement

AN EXCUSE FOR NOT FULFILLING AN ENGAGEMENT.
WRITTEN IN SCHOOL.
MY friend, I gave a glad assent
 To your request at noon,
But now I find I cannot leave
 My little ones so soon.
I early came, and as my feet
 First enter'd at the door,
"Remember" to myself I said,
 "You must dismiss at four."
But slates, and books, and maps appear,
 And many a dear one cries,
"Oh, tell us where that river runs,
 And where those mountains rise;
And where that blind, old monarch reign'd,  And who was king before,
And stay a little after five,
 And tell us something more."
And then my little A * * * *† comes.
 And who unmoved can view,
The glance of that imploring eye,
 "Oh, teach me something too."
And who would think amid the toil,
 (Tho' scarce a toil it be,)
That through the door, the muses coy
 Should deign to peep at me.
Their look is somewhat cold and stern.
 As if it meant to say,
"We did not know you kept a school,
 We must have lost our way."
Their visit was but short indeed,
 As these light numbers show;
But Oh! they bade me write with speed,
 My friend, I cannot go.
# Moral Pieces, in Prose and Verse/A Summer Morning

A SUMMER MORNING.
FAIR on the features of the morn,
 A blush of purple glows,
While waking plants, and opening flowers,
 Their fragrant breath disclose.
While clust'ring mercies seem to bloom,
 And in my path to meet,
May grateful tho'ts spontaneous rise,  And pour their incense sweet.
# Moral Pieces, in Prose and Verse/Antisthenes

ANTISTHENES.
THE REPLY OF THE PHILOSOPHER ANTISTHENES TO THE ENQUIRY WHAT HE HAD GAINED BY HIS LEARNING.
"IT makes me happy in my lone retreat,
"And with my heart it gives me converse sweet;
"And why should he be much inclined to roam,
"Who finds a better banquet still at home?"
And those may say, who by their Saviour blest,
Bear heavenly science planted in their breast,
"This in my slumber guards my helpless head,
And when I wake it cheers me on my bed,
And when I walk it rises for my guest,
And when I speak it answers in my breast,
It soothes my sorrows, guides me when I roam,
And when I die it gently leads me home."
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flintoff, Albert Nevins

​Flintoff, Albert Nevins, M.A. Trin. Coll., Oxon, a member of the Northern circuit, a student of Lincoln's Inn 3 April, 1856 (then aged 23), called to the bar 6 June, 1860 (2nd son of John FlintofT, Esq., of Witton-le-Wear, co. Durham); born , 1833.
    10, Castelnau Villas, Barnes, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flood, Joseph Washington

​Flood, Joseph Washington, a student of the Middle Temple 16 Jan., 1865, called to the bar 11 June, 1867 (5th son of Edward Flood, of Sydney, New South Wales); born , .
    Sydney, New South Wales.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flower, Cyril

​Flower, Cyril, M.P. Brecon since 1880, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1870, from Harrow, a commissioner of lieutenancy for city of London, sub.-lieut. Bucks yeomanry cavalry 1876-83, a student of the Inner Temple 24 April, 1867 (then aged 23), called to the bar 30 April, 1870 (eldest son of Philip William Flower, Esq., of Furze Down, Streatham, Surrey); born 30 Aug., 1843; married 22 Nov., 1877, Constance, dau. of Sir Anthony de Rothschild, Bart. (see Foster's Baronetage).
    Aston Clinton, Tring, Bucks; Surrey House, 7, Hyde Park Place, W.; 1, Tanfield Court, Temple, E.C; Reform and Burlington Clubs.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Floyer, George William

​Floyer, George William, B.A., Christ Church, Oxon, 1874, from Eton, J.P. Dorset, a member of the Western circuit, a student of the Inner Temple 3 Nov., 1874 (then aged 23), called to the bar 26 Jan., 1878 (only son of John Floyer, M.P., of Stafford, Dorset); born 23 July, 1851.
    West Stafford, Dorchester; 5, Old Palace Yard, S.W.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flood, John Charles Henry

​Flood, John Charles Henry, a member of the Western circuit, matric. London Univ. 1863, author of A Treatise on the Law of Wills, of Personal Property, The Pitfalls of Testators, A Treatise on the Law of Slander and Libel, editor of Broom's Primer of Legal Principles, a student of the Middle Temple 22 Oct., 1863, called to the bar 11 June, 1867 (only surviving son of Henry Flood, of Newport, Essex, superintendent of constabulary); born , ; married 10 Aug., 1869, Georgina H., widow of Capt. G. Warburton, 3rd buffs, only dau. of John Hampden, Esq., brother of the bishop of Hereford.
    2, St. Stephen's Road, Westbourne Park, W.; 3, Plowden Buildings, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Florence, Ernest Badinius

​Florence, Ernest Badinius, major 4th volunteer batt. Queen's royal West Surrey regt. since 1880, a member of the South-eastern circuit, a student of the Middle Temple 18 Nov., 1872, called to the bar 7 June, 1875 (2nd son of late John Henry Florence, of Streatham, Surrey); born , ; married 6 Oct., 1881, Ada Constance Sedley Carr Jackson, youngest dau. of Robert Barnes, M.D., of London.
    14, Emperor's Gate, S.W.; 5, Pump Court, Temple, E.C.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flowers, Frederick

​Flowers, Frederick, police magistrate at Bow Street police station since 1864, recorder of Stamford 1862-4, J.P. Middlesex, Kent, Surrey, Herts, and Essex, a student of Lincoln's Inn 10 Nov., 1828 (then aged 18), called to the bar 18 Nov., 1839 (3rd son of Rev. Field Flowers, of Partney, co. Lincoln); born , 1810.
    Tottenham Lane, Hornsey, N.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flood, Frederick Solly

​Flood, Frederick Solly, attorney-general of Gibraltar 186 –77, M.A., Trin. Coll., Camb., 1828, from Harrow, J.P. co. Wexford, assumed the additional surname of Flood , 1820, a student of Lincoln's Inn 28 Jan., 1824, called to the bar 6 May, 1828 (only son of Richard Solly, Esq., of London); born 7 Aug., 1801; married 21 Aug., 1824, Mary, dau. of Rev. Thomas Williamson, of Stoke Damerel, Devonport; she died , 1864, leaving issue (see Foster's Baronetage, Williamson).
    Gibraltar; Slaney Lodge, Enniscorthy; New House, Ormond, Kilkenny; University and Oxford & Cambridge Clubs.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Flood, Luke Trapp

​Flood, Luke Trapp, J.P., D.L. Middlesex, a student of the Middle Temple 10 Jan., 1831, called to the bar 6 May, 1836 (only son of late Lucas Thomas Flood, Esq., of Fairlight, Sussex, dec.); born , 1809; married , 1841, Elizabeth, elder dau. of Robert Todd, Esq., and has issue.
    Belmont, Mill Hill, Hendon, N.
# Men-at-the-Bar/Florens, Jean Emile

​Florens, Jean Emile, a student of the Middle Temple 1 Nov., 1862, called to the bar 9 June, 1865 (2nd son of Jean Emile Florens, Esq., of Mauritius); born , ; married 14 June, 1865, Agnes Josephine, youngest dau. of J. Steggall, of London, M.D.
    Mauritius.
# Moran v. Dillingham

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
174 U.S. 153
Moran v. Dillingham
L. W. Campbell, for petitioners.
George Clark, for respondent.
Mr. Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Moran v. Hagerman/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
151 U.S. 329
Moran v. Hagerman
Complainants below, appellants here, contend that the circuit court had no jurisdiction because the decree of February 2, 1891, was a final decree, and the court had no power, after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered, to entertain the motion and petition, and enter the order of May 9, 1892, and the decree of September 6, 1892, and, further, that the court had no jurisdiction to render affirmative judgments in favor of the defendants against the complainants, because no cross bill had been filed, and no proceedings had or taken, on which such judgments could properly be rendered. On the other hand, it is insisted that the questions raised do not involve the jurisdiction of the circuit court, in the sense in which the term is used in the act of March 3, 1891. Whether the decree of February 2, 1891, was a final decree; whether the objection that no cross bill had been filed came too late; whether the court could proceed in a summary way on petition; whether appearance and objection on the merits waived alleged irregularities; and whether these or like matters might bring a case within the first class named in the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1891,-we find it unecessary to consider, as no question of the jurisdiction of the circuit court was certified to this court for decision, and therefore, for the reasons given in Maynard v. Hecht, 14 Sup. Ct. 353, the appeal must be dismissed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Moran v. Commissioners of Miami County

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
67 U.S. 722
Moran v. Commissioners of Miami County
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.
Mr. Porter, of Indiana, for Plaintiffs in Error.
Mr. Ross, of Indiana, contra.
Mr. Justice WAYNE.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 23

Chapter 23.—Of the Nature of the Human Soul Created in the Image of God.
God, then, made man in His own image. For He created for him a soul endowed with reason and intelligence, so that he might excel all the creatures of earth, air, and sea, which were not so gifted. And when He had formed the man out of the dust of the earth, and had willed that his soul should be such as I have said,—whether He had already made it, and now by breathing imparted it to man, or rather made it by breathing, so that that breath which God made by breathing
(for what else is “to breathe” than to make breath?) is the soul,—He made also a wife for him, to aid him in the work of generating his kind, and her He formed of a bone taken out of the man’s side, working in a divine manner. For we are not to conceive of this work in a carnal fashion, as if God wrought as we commonly see artisans, who use their hands, and material furnished to them, that by their artistic skill they may fashion some material object. God’s hand is God’s power; and He, working invisibly, effects visible results. But this seems fabulous rather than true to men, who measure by customary and everyday works the power and wisdom of God, whereby He understands and produces without seeds even seeds themselves; and because they cannot understand the things which at the beginning were created, they are sceptical regarding them—as if the very things which they do know about human propagation, conceptions and births, would seem less incredible if told to those who had no experience of them; though these very things, too, are attributed by many rather to physical and natural causes than to the work of the divine mind.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See this further discussed in Gen. ad Lit. vii. 35, and in Delitzsch’s Bibl. Psychology.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 26

Chapter 26.—Of that Opinion of the Platonists, that the Angels Were Themselves Indeed Created by God, But that Afterwards They Created Man’s Body.
It is obvious, that in attributing the creation of the other animals to those inferior gods who were made by the Supreme, he meant it to be understood that the immortal part was taken from God Himself, and that these minor creators added the mortal part; that is to say, he meant them to be considered the creators of our bodies, but not of our souls. But since Porphyry maintains that if the soul is to be purified all entanglement with a body must be escaped from; and at the same time agrees with Plato and the Platonistsin thinking that those who have not spent a temperate and honorable life return to mortal bodies as their punishment (to bodies of brutes in Plato’s opinion, to human bodies in Porphyry’s); it follows that those whom they would have us worship as our parents and authors, that they may plausibly call them gods, are, after all, but the forgers of our fetters and chains,—not our creators, but our jailers and turnkeys, who lock us up in the most bitter and melancholy house of correction. Let the Platonists, then, either cease menacing us with our bodies as the punishment of our souls, or preaching that we are to worship as gods those whose work upon us they exhort us by all means in our power to avoid and escape from. But, indeed, both opinions are quite false. It is false that souls return again to this life to be punished; and it is false that there is any other creator of anything in heaven or earth, than He who made the heaven and the earth. For if we live in a body only to expiate our sins, how says Plato in another place, that the world could not have been the most beautiful and good, had it not been filled with all kinds of creatures, mortal and immortal? But if our creation even as mortals be a divine benefit, how is it a punishment to be restored to a body, that is, to a divine benefit? And if God, as Plato continually maintains, embraced in His eternal intelligence the ideas both of the universe and of all the animals, how, then, should He not with His own hand make them all? Could He be unwilling to be the constructor of works, the idea and plan of which called for His ineffable and ineffably to be praised intelligence?

## Footnotes

* ↑ The deity, desirous of making the universe in all respects resemble the most beautiful and entirely perfect of intelligible objects, formed it into one visible animal, containing within itself all the other animals with which it is naturally allied.—Timæus, c. xi.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 21

Chapter 21.—That There Was Created at First But One Individual, and that the Human Race Was Created in Him.
Now that we have solved, as well as we could, this very difficult question about the eternal God creating new things, without any novelty of will, it is easy to see how much better it is that God was pleased to produce the human race from the one individual whom He created, than if He had originated it in several men. For as to the other animals, He created some solitary, and naturally seeking lonely places,—as the eagles, kites, lions, wolves, and such like; others gregarious, which herd together, and prefer to live in company,—as pigeons, starlings, stags, and little fallow deer, and the like: but neither class did He cause to be propagated from individuals, but called into being several at once. Man, on the other hand, whose nature was to be a mean between the angelic and bestial, He created in such sort, that if he remained in subjection to His Creator as his rightful Lord, and piously kept His commandments, he should pass into the company of the angels, and obtain, without the intervention of death, a blessed and endless immortality; but if he offended the Lord his God by a proud and disobedient use of his free will, he should become subject to death, and live as the beasts do,—the slave of appetite, and doomed to eternal punishment after death. And therefore God created only one single man, not, certainly, that he might be a solitary, bereft of all society, but that by this means the unity of society and the bond of concord might be more effectually commended to him, men being bound together not only by similarity of nature, but by family affection. And indeed He did not even create the woman that was to be given him as his wife, as he created the man, but created her out of the man, that the whole human race might derive from one man.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Coquaeus remarks that this is levelled against the Pelagians.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 24

Chapter 24.—Whether the Angels Can Be Said to Be the Creators of Any, Even the Least Creature.
But in this book we have nothing to do with those who do not believe that the divine mind made or cares for this world. As for those who believe their own Plato, that all mortal animals—among whom man holds the pre-eminent place, and is near to the gods themselves—were created not by that most high God who made the world, but by other lesser gods created by the Supreme, and exercising a delegated power under His control,—if only those persons be delivered from the superstition which prompts them to seek a plausible reason for paying divine honors and sacrificing to these gods as their creators, they will easily be disentangled also from this their error. For it is blasphemy to believe or to say (even before it can be understood) that any other than God is creator of any nature, be it never so small and mortal. And as for the angels, whom those Platonists prefer to call gods, although they do, so far as they are permitted and commissioned, aid in the production of the things around us, yet not on that account are we to call them creators, any more than we call gardeners the creators of fruits and trees.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—That the Whole Plenitude of the Human Race Was Embraced in the First Man, and that God There Saw the Portion of It Which Was to Be Honored and Rewarded, and that Which Was to Be Condemned and Punished.
With good cause, therefore, does the true religion recognize and proclaim that the same God who created the universal cosmos, created also all the animals, souls as well as bodies. Among the terrestrial animals man was made by Him in His own image, and, for the reason I have given, was made one individual, though he was not left solitary. For there is nothing so social by nature, so unsocial by its corruption, as this race. And human nature has nothing more appropriate, either for the prevention of discord, or for the
healing of it, where it exists, than the remembrance of that first parent of us all, whom God was pleased to create alone, that all men might be derived from one, and that they might thus be admonished to preserve unity among their whole multitude. But from the fact that the woman was made for him from his side, it was plainly meant that we should learn how dear the bond between man and wife should be. These works of God do certainly seem extraordinary, because they are the first works. They who do not believe them, ought not to believe any prodigies; for these would not be called prodigies did they not happen out of the ordinary course of nature. But, is it possible that anything should happen in vain, however hidden be its cause, in so grand a government of divine providence? One of the sacred Psalmists says, “Come, behold the works of the Lord, what prodigies He hath wrought in the earth.” Why God made woman out of man’s side, and what this first prodigy prefigured, I shall, with God’s help, tell in another place. But at present, since this book must be concluded, let us merely say that in this first man, who was created in the beginning, there was laid the foundation, not indeed evidently, but in God’s foreknowledge, of these two cities or societies, so far as regards the human race. For from that man all men were to be derived—some of them to be associated with the good angels in their reward, others with the wicked in punishment; all being ordered by the secret yet just judgment of God. For since it is written, “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth,” neither can His grace be unjust, nor His justice cruel.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. xlvi. 8.
* ↑ Ps. xxv. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 2

Chapter 2.—That There is No Entity Contrary to the Divine, Because Nonentity Seems to Be that Which is Wholly Opposite to Him Who Supremely and Always is.
This may be enough to prevent any one from supposing, when we speak of the apostate angels, that they could have another nature, derived, as it were, from some different origin, and not from God. From the great impiety of this error we shall disentangle ourselves the more readily and easily, the more distinctly we understand that which God spoke by the angel when He sent Moses to the children of Israel: “I am that I am.” For since God is the supreme existence, that is to say, supremely is, and is therefore unchangeable, the things that He made He empowered to be, but not to be supremely like Himself. To some He communicated a more ample, to others a more limited existence, and thus arranged the natures of beings in ranks. For as from sapere comes sapientia, so from esse comes essentia,—a new word indeed, which the old Latin writers did not use, but which is naturalized in our day, that our language may not want an equivalent for the Greek οὐσία. For this is expressed word for word by essentia. Consequently, to that nature which supremely is, and which created all else that exists, no nature is contrary save that which does not exist. For nonentity is the contrary of that which is. And thus there is no being contrary to God, the Supreme Being, and Author of all beings whatsoever.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Essentia.
* ↑ Ex. iii. 14.
* ↑ Quintilian calls it dura.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 19

Chapter 19.—Of Worlds Without End, or Ages of Ages.
I do not presume to determine whether God does so, and whether these times which are called “ages of ages” are joined together in a continuous series, and succeed one another with a regulated diversity, and leave exempt from their vicissitudes only those who are freed from their misery, and abide without end in a blessed immortality; or whether these are called “ages of ages,” that we may understand that the ages remain unchangeable in God’s unwavering wisdom, and are the efficient causes, as it were, of those ages which are being spent in time. Possibly “ages” is used for “age,” so that nothing else is meant by “ages of ages” than by “age of age,” as nothing else is meant by “heavens of heavens” than by “heaven of
heaven.” For God called the firmament, above which are the waters, “Heaven,” and yet the psalm says, “Let the waters that are above the heavens praise the name of the Lord.” Which of these two meanings we are to attach to “ages of ages,” or whether there is not some other and better meaning still, is a very profound question; and the subject we are at present handling presents no obstacle to our meanwhile deferring the discussion of it, whether we may be able to determine anything about it, or may only be made more cautious by its further treatment, so as to be deterred from making any rash affirmations in a matter of such obscurity. For at present we are disputing the opinion that affirms the existence of those periodic revolutions by which the same things are always recurring at intervals of time. Now whichever of these suppositions regarding the “ages of ages” be the true one, it avails nothing for the substantiating of those cycles; for whether the ages of ages be not a repetition of the same world, but different worlds succeeding one another in a regulated connection, the ransomed souls abiding in well-assured bliss without any recurrence of misery, or whether the ages of ages be the eternal causes which rule what shall be and is in time, it equally follows, that those cycles which bring round the same things have no existence; and nothing more thoroughly explodes them than the fact of the eternal life of the saints.

## Footnotes

* ↑ De sæculis sæculorum.
* ↑ Ps. cxlviii. 4.