OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Adalbert

From volume 1 of the work.
​Adalbert, Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, b. about 1000; d. 1072 at Goslar; son of Count Friedrich von Goseck, and Agnes of the lineage of the Weimar Counts. He became successively canon in Halberstadt; subdeacon to the Archbishop of Hamburg (1032); Provost of the Halberstadt Cathedral; and Archbishop of Hamburg (1043 or 1045) by royal appointment, with supremacy over the Scandinavian Peninsula and a great part of the Wend lands, in addition to the territory north of the Elbe. He is probably the Adalbert mentioned as the Chancellor for Italy under Henry III in 1045. At the very outset of his episcopal career he took up the old feud of Hamburg with the Billings, in which he had the cooperation of Henry III. Having accompanied the Emperor on a campaign against the Liutzi (1045), he also journeyed with him to Rome (1046). Upon the settlement of the papal schism Henry wished to make Adalbert Pope, but he refused, and presented his friend Suidger (Clement II) as a candidate. He cooperated in the conversion of the Wends, and three new bishoprics were erected, all subject to Hamburg. Adalbert then conceived the idea of a great northern patriarchate, with its seat at Hamburg, but was constantly foiled. The Kings of Norway and Sweden began to send their bishops to England for consecration, and Sven Estrithson, King of Denmark, appealed to Henry and Pope Leo IX for an archbishop of his own, which would mean a loss to Hamburg of lands just yielding fruits after two hundred years of evangelization. The assent of Adalbert was necessary for such a decision, which he promised to ratify only on condition that his dream of a northern patriarchate be realized. The whole discussion was cut short by the death of both Pope (1054) and Emperor (1056).
During the regency of Empress Agnes, Adalbert lost his hold on the court, and the young Emperor, Henry IV, fell under the influence of Anno, Archbishop of Cologne. Despite the ancient feud between Hamburg and Cologne, Adalbert gained control of Henry's education, eventually superseding Anno in his confidence and esteem. In extenuation of Adalbert's eagerness to obtain privileges for his archdiocese it must be recalled that he had sacrificed much in the royal service, and that his influence was ever for the more open and straightforward course of action, in contradistinction to that of the opposition party. His flattery and indulgence of Henry, however, were baneful in their effects. Forced to retire from court in 1066, by the jealousy of the nobles, he was again admitted to Henry's councils in 1069. His ascendency over the Emperor ended only with his death (1072). Archbishop Adalbert is characterized by Adam of Bremen as minax vultu et habitu verborumque altitudine suspectus audientibus. Generous, prudent, and zealous as he was, his character was marred by indomitable pride, which has caused him to be depicted in the blackest colours.
Adami Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiæ pontificum, ed. Lappenberg, Mon. Germ., SS. VII, 267; Giesebrecht, Deutsche Kaiserzeit, III; Wattenbach, Geschichtsquellen, II, 63; Pastor in Kirchenlex., s. v.
F. M. Rudge.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Actus primus

From volume 1 of the work.
​Actus primus, a technical expression used in scholastic philosophy. Actus means determination, complement, perfection. In every being there are many actualities, and these are subordinated. Thus existence supposes essence; power supposes existence; action supposes faculty. The first actuality (actus primus) begins a series; it supposes no other actuality preceding it in the same series, but calls for a further complement, namely, the second actuality (actus secundus). But as the same reality may be called "actuality" when viewed in the light of what precedes, and "potentiality" when viewed in the light of what follows (see Actus et Potentia), the meaning of the term "first actuality" may vary according to the view one takes, and the point where the series is made to begin. Primary matter (see Matter and Form) is a pure potentiality, and the substantial form is its first determination, its first actuality. The complete substance constituted by these two principles receives further determinations, which are, in that respect, second actualities. Yet these may also be conceived as first actualities. Thus the extensive quantity of a substance is a first actuality when compared to the shape. Power is a first actuality when compared to action. And this is the most frequent application of the terms actus primus and actus secundus. The former is the faculty; the latter, the exercise, or function. To see in actu primo simply means to have the sense of vision; to see in actu secundo is to actually perform acts of vision. The modern distinction of potential and kinetic energy might serve as another illustration: the loaded gun, or the engine with steam up represent first actualities; the bullet speeding to the mark, the engine flying over the rails, represent second actualities.
C. A. Dubray.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ad Limina Apostolorum

From volume 1 of the work.
​Ad Limina Apostolorum, an ecclesiastical term meaning a pilgrimage to the sepulchres of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, i.e. to the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles and to the Basilica of St. Paul "outside the walls".
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem

From volume 1 of the work.
​Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem.—This letter was issued by Alexander VII, and is dated at Rome, 16 October, 1656, the second year of his pontificate. It is a confirmation of the Constitution of Innocent X, by which he condemned five propositions taken from the work entitled "Augustinus" of Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres. The letter opens with an explanation of the reason for its publication. It observes that, although what has already been defined in the Apostolic Constitutions needs no confirmation by any future decisions, yet, since some try to cast doubt upon these definitions or to neutralise their effort by false interpretations, the apostolic authority must not defer using a prompt remedy against the spread of the evil. The letter then refers to the decision of Innocent X, and quotes the words of its title in order to show that it was a decision for all the faithful. But as a controversy had arisen, especially in France, on five propositions taken from the "Augustinus", several French bishops submitted them to Alexander VII for a clear, definite decision. The letter thus enumerates these five propositions: (1) There are some divine precepts which are impossible of observance by just men willing and trying to observe them according to their present strength; the grace also is wanting to them, by which those precepts are possible. (2) In the state of fallen nature interior grace is not resisted. (3) For merit and demerit, in the state of fallen nature, libertas a necessitate (liberty to choose) is not necessary for man; libertas a coactione (freedom from external compulsion) is enough. (4) The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace (prævenientis gratiæ interioris) for each and every act, even for the beginning of faith (initium fidei); and in that they were heretical, inasmuch as they held that grace to be such as the human will could resist or obey. (5) It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died, or shed His blood for all men.
The letter then goes on to declare that, those five propositions having been submitted to due examination each was found to be heretical. The letter repeats each proposition singly, and formally condemns it. It next declares that the decision binds all the faithful, and enjoins on all bishops to enforce it, and adds, "We are not to be understood, however, by making this declaration and definition on those five propositions, as at all approving other opinions contained in the above-named book of Cornelius Jansenius." Moreover, since some still insisted that those propositions were not to be found in the "Augustinus", or were not meant by the author in the sense in which they were condemned, the letter furthermore declares that they are contained in the "Augustinus", and have been condemned according to the sense of the author.
Bullarium Romanum (ed. Turin, 1869), XVI, 245–247.
M. O'Riordan.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Acuas

From volume 1 of the work.
​Acuas, one of the first to spread Manicheism in the Christian Orient. He was probably a Mesopotamian, and introduced the heresy into Eleutheropolis (Palestine). The Manichieans were sometimes called after him Acuanitæ. St. Epiphanius (Adv. Hær., lxvi, 1) calls him a veteranus, i.e. an ex-soldier of the empire, and fixes his propaganda in the fourth year of the reign of Aurelian (273).
Cowell, in Dict. of Christ. Biogr., I. 32.
John J. a' Becket.
# Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Ad Apostolicae Dignitatis Apicem

From volume 1 of the work.
​Ad Apostolicæ Dignitatis Apicem.—Apostolic letter issued against Emperor Frederick II by Pope Innocent IV (1243–54), during the Council of Lyons, 17 July, 1245, the third year of his pontificate. The letter sets forth that Innocent, desiring to have peace restored to those parts which were then distracted by dissensions, sent for that purpose three legates to Frederick as the chief author of those evils, pointed out the way to peace, and promised that he would do his own part to restore it. Frederick agreed to terms of peace, which he swore to observe, but which he at once violated. The letter then sets forth the crimes of which Frederick was guilty. It accuses him of perjury; of contempt for the spiritual authority of the Roman Pontiff, by disregarding the excommunication pronounced against him and by compelling others to do so; of invading pontifical territory; of having broken the terms of peace made with Pope Gregory, and which he swore to keep; of oppressing the Church in Sicily; of having taken, persecuted, and done to death bishops and others who were on their way to Rome for a council which he himself had asked to be convoked; of having incurred suspicion of heresy for treating a papal excommunication with contempt; of having ​conspired with the Saracens and other enemies of Christianity; of being guilty of the death of the King of Bavaria, and of giving his daughter in marriage to a schismatic; of not paying tribute for Sicily, which is the patrimony of St. Peter. For these and for other crimes, Innocent IV, by this apostolic letter, declares Frederick unworthy to rule, and his subjects freed from their duty of obedience to him as sovereign.
Bullar. Roman. (ed., Turin, 1858), III, 510–516; Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXIII, 613–619; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, V, 1125; Rohrbacher, Hist. univ. de l'église, IX, 14–16.
M. O'Riordan.
# Bible (Early Wycliffe)/Þe Preier of Manasses

Lord God Almyȝty of our faders, Abraham, Yſaac, and Jacob, and to þe riȝtwiſe ſeede of hem, þe whiche madiſt heuen and erþ wiþ al þe ournynge of hem, þe whiche markediſt þe ſe wiþ þe word of þin heſte, whiche cloſediſt þe depneſſe, and merkediſt to þi ferful and preyſable name, þat alle inwardly dreeden, and tremblen fro þi chere of þi vertue, and vnſuffrable wraþ vpon þe ſynnful of þi þretynge. Forſoþe wiþ oute meſure grete and vnſerchable þe mercy of þi beheſte; for þou art Lord alþerheeȝeſt vpon al erþ, long abidyng and miche mercyful, and oþinkyng vpon þe malices of men. Þou forſoþe, Lord, after þi goodneſſe haſt bihoten penaunce of remiſſioun of ſynnes; and þou, God of riȝtwijs men, haſt not putte penaunce to þe riȝtwijſe, Abraham, Yſaac, and Jacob, to hem þat to þee ſynnede not. For I haue ſynnede ouer þe noumbre of grauel of þe ſee; multiplied ben my wickidneſſes. I am myche croked wiþ myche bond of yren, and þere is not aȝeyn breþing to me; for I ſtirede þi wraþ, and euyl before þee I dide, ſettyng abomynacyouns and multiplying offenciouns. And nowe I bowe þe knees of myn herte, preyinge of þee goodneſſe, Lord. I ſynnede, Lord, I ſynnede, and my wickidneſſe I knowe. I aſke, preyinge þee, Lord; forȝeue to me, forȝeue to me, ne togidre leeſe þou me wiþ my wickidneſſes, ne wiþout eend reſerue þou euyls to me. For vnworþi þou ſchalt ſauen me after þi grete mercy, and I ſchal preyſen þee euermore alle þe days of my lyue; for þee preyſeþ al þe vertue of heuens, and to þee is glorie in to world of worldis. Amen.
# Bought and Paid For

Duet. (Hans and Dolly.)
(She.) Love used to be such a perfect dream of romance, Now its a bus'ness deal, (He.) Right upto date is Romeo, (She.) And Juliet is not so slow.
(He.) For our modern marriages leave nothing to chance, Lovers no longer kneel, (She.) Love is not a sentimental song impassioned (He.) Moonlight, music, Poetry and flow'rs all
(She.) That's old fashioned now (He.) That's old fashioned.
Girls never say they will honor and obey, They're much too wise, (She.) That is quite passé, (He.) But leave that to me and in time well
Refrain. (She.) You're the prize I played for, that's what men are made for, Now your liberty you resign, You are mine Bought and paid for.
Cupid's ship entices, All must pay his prices, If a bargain you seem to be, you're sent home C. O. D.
(He.) But we'll be happy you and I In spite of any marriage tie. Let us pretend we don't care what the world discovers
(She.) Let us imagine we are free Like turtle doves we will agree, (Both.) And all the world will say we're a pair of foolish lovers
(She.) Because dear, Girls in the olden days were clinging young vines Men the oaks they say (He.) That clinging vine is now a joke, (She.) Unless it's she who is the oak.
(He.) That sort of theory is folly you'll find, Battles the man must fight (She.) So must she, she has to be her own defender
(He.) He's the strong one and his motto must be: (She.) Don't offend her please. (He.) No surrender.
If we are one, we will soon decide which one, If you or I. (She.) Either you or I. (He.) When we disagree leave it all to me.
Refrain. (She.) You're the prize I played for that's what men are make for Now your liberty you resign You are mine Bought and paid for.
Cupid's shop entices, All must pay his prices, If a bargain you seem to be, You're sent home C. O. D.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1945, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 78 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company/Concurrence Reed

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Reed
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 336
Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company
Argued: Feb. 11, 1955. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1955
Mr. Justice REED concurs in the result on the ground of the negligence of the ship's officers.

## 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
# Boughton v. Exchange Bank

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 427
Boughton v. Exchange Bank
MOTION to dismiss a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Pennsylvania.
This was a suit brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, by the American Exchange National Bank, against John W. Boughton, upon two promissory notes, whereof he was the maker. His affidavit of defence, alleging usury, having been declared to be insufficient, judgment was rendered against him, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State. He then sued out this writ.
Mr. Samuel Wagner in support of the motion.
Mr. Thomas Greenbank, contra.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE 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
# Boughton v. Exchange Bank/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 427
Boughton v. Exchange Bank
To give us jurisdiction for the review of a judgment of a State court, the record must show affirmatively, or by fair implication, that some Federal question was involved which was necessary to the determination of the cause. The defence set up in this case was that the notes sued on were void for usury under the laws of New York, where they were made. Judgment was given against the plaintiff in error for want of a sufficient affidavit of defence. This judgment would be right if the affidavit was not such as was required by law or the practice of the court for the presentation of a defence like that relied on. As it is incumbent on him to show by the record, not only that this was not the ground of the decision below, but that some wrong determination of a Federal question was,-and it has not been done,-we might dismiss the suit without further examination; but on looking into the opinion, which has been sent up with the record, we find that the Court of Appeals based its judgment, which alone we can review, entirely on the fact that the affidavit was not sufficiently specific in its averments to meet the requirements of the rules of pleading applicable to such cases.
It is clear, therefore, that we have no jurisdiction.
Motion granted.

## 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
# Bouie v. City of Columbia

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that due process prohibits retroactive application of any judicial construction of a criminal statute that is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which has been expressed prior to the conduct in issue. This holding is based on the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition by the Due Process Clause against ex post facto laws.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
378 U.S. 347
Bouie v. City of Columbia
Certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina
No. 10 Argued: October 14-15, 1963 --- Decided: June 22, 1964
Jack Greenberg, New York City, Matthew Perry, Columbia, S.C., and Mrs. Constance B. Motley, New York City, for petitioners.
David W. Robinson, II, and John W. Sholenberger, Columbia, S.C., for respondent.
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Botswana China Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations

* related portals: Historical documents.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Republic of Botswana have decided to establish diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level as of January 6th 1975.
The Government of the People's Republic of China resolutely supports the just struggle of the Government of the Republic of Botswana for safeguarding national independence and state sovereignty and developing national economy.
The Government of the Republic of Botswana acknowledges that the Government of the People?s Republic of China is the only legitimate government representing the entire Chinese people and that Taiwan Province is an inseparable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
The two governments agree to develop friendly relations and cooperation between China and Botswana on the basis of the following principles?mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-aggression against the other country, non-interference into internal affairs of the other country, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful coexistence.
Ambassador extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People?s Republic of China and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Botswana to the United Nations Huang Hua
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Botswana and Permanent Representative of the Republic of Botswana to the United Nations Morgami
January 6th 1975 in New York
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Botticelli's Madonna in the Louvre

WHAT strange presentiment, O Mother, lies On thy waste brow and sadly-folded lips, Forefeeling the Light's terrible eclipse On Calvary, as if love made thee wise, And thou couldst read in those dear infant eyes The sorrow that beneath their smiling sleeps, And guess what bitter tears a mother weeps When the cross darkens her unclouded skies?
Sad Lady, if some mother, passing thee, Should feel a throb of thy foreboding pain, And think——"My child at home clings so to me, With the same smile . . . and yet in vain, in vain, Since even this Jesus died on Calvary"—— Say to her then: "He also rose again."
# Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Reed
United States Supreme Court
348 U.S. 336
Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers Steamship Company
Argued: Feb. 11, 1955. --- Decided: Feb 28, 1955
Mr.
Raymond H. Kierr, New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Mr. Andrew R. Martinez, New Orleans, La., for respondent.
Mr. Justice DOUGLAS 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
# COUNCIL DECISION (CFSP) 2022/267/4

| Name | Identifying information | Reasons | Date of listing |