OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Eric the Red

Edition of 1900.
​ERIC THE RED, Scandinavian navigator. He was the son of a jarl of Jadar, and was called red from the color of his hair. In 982 he was one of the Northmen who braved the dangers of the Atlantic ocean to settle in Iceland. During the following year he set sail from Bredifiord in search of land seen by Gunnbjörn, of which a tradition still lingered among the Northmen. He doubled Cape Farewell, and sailed up the west coast to the present site of Julianeshaab, where he saw large herds of reindeer browsing on the meadowlands. The country pleased him, and he named it Greenland, and the inlet Ericfiord. In 985 he returned to Iceland, but soon again set sail with twenty-five ships loaded with emigrants, and the means of founding a colony. He reached Ericfiord with but fourteen of his vessels, the remainder having been lost or forced to put back, and he built a settlement far up the fiord. The town grew and prospered, and in time the coast was explored and new plantations founded. As no trees grow in that region now, it is probable that the land was far more habitable than at present, and very little mention of ice is made by the early chroniclers. About 1000, an exploring party sent out by him, under the command of his son Leif, discovered the continent of North America, part of which they called Markland, and another part Vinland. The latter appears to have been southeastern New England. He is supposed to have established a colony in that neighborhood, but the evidence on which this supposition is made is not satisfactory. See Bryant and Gay's “Popular History of the United States,” and Rev. Benjamin F. De Costa's “Pre-Columbian Discovery of America by the Northmen”; also, Laing's “Heimskringla,” which contains by far the ablest discussion of the subject.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Erich, Augustus Frederick

Edition of 1900.
​ERICH, Augustus Frederick, physician, b. in Eisleben, Germany, 4 May, 1837. He was educated at the gymnasium in Eisleben, and came to the United States in 1856. He was graduated in medicine at the University of Maryland in 1861, and began to practise in Baltimore. In 1868 he was elected a member of the Baltimore special dispensary, and was assigned to the charge of diseases of women. He became professor of chemistry in the College of physicians and surgeons in Baltimore in 1873, and was afterward elected to fill the chair of diseases of women in the same institution. He is a member of numerous medical societies, and in 1871 was president of the Medical and surgical society of Baltimore. His contributions to medical literature have been important, and are chiefly composed of papers on his specialties.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Erben, Peter

Edition of 1900. The 1892 edition notes that Peter's son "was apprenticed in 1818 to Thomas Hall, an organ-builder."
​ERBEN, Peter, organist, b. in Philadelphia, Pa., in 1771; d. in New York city in 1863. After the death of his father, who was one of the early German settlers in Pennsylvania, he removed to New York, where he became an organ-builder, and was also organist in Trinity parish from 1807 till 1839. — His son, Henry, b. in New York city in 1801; d. there in May, 1883, was also an organ-builder. — Peter's grandson, Henry, b. in New York city, entered the navy as midshipman in 1848, and was retired as rear-admiral in September, 1894.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Eric

Edition of 1900.
​ERIC, bishop, b. in Norway in the 11th century, he was active in the conversion of the natives of Greenland, and was the first bishop that exercised jurisdiction in America. As soon as the Norwegians under Thorwald began to form settlements in Vinland, Eric followed his countrymen from Greenland to the newly discovered continent. Here he labored among the natives for several years. He returned to Norway in 1120, gave an account of the progress of religion in Vinland and Greenland, and advised the establishment of a bishopric in the new colonies. The bishop of Scandinavia erected the new see of Garda in Greenland, and recommended Eric as bishop. He was consecrated at Lund, in Denmark, in 1121, by Archbishop Adzar, and sailed for Garda with a body of missionaries, but, after a short stay, visited the new colony in Vinland. The situation of Vinland has been fixed by some in southeastern New England. Some have gone so far as to place it about Narragansett bay; but such conjectures are supported by inadequate evidence, and have little historical value.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Ercilla y Zúñiga, Alonso de

Edition of 1900.
ERCILLA Y ZÚÑIGA, Alonso de (er-theel'-ya), Spanish poet, b. in Madrid, 7 Aug., 1533; d. there about 1595. He was the third son of Fortun Garcia, lord of Torre de Ercilla, and Leonor de Zuñiga, a noble lady in the service of Empress Isabella, wife of Charles V. In early youth he was a page to the Prince of Asturias, afterward Philip II., and in 1554 accompanied Philip to England on the occasion of the latter's marriage to Queen Mary. While he was in London news was received of the rebellion of the Araucanians, a brave nation of Chili, and Ercilla at once joined the expedition against them under Alderete. He highly distinguished himself in the campaign that followed, taking part in seven battles and many other fierce encounters. He afterward accompanied Hurtado de Mendoza to the conquest of Chiloe, near the straits of Magellan, and with ten followers, on 28 Feb., 1558, penetrated inland to a point that had been reached by no other Europeans, leaving a statement of that fact in verse, cut in the bark of a tree. After taking possession of those regions in the name of the Spanish monarch, he returned to the city of Imperial, and, being suspected of joining in a mutiny, was condemned to be beheaded, but was reprieved and afterward exiled. While at Lima he heard of the rebellion and cruelties of Lope de Aguirre in Venezuela, and ​reached Panama in 1561, on his way to fight against him; but Aguirre had just been deposed and killed, and Ercilla, after a long and dangerous illness, returned to Spain in 1562. After travelling extensively through Europe, he entered the service of the Emperor Rudolph, of Austria, as one of his chamberlains, but about 1580 returned to Madrid, where he passed the rest of his life in retirement, almost forgotten, and in extreme poverty. When Ercilla began his seven years' campaign in Chili he conceived the idea of making it the subject of a poem; and in the intervals of active duty, mostly at night-time, he composed the first part of “La Araucana,” writing his verses on scraps of paper, and often on bits of leather. The third and last part of the poem he finished after his return to Spain. “La Araucana” is one of the most celebrated of Spanish epics, and one of the best ever written in any language. It not only possesses the merit of pure diction, vivid description, and majestic style, but it is also a true history of the Araucanian war, in which the author was personally engaged, and as such has been used by the most conscientious historians. The first fifteen cantos of “La Araucana” were published in Madrid in 1569, the second part in 1578, and the third part, completing the thirty-seven cantos, in 1590. Its best editions are those of Madrid (1776 and 1828). A portion of the poem, translated into French by Grainville, is found in vol. vii. of the “Quatre Saisons du Parnasse.” An analysis of the poem, with translations of parts of it, has been made in Hayley's “Essay on Epic Poetry” (London, 1782).
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus/Chap. VI

Chap. VI.—That God is Angry.
These are the opinions entertained by the philosophers respecting God. But if we have discovered that these things which have been spoken are false, there remains that one last resource, in which alone the truth can be found, which has never been embraced by philosophers, nor at any time defended: that it follows that God is angry, since He is moved by kindness. This opinion is to be maintained and asserted by us; for this is the sum and turning-point on which the whole of piety and religion depend: and no honour can be due to God, if He affords nothing to His worshippers; and no fear, if He is not angry with him who does not worship Him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ In eo enim summa omnis et cardo religionis pietatisque versatur.
* ↑ [This fear of the Lord is filial, not servile; and this anger is likewise twofold, including fatherly and corrective indignation, and the wrath of the magistrate, which inflicts penalty and retribution. Compare Ps. vii. 11; also p. 104, note 1, supra.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus/Chap. IX

Chap. IX.—Of the Providence of God, and of Opinions Opposed to It.
When the philosophers of former times had agreed in their opinions respecting providence, and there was no doubt but that the world was set in order by God and reason, and was governed by reason, Protagoras, in the times of Socrates, was the first of all who said that it was not clear to him whether there was any divinity or not. And this disputation of his was judged so impious, and so contrary to the truth and to religion, that the Athenians both banished him from their territories, and burnt in a public assembly those books of his in which these statements were contained. But there is no need to speak respecting his opinions, because he pronounced nothing certain. After these things Socrates and his disciple Plato, and those who flowed forth from the school of Plato like rivulets into different directions, namely, the Stoics and Peripatetics, were of the same opinion as those who went before them.
Afterwards Epicurus said that there was indeed a God, because it was necessary that there should be in the world some being of surpassing excellence, distinction, and blessedness; yet that there was no providence, and thus that the world itself was ordered by no plan, nor art, nor workmanship, but that the universe was made up of certain minute and indivisible seeds. But I do not see what can be said more repugnant to the truth. For if there is a God, as God He is manifestly provident; nor can divinity be attributed to Him in any other way than if He retains the past, and knows the present, and foresees the future. Therefore, in taking away providence, he also denied the existence of God. But when he openly acknowledged the existence of God, at the same time he also admitted His providence for the one cannot exist at all, or be understood, without the other. But in those later times in which philosophy had now lost its vigour there lived a certain Diagoras of Melos, who altogether denied the existence of God, and on account of this sentiment was called atheist; also Theodorus of Cyrene: both of whom, because they were unable to discover anything new, all things having already been said and found out, preferred even, in opposition to the truth, to deny that in which all preceding philosophers had agreed without any ambiguity. These are they who attacked providence, which had been asserted and defended through so many ages by so many intellects. What then? Shall we refute those trifling and inactive philosophers by reason, or by the authority of distinguished men, or rather by both? But we must hasten onwards, lest our speech should wander too far from our subject.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [A beautiful formula of the history of Greek philosophy.]
* ↑ Defloruerat.
* ↑ [Vol. vi. p. 421.]
* ↑ ἅθεος.
* ↑ [Vol. vi. p. 421.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Lactantius/A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus/Chap. III

Chap. III.—Of the Good and Evil Things in Human Affairs, and of Their Author.
First, no one ever said this respecting God, that He is only subject to anger, and is not influenced by kindness. For it is unsuitable to God, that He should be endowed with a power of this kind, by which He may injure and do harm, but be unable to profit and to do good. What means, therefore, what hope of safety, is proposed to men, if God is the author of evils only? For if this is so, that venerable majesty will now be drawn out, not to the power of the judge, to whom it is permitted to preserve and set at liberty, but to the office of the torturer and executioner. But whereas we see that there are not only evils in human affairs, but also goods, it is plain that if God is the author of evils, there must be another who does things contrary to God, and gives to us good things. If there is such a one, by what name must he be called? Why is he who injures us more known to us than He who benefits us? But if this can be nothing besides God, it is absurd and vain to suppose that the divine power, than which nothing is greater or better, is able to injure, but unable to benefit; and accordingly no one has ever existed who ventured to assert this, because it is neither reasonable nor in any way credible. And because this is agreed upon, let us pass on and seek after the truth elsewhere.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter XI

Chapter XI.
But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true light,—of whom it has been said, “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light, and who have apprehended that the Son of God is “the true light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and who comprehend also how He says, “I am the light of the world,” would not rationally offer worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars, in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a view to depreciate these great works of God’s creative power, or to call them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, “fiery masses,” that we thus speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those beings who themselves offer up prayers (to God), seeing even they themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or apportion our power of prayer between God and them. And here I may employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as “Good Master,” referring him who used it to His own Father, said, “Why callest thou Me good?  There is none good but one, that is, God the Father.” And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this should be said by the Son of His Father’s love, as being the image of the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? “for thou wilt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve;” for it is He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one may not be so exalted (as the sun), nevertheless let such an one pray to the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father, who also to the righteous of former times “sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions.”
* ↑ Cf. 1 John i. 5.
* ↑ μύδρον διάπυρον.
* ↑ τὴν εὐκτικὴν δύναμιν.
* ↑ [See note in Migne’s edition of Origen’s Works, vol. i. p. 1195; also note supra, p. 262. S.]
* ↑ Cf. Matt. xix. 17; cf. Mark x. 18.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Cf. Deut. vi. 13.
* ↑ Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter XII

Chapter XII.
God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in any local sense, but through His providence; while the Son of God, not only (when on earth), but at all times, is with His own disciples, fulfilling the promise, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” And if a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in the vine, it is evident that the disciples also of the Word, who are the rational branches of the Word’s true vine, cannot produce the fruits of virtue unless they abide in the true vine, the Christ of God, who is with us locally here below upon the earth, and who is with those who cleave to Him in all parts of the world, and is also in all places with those who do not know Him. Another is made manifest by that John who wrote the Gospel, when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he said, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it is who cometh after me.” And it is absurd, when He who fills heaven and earth, and who said, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord,” is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when He says, “I am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the Lord”) to seek to pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not reach the whole of the world. But, to use the very words of Celsus, let it be granted that “the sun, moon, and stars do foretell rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders,” why, then, if they really do foretell such great things, ought we not rather to do homage to God, whose servant they are in uttering these predictions, and show reverence to Him rather than His prophets? Let them predict, then, the approach of lightnings, and fruits, and all manner of productions, and let all such things be under their administration; yet we shall not on that account worship those who themselves offer worship, as we do not worship even Moses, and those prophets who came from God after him, and who predicted better things than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders, and lightnings, and fruits, and all sorts of productions visible to the senses. Nay, even if sun, and moon, and stars were able to prophesy better things than rain, not even then shall we worship them, but the Father of the prophecies which are in them, and the Word of God, their minister. But grant that they are His heralds, and truly messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship the God whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the heralds and messengers?
* ↑ προνοητικῶς.
* ↑ Matt. xxviii. 20.
* ↑ Cf. John i. 26, 27.
* ↑ Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.
* ↑ Cf. Jer. xxiii. 23.
* ↑ ζητεῖν εὔχεσθαι τῷ μὴ φθάνοντι ἐπὶ τὰ σύμπαντα.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter XLI

Chapter XLI.
Let us notice the charges which are next advanced by Celsus, in which there is exceedingly little that has reference to the Christians, as most of them refer to the Jews. His words are: “If, then, in these respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves, they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. ‘For they have a custom,’ he says, ‘of going up to the tops of the mountains, and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of Jupiter to the whole circle of the heavens.’ And I think,” continues Celsus, “that it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain from swine’s flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything that contains life.  It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God’s favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them ‘some region of the blessed,’ for we see both themselves and the country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band, then, take its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end.”
* ↑ Cf. Herodot., i. 131.
* ↑ οἷον δή τινα μακάρων χώραν λαχοῦσιν.
* ↑ χορός.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book V/Chapter XLIII

Chapter XLIII.
But what need is there to point out how agreeable to sound reason, and unattended with injury either to master or slave, was the law that one of the same faith should not be allowed to continue in slavery more than six years? The Jews, then, cannot be said to preserve their own law in the same points with the other nations. For it would be censurable in them, and would involve a charge of insensibility to the superiority of their law, if they were to believe that they had been legislated for in the same way as the other nations among the heathen. And although Celsus will not admit it, the Jews nevertheless are possessed of a wisdom superior not only to that of the multitude, but also of those who have the appearance of philosophers; because those who engage in philosophical pursuits, after the utterance of the most venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into the worship of idols and demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his look to the Supreme God alone; and they do well, indeed, so far as this point is concerned, to pride themselves thereon, and to keep aloof from the society of others as accursed and impious. And would that they had not sinned, and transgressed the law, and slain the prophets in former times, and in these latter days conspired against Jesus, that we might be in possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would have sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished as much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a “chosen generation,” and “a holy nation,” dedicated to God, with words free from all superstition.
* ↑ τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁρώμενον δογμάτων.
* ↑ Cf. Ex. xxi. 2 and Jer. xxxiv. 14. [An important comment on Mosaic servitude.]