OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Introduction/Literature

2. Literature.
1. The literature on Jerome is immense. The most often quoted general works are Zöckler, Hieronymus. Gotha, 1865 and Thierry, St. Jérome Par. 1867. On Jerome in general the article by Freemantle in Smith and Wace Dict. of Christian Biography is the first for the English reader to turn to. Ceillier and other patrologies, while sufficiently full for their purpose, give very little special treatment to this work, Ebert (Gesch. chr.-Lat.-Lit. Lpz. 1874) being a partial exception to this statement. The best literary sources are the prolegomena and notes to the various editions of the work itself. Much the same may be said of Gennadius though the relative importance of his catalogue among his writings gives that a larger proportionate attention. In English the article by Cazenove in Smith and Wace and in French the account in the Histoire litteraire de la France are the best generally accessible references.
2. Literature on the writers mentioned by Jerome and Gennadius. Any one who cares to follow up in English the study of any of the writers mentioned in the Lives of illustrious men will find tools therefor: 1. For the earlier writers to the time of Eusebius, Eusebius Church History tr. M’Giffert (N. Y. Chr. Lit. Co.) notes. 2. For the whole period: Smith and Wace Dict. of Christian Biography, 4 vols. and more accessible to most (though a cheap reprint of Smith and Wace is now threatened) Schaff. Church Hist. (N. Y. Scribners) where at the end of each volume an account is given of the chief writers of the period including admirable bibliographical reference.
Of course the best source is the works themselves: The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Coxe, The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers ed. Schaff and Wace. (N. Y. Christian Literature Co.) For further research the student is referred to the list of Patrologies and Bibliographies in the supplementary volume of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, to the bibliography of Ante-Nicene Fathers in the same volume, to Chevalier. Dict. des sources hist. and the memoranda by Sittl, in the Jahresberichte ü. d. fortschr. d. class. Alterthwiss. 1887 sq.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Acacius the bishop

Chapter XCVIII.
Acacius, who, because he was blind in one eye, they nicknamed “the one-eyed,” bishop of the church of Cæsarea in Palestine, wrote seventeen volumes On Ecclesiastes and six of Miscellaneous questions, and many treatises besides on various subjects. He was so influential in the reign of the emperor Constantius that he made Felix bishop of Rome in the place of Liberius.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Bishop about 338, died 365–6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Introduction/Translations

5. Translations.
An early translation of Jerome’s work into Greek was made by Sophronius and used by Photius. A translation purporting to be his is given by Erasmus. There has been a good deal of controversy over this, some even accusing Erasmus of having forged it entire. It is an open question with a general tendency to give Erasmus the benefit of the doubt. The present translator while holding his judgment ready to be corrected by the finding of a ms. or other evidence, inclines to reject in toto, regarding it as for the most part translated by Erasmus from some South German or Swiss ms., or, if that be not certain, at least that the translation is too little established to be of any use for textual purposes. There is a modern translation of select words of Jerome in French by Matougues. The chief sources for comparison used by the translator have been Sophronius (or Erasmus) Matougues, M’Giffert’s Eusebius for the first part of Jerome where he takes so liberally from Eusebius, and scattered selections here and there in Ceillier, Smith and Wace, Dict. and other literary-historical works.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Introduction/Manuscripts

3. Manuscripts.
The manuscripts of Jerome and Gennadius are numerous. The translator has seen 84 mss. of Jerome and 57 of Gennadius and has certain memoranda of at least 25 more and hints of still another score. It is certainly within bounds to say that there are more than 150 mss. of Jerome extant and not less than 100 of Gennadius.
The oldest of those examined (and all the oldest of which he could learn were seen) are at Rome, Verona, Vercelli, Montpellier, Paris, Munich and Vienna.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Lives of Illustrious Men/Jerome/Acilius Severus the senator

Chapter CXI.
{{small-caps|Acilius Severus of Spain, of the family of that Severus to whom Lactantius’ two books of Epistles are addressed, composed a volume of mingled poetry and prose which is a sort of guide book to his whole life. This he called Calamity or Trial. He died in the reign of Valentinianus.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Died before 376. Fabricius and Migne read Aquilus, Honorius has Achilius but the mss.}} read as above. This is the only source of information and the work is lost.
* ↑ Trial“Vicissitudes or proofs.” Matougues.
# Natural History, Mollusca/Index

INDEX.
R. CLAY, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily Concerning Lowliness of Mind/Title Page

St. Chrysostom:
Homily concerning lowliness of mind; and commentary on philippians I. 18.
translated by
r. blackburn, m.a.,
rector of selham, sussex, and late fellow of brasenose college, oxford.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily Concerning Lowliness of Mind/Introduction

concerning lowliness of mind.
HOMILY.
Against those who improperly use the apostolic declaration which says, “Whether in pretence, or in sincerity, Christ is preached:” (Phil. i. 18), and about humbleness of mind.
Introduction.
There is an allusion at the beginning of this Homily to some remarks recently made on the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. These occur in Chrysostom’s fifth Homily against the Anomœans, one of a set of Homilies which, from internal evidence, may be assigned to the close of the year 386, or beginning of 387. The following homily therefore was delivered at Antioch, probably just before Christmas 386. There were some persons who explained the words of St. Paul cited in the title as signifying that provided Christ was preached it mattered not whether the actual doctrines taught were true or heretical. The main object of the homily is to vindicate the language of the Apostle from this erroneous and mischievous interpretation.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily XII/Title Page

St. Chrysostom:
Homily
to those who had not attended the assembly: and on the apostolic saying, “if thine enemy hunger, feed him, etc. (rom. xii. 20), and concerning resentment of injuries.
translated by
rev. w. r. w. stephens, m.a.,
prebendary of chichester cathedral, and rector of woolbeding, sussex.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily on Matt. xxvi. 19
## Contents

* Title Page
* Against Marcionists and Manichaeans
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren/Title Page

St. Chrysostom:
Homily
against publishing the errors of the brethren, and uttering imprecations upon enemies.
translated by
r. blackburn, m.a.,
rector of selham, sussex, and late fellow of brasenose college, oxford.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily Concerning Lowliness of Mind
## Contents

* Title Page
* Introduction
* Concerning Lowliness of Mind
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume IX/Homily XII
## Contents

* Title Page
* To Those Who Had Not Attended the Assembly
# New poems and variant readings/As in their flight the birds of song

AS IN THEIR FLIGHT THE BIRDS OF SONG
As in their flight the birds of song Halt here and there in sweet and sunny dales, But halt not overlong; The time one rural song to sing They pause; then following bounteous gales Steer forward on the wing: Sun-servers they, from first to last, Upon the sun they wait To ride the sailing blast.
So he awhile in our contested state, Awhile abode, not longer, for his Sun— Mother we say, no tenderer name we know— With whose diviner glow His early days had shone, Now to withdraw her radiance had begun. Or lest a wrong I say, not she withdrew, But the loud stream of men day after day And great dust columns of the common way Between them grew and grew: And he and she for evermore might yearn, But to the spring the rivulets not return Nor to the bosom comes the child again.
​And he (O may we fancy so!), He, feeling time forever flow And flowing bear him forth and far away From that dear ingle where his life began And all his treasure lay— He, waxing into man, And ever farther, ever closer wound In this obstreperous world's ignoble round, From that poor prospect turned his face away.
# New poems and variant readings/As one who having wandered all night long

AS ONE WHO HAVING WANDERED ALL NIGHT LONG
As one who having wandered all night long In a perplexed forest, comes at length In the first hours, about the matin song, And when the sun uprises in his strength, ​To the fringed margin of the wood, and sees, Gazing afar before him, many a mile Of falling country, many fields and trees, And cities and bright streams and far-off Ocean's smile:
I, O Melampus, halting, stand at gaze: I, liberated, look abroad on life, Love, and distress, and dusty travelling ways, The steersman's helm, the surgeon's helpful knife, On the lone ploughman's earth-upturning share, The revelry of cities and the sound Of seas, and mountain-tops aloof in air, And of the circling earth the unsupported round:
I, looking, wonder: I, intent, adore; And, O Melampus, reaching forth my hands In adoration, cry aloud and soar In spirit, high above the supine lands And the low caves of mortal things, and flee To the last fields of the universe untrod, Where is no man, nor any earth, nor sea, And the contented soul is all alone with God.
# New poems and variant readings/At last she comes

AT LAST SHE COMES
At last she comes, O never more In this dear patience of my pain To leave me lonely as before, Or leave my soul alone again.
# New poems and variant readings/Away with funeral music

AWAY WITH FUNERAL MUSIC
Away with funeral music—set The pipe to powerful lips— The cup of life's for him that drinks And not for him that sips.
# New poems and variant readings/Before this little gift was come

BEFORE THIS LITTLE GIFT WAS COME
Before this little gift was come The little owner had made haste for home; And from the door of where the eternal dwell, Looked back on human things and smiled farewell. O may this grief remain the only one! O may our house be still a garrison Of smiling children, and for evermore The tune of little feet be heard along the floor!
# New poems and variant readings/Come, here is adieu to the city

COME, HERE IS ADIEU TO THE CITY
Come, here is adieu to the city And hurrah for the country again. The broad road lies before me Watered with last night's rain. The timbered country woos me With many a high and bough; And again in the shining fallows The ploughman follows the plough.
The whole year's sweat and study, And the whole year's sowing time, Comes now to the perfect harvest, And ripens now into rhyme. For we that sow in the Autumn, We reap our grain in the Spring, And we that go sowing and weeping Return to reap and sing.
# New poems and variant readings/Apologetic Postscript of a Year Later

APOLOGETIC POSTSCRIPT OF A YEAR LATER
If you see this song, my dear, And last year's toast, I'm confoundedly in fear You'll be serious and severe About the boast.
Blame not that I sought such aid To cure regret. I was then so lowly laid I used all the Gasconnade That I could get.
Being snubbed is somewhat smart, Believe, my sweet; And I needed all my art To restore my broken heart To its conceit.
Come and smile, dear, and forget I boasted so, I apologise—regret— It was all a jest;—and—yet— I do not know.
# New poems and variant readings/Behold, as goblins dark of mein

BEHOLD, AS GOBLINS DARK OF MIEN,
Behold, as goblins dark of mien And portly tyrants dyed with crime Change, in the transformation scene, At Christmas, in the pantomime,
Instanter, at the prompter's cough, The fairy bonnets them, and they Throw their abhorred carbuncles off And blossom like the flowers in May.
—So mankind, to angelic eyes, So, through the scenes of life below, In life's ironical disguise, A travesty of man, ye go:
But fear not: ere the curtain fall, Death in the transformation scene Steps forward from her pedestal, Apparent, as the fairy Queen;
And coming, frees you in a trice From all your lendings—lust of fame, Ungainly virtue, ugly vice, Terror and tyranny and shame.
​So each, at last himself, for good In that dear country lays him down, At last beloved and understood And pure in feature and renown.
# New poems and variant readings/An English Breeze

AN ENGLISH BREEZE
Up with the sun, the breeze arose, Across the talking corn she goes, And smooth she rustles far and wide Through all the voiceful countryside.
Through all the land her tale she tells; She spins, she tosses, she compels The kites, the clouds, the windmill sails And all the trees in all the dales.
God calls us, and the day prepares With nimble, gay and gracious airs: And from Penzance to Maidenhead The roads last night He watered.
God calls us from inglorious ease, Forth and to travel with the breeze While, swift and singing, smooth and strong She gallops by the fields along.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 28

Chapter 28 [XXV.]—Concupiscence Remains After Baptism, Just as Languor Does After Recovery from Disease; Concupiscence is Diminished in Persons of Advancing Years, and Increased in the Incontinent.
If the question arises, how this concupiscence of the flesh remains in the regenerate, in whose case has been effected a remission of all sins whatever; seeing that human semination takes place by its means, even when the carnal offspring of even a baptized parent is born: or, at all events, if it may be in the case of a baptized parent concupiscence and not be sin, why should this same concupiscence be sin in the offspring?—the answer to be given is this: Carnal concupiscence is remitted, indeed, in baptism; not so that it is put out of existence, but so that it is not to be imputed for sin. Although its guilt is now taken away, it still remains until our entire infirmity be healed by the advancing renewal of our inner man, day by day, when at last our outward man shall be clothed with incorruption. It does not remain, however, substantially, as a body, or a spirit; but it is nothing more than a certain affection of an evil quality, such as languor, for instance. There is not, to be sure, anything remaining which may be remitted whenever, as the Scripture says, “the Lord forgiveth all our iniquities.” But until that happens which immediately follows in the same passage, “Who healeth all thine infirmities, who redeemeth thy life from corruption,” there remains this concupiscence of the flesh in the body of this death. Now we are admonished not to obey its sinful desires to do evil: “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.” Still this concupiscence is daily lessened in persons of continence and increasing years, and most of all when old age makes a near approach. The man, however, who yields to it a wicked service, receives such great energies that, even when all his members are now failing through age, and those especial parts of his body are unable to be applied to their proper function, he does not ever cease to revel in a still increasing rage of disgraceful and shameless desire.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. xv. 53.
* ↑ Ps. ciii. 3.
* ↑ Ps. ciii. 4.
* ↑ Rom. vi. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 31

Chapter 31 [XXVIII.]—Who is the Man that Can Say, “It is No More I that Do It”?
A man, however, is much deceived if, while consenting to the lust of his flesh, and then both resolving in his mind to do its desires and setting about it, he supposes that he has still a right to say, “It is not I that do it,” even if he hates and loathes himself for assenting to evil desires. The two things are simultaneous in his case: he hates the thing himself because he knows that it is evil; and yet he does it, because he is bent on doing it. Now if, in addition to all this, he proceeds to do what the Scripture forbids him, when it says, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,” and completes with a bodily act what he was bent on doing in his mind; and says, “It is not I that do the thing, but sin that dwelleth in me,” because he feels displeased with himself for resolving on and accomplishing the deed,—he so greatly errs as not to know his own self. For, whereas he is altogether himself, his mind determining and his body executing his own purpose, he yet supposes that he is himself no longer! [XXIX.] That man, therefore, alone speaks the truth when he says, “It is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me,” who only feels the concupiscence, and neither resolves on doing it with the consent of his heart, nor accomplishes it with the ministry of his body.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. vi. 13.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 17.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 27

Chapter 27 [XXIV.]—Through Lust Original Sin is Transmitted; Venial Sins in Married Persons; Concupiscence of the Flesh, the Daughter and Mother of Sin.
Wherefore the devil holds infants guilty who are born, not of the good by which marriage is good, but of the evil of concupiscence, which, indeed, marriage uses aright, but at which even marriage has occasion to feel shame. Marriage is itself “honourable in all” the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its “bed undefiled” (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust. Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were; and whenever it yields assent to the commission of shameful deeds, it becomes also the mother of many sins. Now from this concupiscence whatever comes into being by natural birth is bound by original sin, unless, indeed, it be born again in Him whom the Virgin conceived without this concupiscence. Wherefore, when He vouchsafed to be born in the flesh, He alone was born without sin.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Heb. xiii. 4.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 3

Chapter 3 [III.]—Conjugal Chastity the Gift of God.
That chastity in the married state is God’s gift, is shown by the most blessed Paul, when, speaking on this very subject, he says: “But I would that all men were even as I myself: but every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” Observe, he tells us that this gift is from God; and although he classes it below that continence in which he would have all men to be like himself, he still describes it as a gift of God. Whence we understand that, when these precepts are given to us in order that we should do them, nothing else is stated than that there ought to be within us our own will also for receiving and having them. When, therefore, these are shown to be gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from Him if they are not already possessed; and if they are possessed, thanks must be given to Him for the possession; moreover, that our own wills have but small avail for seeking, obtaining, and holding fast these gifts, unless they be assisted by God’s grace.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. vii. 7.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On Marriage and Concupiscence/Book I/Chapter 30

Chapter 30 [XXVII.]—The Evil Desires of Concupiscence; We Ought to Wish that They May Not Be.
For the concupiscence of the flesh is in some sort active, even when it does not exhibit either an assent of the heart, where its seat of empire is, or those members whereby, as its weapons, it fulfils what it is bent on. But what in this action does it effect, unless it be its evil and shameful desires? For if these were good and lawful, the apostle would not forbid obedience to them, saying, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof.” He does not say, that ye should have the lusts thereof, but “that ye should obey the lusts thereof;” in order that (as these desires are greater or less in different individuals, according as each shall have progressed in the renewal of the inner man) we may maintain the fight of holiness and chastity, for the purpose of withholding obedience to these lusts. Nevertheless, our wish ought to be nothing less than the nonexistence of these very desires, even if the accomplishment of such a wish be not possible in the body of this death. This is the reason why the same apostle, in another passage, addressing us as if in his own person, gives us this instruction: “For what I would,” says he, “that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.” In a word, “I covet.” For he was unwilling to do this, that he might be perfect on every side. “If, then, I do that which I would not,” he goes on to say, “I consent unto the law that it is good.” Because the law, too, wills not that which I also would not. For it wills not that I should have concupiscence, for it says, “Thou shall not covet;” and I am no less unwilling to cherish so evil a desire. In this, therefore, there is complete accord between the will of the law and my own will. But because he was unwilling to covet, and yet did covet, and for all that did not by any means obey this concupiscence so as to yield assent to it, he immediately adds these words: “Now, then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. vi. 12.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 15.
* ↑ “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 16.
* ↑ “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion.
* ↑ “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion
* ↑ “Concupisco” in the Latin, and hence used in this discussion.
* ↑ Rom. vii. 17.