OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/Of the Work of Monks/Section 10

10. And he comes back again, and in all ways, over and over again, enforceth what he hath the right to do, yet doeth not. “Do ye not know,” saith he, “that they which work in the temple, eat of the things which are in the temple? they which serve the altar, have their share with the altar? So hath the Lord ordained for them which preach the Gospel, to live of the Gospel. But I have used none of these things.” What more open than this? what more clear? I fear lest haply, while I discourse wishing to expound this, that become obscure which in itself is bright and clear. For they who understand not these words, or feign not to understand, do much less understand mine, or profess to understand: unless perchance they do therefore quickly understand ours, because it is allowed them to deride them being understood; but concerning the Apostle’s words this same is not allowed. For this reason, where they cannot interpret them otherwise according to their own sentence, be it ever so clear and manifest, they answer that it is obscure and uncertain because wrong and perverse they dare not call it. Cries the man of God, “The Lord hath ordained for them which preach the Gospel, of this Gospel to live; but I have used none of these things;” and flesh and blood essayeth to make crooked what is straight; what open, to shut; what serene, to cloud over. “It was,” saith it, “spiritual work that he was doing, and thereof did he live.” If it be so, of the Gospel did he live: why then doth he say, “The Lord hath ordained for them which preach the Gospel, of the Gospel to live; but I have used none of these things?” Or if this very word, “to live” which is here used, they will needs also interpret in respect of spiritual life, then had the Apostle no hope towards God, in that he did not live by the Gospel, because he hath said, “I have used none of these things.” Wherefore, that he should have certain hope of life eternal the Apostle did of the Gospel in any wise spiritually live. What therefore he saith, “But I have used none of these things,” doth without doubt make to be understood of this life which is in the flesh, that which he hath said of the Lord’s ordaining to them which preach the Gospel, that of the Gospel they should live; that is, this life which hath need of food and clothing, they by the Gospel shall sustain; as above he said of his fellow-apostles; of whom the Lord Himself saith, “The workman is worthy of his meat;” and, “The workman is worthy of his hire.” This meat, then, and this hire of the sustenance of this life, due to evangelists, this of them to whom he evangelized the Apostle accepted not, saying a true thing, “I have used none of these things.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ 1 Cor. ix. 13–15
# Ned Kelly Letter to Sgt. James Babington

July 28, 1870 when Kelly was fifteen years old. The original letter is held at the Public Record Office, Victoria.
    James Babington 28th July
I write you these lines hoping to find you and Mis Nickilson in good health as I am myself at present I have arrived safe and I would like you would see what you and Mstr Nickelson could do for me I have done all circumstances would alow me which you now try what you con do answer this letter as soon as posabel direct your letter to Daniel Kelly gretta post office that is my name no more at presant Edward Kelly every one looks on me like A black snake send me An answer me as soon posable
This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
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
# Nebraska v. Wyoming (345 U.S. 981)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
345 U.S. 981
Nebraska v. Wyoming (345 U.S. 981)

## 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
# Necklaces

That was a fair one which a Queen  Pulled the great pearl from, in her spleen,  And drank its rich corroded sheen;
 And dazzling bright was that which met,  And clasped its fatal diamond net  About Maria Antoinette;
 And cool and fresh the dripping band  Which poor Undine, with trembling hand,  Snatched from the wave for Hildebrand;
 But better mine, a little thread  Of jasmine blossoms, tipped with red,  As if in breaking they had bled.
 It was all sweetness, and to one  Whose life on shore had just begun,  The very best beneath the sun!
 Malta, August 23, 1851.
[Note. The boys in the streets of Malta string the jasmine blossoms and give or sell them to the passers-by.]
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Necromancer

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Necromancer."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.

## Novels

* The Necromancers (1909), a novel by Robert Hugh Benson
* The Necromancer (1794), a Gothic novel by Karl Friedrich Kahlert
* The Necromancer (1851), a novel by George W. M. Reynolds

## Plays

* Necromancer (1840), a play published anonymously (external scan)

## Poems

* "The Necromancer" (1831, "An old man on his deathbed lay, an old yet stately man"), a poem by Felicia Hemans
# Nectow v. City of Cambridge

United States Supreme Court
277 U.S. 183
Nectow v. City of Cambridge
Argued: April 19, 1928. --- Decided: May 14, 1928
Messrs. Judson Hannigan and John E. Hannigan, both of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Peter J. Nelligan and Joseph P. Lyons, both of Boston, Mass., for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 183-185 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND 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
# Nebuchadnezzar's Dream

Before he went to feed with owls and bats  Nebuchadnezzar had an ugly dream,  Worse than an Hus’if’s when she thinks her cream
Made a Naumachia for mice and rats.
So scared, he sent for that ‘Good King of Cats’  Young Daniel, who soon did pluck away the beam  From out his eye, and said he did not deem
The sceptre worth a straw–his Cushions old door-mats.
A horrid nightmare similar somewhat  Of late has haunted a most motley crew,  Most loggerheads and Chapmen–we are told
That any Daniel tho’ he be a sot  Can make the lying lips turn pale of hue  By belching out ‘ye are that head of Gold’.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 10

Chapter X.—Birth of Valentinian the Younger.
Soon after the conclusion of this war, and under the same consulate,
a son was born to Valentinian, the emperor in the Western parts, to whom the same name as his father’s was given. For Gratian had been born previously to his becoming emperor.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Sozomen (VI. 10) says the same. There were two Valentinians in the second generation; one a son of Valens, and another the son of Valentinian the Elder. According to Idatius’ Fasti, it was the former that was born during the consulate of Gratian and Dagalaifus; so that Socrates was in error here, confusing perhaps the two younger Valentinians. Valesius adduces other reasons proving the same, which it is unnecessary to repeat here.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 13

Chapter XIII.—Eunomius separates from Eudoxius; a Disturbance is raised at Alexandria by Eudoxius, and Athanasius flees into Voluntary Exile again, but in Consequence of the Clamors of the People the Emperor recalls and re-establishes him in his See.
About the same time Eunomius
separated himself from Eudoxius, and held assemblies apart, because after he had repeatedly entreated that his preceptor Aëtius might be received into communion, Eudoxius continued to oppose it. Now Eudoxius did this against his preference, for he did not reject the opinion with Aëtius since it was the same as his own;
but he yielded to the prevailing sentiment of his own party, who objected to Aëtius as heterodox. This was the cause of the division between Eunomius and Eudoxius, and such was the state of things at Constantinople. But the church at Alexandria was disturbed by an edict of the prætorian prefects, sent hither by means of Eudoxius. Whereupon Athanasius, dreading the irrational impetuosity of the multitude, and fearing lest he should be regarded as the author of the excesses that might be committed, concealed himself for four entire months in an ancestral tomb. Inasmuch however as the people, on account of their affection for him, became seditious in impatience of his absence, the emperor, on ascertaining that on this account agitation prevailed at Alexandria, ordered by his letters that Athanasius should be suffered to preside over the churches without molestation; and this was the reason why the Alexandrian church enjoyed tranquillity until the death of Athanasius. How the Arian faction became possessed of the churches after his decease, we shall unfold in the course of our history.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Eunomius adopted the standpoint and also the views of Aëtius and gave them his own name. Briefly his fundamental principle was that the Son is absolutely unlike the Father in substance, and hence a creature among other creatures, a mere man.
* ↑ See II. 35.
* ↑ Cf. chap. 21.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—The Arians ordain Demophilus after the Death of Eudoxius at Constantinople; but the Orthodox Party constitute Evagrius his Successor.
The Emperor Valens leaving Constantinople again set out towards Antioch; but on his arrival at Nicomedia, a city of Bithynia, his progress was arrested by the following circumstances. Eudoxius the bishop of the Arian church who has been in possession of the seat of the Constantinopolitan church for nineteen
years, died soon after the emperor’s departure from that city, in the third consulate
of Valentinian and Valens. The Arians therefore appointed Demophilus to succeed him; but the Homoousians considering that an opportunity was afforded them, elected a certain Evagrius, a person who maintained their own principles; and Eustathius, who had been bishop of Antioch, formally ordained him. He had been recalled from exile by Jovian, and had at this time privately come to Constantinople, for the purpose of confirming the adherents to the doctrine of the homoousion.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Epiphanius Scholasticus reads δεκαένα for δεκαεννέα ; if he be followed, the incumbency of the bishopric of Constantinople by Eudoxius lasted seven years.
* ↑ 370 a.d.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book III/Chapter 9

Chapter IX.—After the Synod of Alexandria, Eusebius proceeding to Antioch finds the Catholics at Variance on Account of Paulinus’ Consecration; and having exerted himself in vain to reconcile them, he departs; Indignation of Lucifer and Origin of a Sect called after him.
As soon as the council of Alexandria was dissolved, Eusebius bishop of Vercellæ went from Alexandria to Antioch; there finding that Paulinus had been ordained by Lucifer, and that the people were disagreeing among themselves,—for the partisans of Meletius held their assemblies apart,—he was exceedingly grieved at the want of harmony concerning this election, and in his own mind disapproved of what had taken place. His respect for Lucifer however induced him to be silent about it, and on his departure he engaged that all things should be set right by a council of bishops. Subsequently he labored with great earnestness to unite the dissentients, but did not succeed. Meanwhile Meletius returned from exile; and finding his followers holding their assemblies apart from the others, he set himself at their head. But Euzoïus, the chief of the Arian heresy, had possession of the churches: Paulinus
only retained a small church within the city, from which Euzoïus had not ejected him, on account of his personal respect for him. But Meletius assembled his adherents without the gates of the city. It was under these circumstances that Eusebius left Antioch at that time. When Lucifer understood that his ordination of Paul was not approved of by Eusebius, regarding it as an insult, he became highly incensed; and not only separated himself from communion with him, but also began, in a contentious spirit, to condemn what had been determined by the Synod. These things occurring at a season of grievous disorder, alienated many from the church; for many attached themselves to Lucifer, and thus a distinct sect arose under the name of ‘Luciferians.’
Nevertheless Lucifer was unable to give full expression to his anger, inasmuch as he had pledged himself by his deacon to assent to whatever should be decided on by the Synod. Wherefore he adhered to the tenets of the church, and returned to Sardinia to his own see: but such as at first identified themselves with his quarrel, still continue separate from the church. Eusebius, on the other hand, traveling throughout the Eastern provinces like a good physician, completely restored those who were weak in the faith, instructing and establishing them in ecclesiastical principles. After this he passed over to Illyricum, and thence to Italy, where he pursued a similar course.

## Footnotes

* ↑ V. 5.
* ↑ Cf. Sozom. III. 15, and V. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV
## Contents

* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Chapter 12
* Chapter 13
* Chapter 14
* Chapter 15
* Chapter 16
* Chapter 17
* Chapter 18
* Chapter 19
* Chapter 20
* Chapter 21
* Chapter 22
* Chapter 23
* Chapter 24
* Chapter 25
* Chapter 26
* Chapter 27
* Chapter 28
* Chapter 29
* Chapter 30
* Chapter 31
* Chapter 32
* Chapter 33
* Chapter 34
* Chapter 35
* Chapter 36
* Chapter 37
* Chapter 38
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 11

Chapter XI.—Hail of Extraordinary Size; and Earthquakes in Bithynia and the Hellespont.
On the 2d of June of the following year, in the consulate
of Lupicin and Jovian, there fell at Constantinople hail of such a size as would fill a man’s hand. Many affirmed that this hail had fallen as a consequence of the Divine displeasure, because of the emperor’s having banished several persons engaged in the sacred ministry, those, that is to say, who refused to communicate with Eudoxius.
During the same consulate, on the 24th of August, the emperor Valentinian proclaimed his son Gratian Augustus. In the next year,
when Valentinian and Valens were a second time consuls, there happened on the 11th of October, an earthquake in Bithynia which destroyed the city of Nicæa on the eleventh day of October. This was about twelve years after Nicomedia had been visited by a similar catastrophe. Soon afterwards the largest portion of Germa in the Hellespont was reduced to ruins by another earthquake. Nevertheless no impression was made on the mind of either Eudoxius the Arian bishop, or the emperor Valens, by these occurrences; for they did not desist from their relentless persecution of those who dissented from them in matters of faith. Meanwhile these convulsions of the earth were regarded as typical of the disturbances which agitated the churches: for many of the clerical body were sent into exile, as we have stated; Basil and Gregory alone, by a special dispensation of Divine Providence, being on account of their eminent piety exempted from this punishment. The former of these individuals was bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; while Gregory presided over Nazianzus,
a little city in the vicinity of Cæsarea. But we shall have occasion to mention both Basil and Gregory again in the course of our history.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 367 a.d.
* ↑ See II. 43.
* ↑ 368 a.d.
* ↑ If Socrates means to speak with precision here of the offices occupied by these men during the year which his narrative has reached he is mistaken, for Basil became bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia the year following, and Gregory was made bishop, not of Nazianzus at this time, but of Sisima. He did not, however, enter on the duties of this bishopric as he says in his letters.
* ↑ Chap. 26.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 15

Chapter XV.—The Emperor banishes Evagrius and Eustathius. The Arians persecute the Orthodox.
When this had been accomplished the Arians renewed their persecution of the Homoousians: and the emperor was very soon informed of what had taken place, and apprehending the subversion of the city in consequence of some popular tumult, immediately sent troops from Nicomedia to Constantinople; ordering that both he who had been ordained, and the one who had ordained him, should be apprehended and sent into exile in different regions. Eustathius therefore was banished to Bizya a city of Thrace; and Evagrius was conveyed to another place. After this the Arians, becoming bolder, grievously harassed the orthodox party, frequently beating them, reviling them, causing them to be imprisoned, and fined; in short they practiced distressing and intolerable annoyances against them. The sufferers were induced to appeal to the emperor for protection against their adversaries if haply they might obtain some relief from this oppression. But whatever hope of redress they might have cherished from this quarter, was altogether frustrated, inasmuch as they thus merely spread their grievances before him who was the very author of them.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume II/Socrates/Book IV/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Certain Presbyters burnt in a Ship by Order of Valens. Famine in Phrygia.
Certain pious men of the clerical order, eighty in number, among whom Urbanus, Theodore, and Menedemus were the leaders, proceeded to Nicomedia, and there presented to the emperor a supplicatory petition, informing him and complaining of the ill-usage to which they had been subjected. The emperor was filled with wrath; but dissembled his displeasure in their presence, and gave Modestus the prefect a secret order to apprehend these persons, and put them to death. The manner in which they were destroyed being unusual, deserves to be recorded. The prefect fearing that he should excite the populace to a seditious movement against himself, if he attempted the public execution of so many, pretended to send the men away into exile. Accordingly as they received the intelligence of their destiny with great firmness of mind the prefect ordered that they should be embarked as if to be conveyed to their several places of banishment, having meanwhile enjoined on the sailors to set the vessel on fire, as soon as they reached the mid sea, that their victims being so destroyed, might even be deprived of burial. This injunction was obeyed; for when they arrived at the middle of the Astacian Gulf, the crew set fire to the ship, and then took refuge in a small barque which followed them, and so escaped. Meanwhile it came to pass that a strong easterly wind blew, and the burning ship was roughly driven but moved faster and was preserved until it reached a port named Dacidizus, where it was utterly consumed together with the men who were shut up in it. Many have asserted that this impious deed was not suffered to go unpunished: for there immediately after arose so great a famine throughout all Phrygia, that a large proportion of the inhabitants were obliged to abandon their country for a time, and betake themselves some to Constantinople and some to other provinces. For Constantinople, notwithstanding the vast population it supplies, yet always abounds with the necessaries of life, all manner of provisions being imported into it by sea from various regions; and the Euxine which lies near it, furnishes it with wheat to any extent it may require.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cf. Herodot. VII. 147.
# New York, Philadelphia, & Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
240 U.S. 34
New York, Philadelphia, & Norfolk Railroad Company v. Peninsula Produce Exchange of Maryland
Argued: December 15 and 16, 1915. --- Decided: January 24, 1916
Messrs. Henry Wolf Bikle and Frederic D. McKenney for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 34-36 intentionally omitted]
Mr. James E. Ellegood for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Hughes 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
# New York Belting Packing Company v. New Jersey Car-Spring Rubber Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 445
New York Belting Packing Company v. New Jersey Car-Spring Rubber Company
B. F. Lee and W. H. L. Lee, for appellant.
A. V. Briesen, for appellee.
BRADLEY, J.

## 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