OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 25

Chapter 25.—How the Temperate Style is to Be Used.
55. From all this we may conclude, that the end arrived at by the two styles last mentioned is the one which it is most essential for those who aspire to speak with wisdom and eloquence to secure. On the other hand, what the temperate style properly aims at, viz., to please by beauty of expression, is not in itself an adequate end; but when what we have to say is good and useful, and when the hearers are both acquainted with it and favorably disposed towards it, so that it is not necessary either to instruct or persuade them, beauty of style may have its influence in securing their prompter compliance, or in making them adhere to it more tenaciously. For as the function of all eloquence, whichever of these three forms it may assume, is to speak persuasively, and its object is to persuade, an eloquent man will speak persuasively, whatever style he may adopt; but unless he succeeds in persuading, his eloquence has not secured its object.  Now in the subdued style, he persuades his hearers that what he says is true; in the majestic style, he persuades them to do what they are aware they ought to do, but do not; in the temperate style, he persuades them that his speech is elegant and ornate.  But what use is there in attaining such an object as this last?  They may desire it who are vain of their eloquence and make a boast of panegyrics, and such-like performances, where the object is not to instruct the hearer, or to persuade him to any course of action, but merely to give him pleasure. We, however, ought to make that end subordinate to another, viz., the effecting by this style of eloquence what we aim at effecting when we use the majestic style. For we may by the use of this style persuade men to cultivate good habits and give up evil ones, if they are not so hardened as to need the vehement style; or if they have already begun a good course, we may induce them to pursue it more zealously, and to persevere in it with constancy. Accordingly, even in the temperate style we must use beauty of expression not for ostentation, but for wise ends; not contenting ourselves merely with pleasing the hearer, but rather seeking to aid him in the pursuit of the good end which we hold out before him.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 23

Chapter 23.—How the Various Styles Should Be Mingled.
52. Now it is a matter of importance to determine what style should be alternated with what other, and the places where it is necessary that any particular style should be used. In the majestic style, for instance, it is always, or almost always, desirable that the introduction should be temperate. And the speaker has it in his discretion to use the subdued style even where the majestic would be allowable, in order that the majestic when it is used may be the more majestic by comparison, and may as it were shine out with greater brilliance from the dark background. Again, whatever may be the style of the speech or writing, when knotty questions turn up for solution, accuracy of distinction is required, and this naturally demands the subdued style. And accordingly this style must be used in alternation with the other two styles whenever questions of that sort turn up; just as we must use the temperate style, no matter what may be the general tone of the discourse, whenever praise or blame is to be given without any ulterior reference to the condemnation or acquittal of any one, or to obtaining the concurrence of any one in a course of action. In the majestic style, then, and in the quiet likewise, both the other two styles occasionally find place. The temperate style, on the other hand, not indeed always, but occasionally, needs the quiet style; for example, when, as I have said, a knotty question comes up to be settled, or when some points that are susceptible of ornament are left unadorned and expressed in the quiet style, in order to give greater effect to certain exuberances (as they may be called) of ornament. But the temperate style never needs the aid of the majestic; for its object is to gratify, never to excite, the mind.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 27

Chapter 27.—The Man Whose Life is in Harmony with His Teaching Will Teach with Greater Effect.
59. But whatever may be the majesty of the style, the life of the speaker will count for more in securing the hearer’s compliance. The man who speaks wisely and eloquently, but lives wickedly, may, it is true, instruct many who are anxious to learn; though, as it is written, he “is unprofitable to himself.” Wherefore, also, the apostle says: “Whether in pretence or in truth Christ is preached.” Now Christ is the truth; yet we see that the truth can be preached, though not in truth,—that is, what is right and true in itself may be preached by a man of perverse and deceitful mind. And thus it is that Jesus Christ is preached by those that seek their own, and not the things that are Jesus Christ’s. But since true believers obey the voice, not of any man, but of the Lord Himself, who says, “All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not;” therefore it is that men who themselves lead unprofitable lives are heard with profit by others. For though they seek their own objects, they do not dare to teach their own doctrines, sitting as they do in the high places of ecclesiastical authority, which is established on sound doctrine. Wherefore our Lord Himself, before saying what I have just quoted about men of this stamp, made this observation: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” The seat they occupied, then, which was not theirs but Moses’, compelled them to say what was good, though they did what was evil. And so they followed their own course in their lives, but were prevented by the seat they occupied, which belonged to another, from preaching their own doctrines.
60. Now these men do good to many by preaching what they themselves do not perform; but they would do good to very many
more if they lived as they preach. For there are numbers who seek an excuse for their own evil lives in comparing the teaching with the conduct of their instructors, and who say in their hearts, or even go a little further, and say with their lips: Why do you not do yourself what you bid me do? And thus they cease to listen with submission to a man who does not listen to himself, and in despising the preacher they learn to despise the word that is preached. Wherefore the apostle, writing to Timothy, after telling him, “Let no man despise thy youth,” adds immediately the course by which he would avoid contempt: “but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ecclus. xxxvii. 19.
* ↑ Phil. i. 18.
* ↑ Matt. xxiii. 3.
* ↑ Matt. xxiii. 2.
* ↑ 1 Tim. iv. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 28

Chapter 28.—Truth is More Important Than Expression. What is Meant by Strife About Words.
61. Such a teacher as is here described may, to secure compliance, speak not only quietly and temperately, but even vehemently, without any breach of modesty, because his life protects him against contempt. For while he pursues an upright life, he takes care to maintain a good reputation as well, providing things honest in the sight of God and men, fearing God, and caring for men. In his very speech even he prefers to please by matter rather than by words; thinks that a thing is well said in proportion as it is true in fact, and that a teacher should govern his words, not let the words govern him. This is what the apostle says: “Not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.” To the same effect also is what he says to Timothy: “Charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.” Now this does not mean that, when adversaries oppose the truth, we are to say nothing in defence of the truth. For where, then, would be what he says when he is describing the sort of man a bishop ought to be: “that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and convince the gainsayers?” To strive about words is not to be careful about the way to overcome error by truth, but to be anxious that your mode of expression should be preferred to that of another. The man who does not strive about words, whether he speak quietly, temperately, or vehemently, uses words with no other purpose than to make the truth plain, pleasing, and effective; for not even love itself, which is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law, can be rightly exercised unless the objects of love are true and not false. For as a man with a comely body but an ill-conditioned mind is a more painful object than if his body too were deformed, so men who teach lies are the more pitiable if they happen to be eloquent in speech. To speak eloquently, then, and wisely as well, is just to express truths which it is expedient to teach in fit and proper words,—words which in the subdued style are adequate, in the temperate, elegant, and in the majestic, forcible. But the man who cannot speak both eloquently and wisely should speak wisely without eloquence, rather than eloquently without wisdom.

## Footnotes

* ↑ 2 Cor. viii. 21.
* ↑ 1 Cor. ii. 17.
* ↑ 2 Tim. ii. 14.
* ↑ Tit. i. 9.
* ↑ 1 Tim. i. 5 and Rom. xiii. 10.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 22

Chapter 22.—The Necessity of Variety in Style.
51. But we are not to suppose that it is against rule to mingle these various styles: on the contrary, every variety of style should be introduced so far as is consistent with good taste. For when we keep monotonously to one style, we fail to retain the hearer’s attention; but when we pass from one style to another, the discourse goes off more gracefully, even though it extend to greater length. Each separate style, again, has varieties of its own which prevent the hearer’s attention from cooling or becoming languid. We can bear the subdued style, however, longer without variety than the majestic style. For the mental emotion which it is necessary to stir up in order to carry the hearer’s feelings with us, when once it has been sufficiently excited, the higher the pitch to which it is raised, can be maintained the shorter time. And therefore we must be on our guard, lest, in striving to carry to a higher point the emotion we have excited, we rather lose what we have already gained. But after the interposition of matter that we have to treat in a quieter style, we can return with good effect to that which must be treated forcibly, thus making the tide of eloquence to ebb and flow like the sea. It follows from this, that the majestic style, if it is to be long continued, ought not to be unvaried, but should alternate at intervals with the other styles; the speech or writing as a whole, however, being referred to that style which is the prevailing one.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/On Christian Doctrine/Book IV/Chapter 24

Chapter 24.—The Effects Produced by the Majestic Style.
53. If frequent and vehement applause follows a speaker, we are not to suppose on that account that he is speaking in the majestic style; for this effect is often produced both by the accurate distinctions of the quiet style, and by the beauties of the temperate. The majestic style, on the other hand, frequently silences the audience by its impressiveness, but calls forth their tears. For example, when at Cæsarea in Mauritania I was dissuading the people from that civil, or worse than civil, war which they called Caterva (for it was not fellow-citizens merely, but neighbors, brothers, fathers and sons even, who, divided into two factions and armed with stones, fought annually at a certain season of the year for several days continuously, every one killing whomsoever he could), I strove with all the vehemence of speech that I could command to root out and drive from their hearts and lives an evil so cruel and inveterate; it was not, however, when I heard their applause, but when I saw their tears, that I thought I had produced an effect. For the applause showed that they were instructed and de
lighted, but the tears that they were subdued. And when I saw their tears I was confident even before the event proved it, that this horrible and barbarous custom (which had been handed down to them from their fathers and their ancestors of generations long gone by and which like an enemy was besieging their hearts, or rather had complete possession of them) was overthrown; and immediately that my sermon was finished I called upon them with heart and voice to give praise and thanks to God. And, lo, with the blessing of Christ, it is now eight years or more since anything of the sort was attempted there. In many other cases besides I have observed that men show the effect made on them by the powerful eloquence of a wise man, not by clamorous applause so much as by groans, sometimes even by tears, finally by change of life.
54. The quiet style, too, has made a change in many; but it was to teach them what they were ignorant of, or to persuade them of what they thought incredible, not to make them do what they knew they ought to do but were unwilling to do. To break down hardness of this sort, speech needs to be vehement. Praise and censure, too, when they are eloquently expressed, even in the temperate style, produce such an effect on some, that they are not only pleased with the eloquence of the encomiums and censures, but are led to live so as themselves to deserve praise, and to avoid living so as to incur blame. But no one would say that all who are thus delighted change their habits in consequence, whereas all who are moved by the majestic style act accordingly, and all who are taught by the quiet style know or believe a truth which they were previously ignorant of.
# New York Central Company v. Marcone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 345
New York Central Company v. Marcone
Argued: Feb. 25, 26, 1930. --- Decided: April 14, 1930
Messrs. Wm. H. Carey and Albert C. Wall, both of Jersey City, N. J., for petitioner.
Mr. A. Owsley Stanley, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice STONE 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 Central Company v. Mohney

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
252 U.S. 152
New York Central Company v. Mohney
Argued: Jan. 27, 1920. --- Decided: March 1, 1920)
Messrs. Howard Lewis, John H. Doyle, and Frederick W. Gaines, all of Toledo, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. Albert H. Miller, of Toledo, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice CLARKE 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 Central Company v. New York & Pennsylvania Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
271 U.S. 124
New York Central Company v. New York & Pennsylvania Company
Argued: April 13, 14, 1926. --- Decided: April 26, 1926
Messrs. Parker McCollester, of New York City, Henry Wolf Bikle, of Philadelphia, Pa., and F. D. McKenney, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Thomas Raeburn White, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice HOLMES 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 Central Company v. Porter/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 168
New York Central Company v. Porter
Argued: Jan. 10, 1919. --- Decided: March 3, 1919
Lewis M. Porter, a section man, was struck and instantly killed by plaintiff in error's engine attached to a passenger train and moving along the main track. The Appellate Division affirmed an award in behalf of his widow and children under the New York Workmen's Compensation Law (Consol. Laws, c. 67). Porter v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 172 App. Div. 918, 156 N. Y. Supp. 1141.
If the deceased was employed in interstate commerce when the accident occurred, consequent rights and liabilities arose under the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]), and the state statute did not apply. New York Central R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 147, 37 Sup. Ct. 546, 61 L. Ed. 1045, L. R. A. 1918C, 439, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139; Erie R. R. Co. v. Winfield, 244 U.S. 170, 37 Sup. Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 662.
The evidence showed and the State Workmen's Compensation Commission found:
'Lewis M. Porter resided at Camden, N. Y., and upon the date of the accident, December 17, 1914, was in the employ of the New York Central Railroad Company as a laborer. On said date, while engaged in shoveling snow upon the premises of the New York Central Railroad Company between the west-bound track and a platform near the intersection of said tracks and Mexico street in the village of Camden, he was struck by the engine of a passenger train known as train No. 49, which was proceeding northerly on the west-bound track, receiving injuries from which he died immediately. The tracks of the New York Central Railroad Company at the point where the deceased was working, were used for the purpose of transporting both interstate and intrastate cars and both interstate and intrastate commerce.'
Considered in connection with our opinions in Pederson v. Del., Lack. & West. R. R., 229 U.S. 146, 33 Sup. Ct. 648, 57 L. Ed. 1125, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 153, Southern Railway Co. v. Puckett, 244 U.S. 571, 37 Sup. Ct. 703, 61 L. Ed. 1321, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 69, and cases there cited, we think the circumstances here presented make it quite clear that when killed Porter was employed in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the judgment below must be reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice CLARKE dissents.

## 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 Central Company v. Porter

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
249 U.S. 168
New York Central Company v. Porter
Argued: Jan. 10, 1919. --- Decided: March 3, 1919
Mr. Robert E. Whalen, of Albany, N. Y., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Merton E. Lewis, of Rochester, N. Y., and E. Clarence Aiken, of Albany, N. Y., for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS 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 Central Company v. United States

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "New York Central Company v. United States."
* sister projects: 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.
* New York Central Company v. United States (265 U.S. 41)
* New York Central Company v. United States (388 U.S. 445)
# New York Central Company v. United States (265 U.S. 41)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 41
New York Central Company v. United States
Argued: Jan. 17, 1924. --- Decided: April 28, 1924
Mr. S. H. West, of St. Louis, Mo., for New York Cent. R. Co.
The Attorney General and Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Chicago, Ill., for the United States.
Mr. Justice BUTLER 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 v. Illinois/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
274 U.S. 488
New York v. Illinois
Argued: April 25, 1927. --- Decided: May 31, 1927
This is a bill in equity brought in this court by the state of New York against the state of Illinois and the Sanitary District of Chicago to enjoin them from continuing a very substantial diversion of water from Lake Michigan. The character and purpose of the diversion are shown in Sanitary District of Chicago v. United States, 266 U.S. 405, 45 S.C.t. 176, 69 L. Ed. 352, and do not call for special comment now. The greater part of the bill proceeds on the theory that the diversion impairs the navigable capacity of the Great Lakes and the rivers leading from one lake to another and then to the Atlantic Ocean, and thereby obstructs and burdens commerce over these waterways to the serious injury of the plaintiff state and her people. To this part of the bill the defendants have answered, and evidence on the issues so framed has been or is being taken before a special master. The bill, in its third paragraph, attempts to set up another injury from the diversion. The paragraph has not been answered, but is assailed by a motion to strike it out. The court has heard oral argument on the motion and will now rule on it.
The third paragraph of the bill apparently proceeds on the theory that the diversion may interfere with or prevent the use of the waters of the Niagara and St. Lawrence rivers by the plaintiff state and her citizens for the development of power. But it does not show that there is any present use of the waters for such purposes which is being or will be disturbed, nor that there is any definite project for so using them which is being or will be affected. The waters are international and their use for developing power may require the assent of the Dominion of Canada and the United States. No consent of either is shown. The suit is one for an injunction, a form or relief which must rest on an actual or presently threatened interference with the rights of another. Plainly no basis for such relief is disclosed in what is said about water power development. At best the paragraph does no more than present abstract questions respecting the right of the plaintiff state and her citizens to use the waters for such purposes in the indefinite future. We are not at liberty to consider abstract questions. New Jersey v. Sargent, 269 U.S. 329, 46 S.C.t. 122, 70 L. Ed. 289. So the motion to strike out the paragraph must be sustained. This ruling will be without prejudice, so that the plaintiff state, if later on in a position to do so, may be free to litigate the questions which the paragraph is intended to present.
Motion to strike out paragraph III of bill of complaint sustained without prejudice.

## 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