OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book XII/Chapter 3

Chapter 3.—That the Enemies of God are So, Not by Nature, But by Will, Which, as It Injures Them, Injures a Good Nature; For If Vice Does Not Injure, It is Not Vice.
In Scripture they are called God’s enemies who oppose His rule, not by nature, but by vice; having no power to hurt Him, but only themselves. For they are His enemies, not through their power to hurt, but by their will to oppose Him. For God is unchangeable, and wholly proof against injury. Therefore the vice which makes those who are called His enemies resist Him, is an evil not to God, but to themselves. And to them it is an evil, solely because it corrupts the good of their nature. It is not nature, therefore, but vice, which is contrary to God. For that which is evil is contrary to the good. And who will deny that God is the supreme good? Vice, therefore, is contrary to God, as evil to good. Further, the nature it vitiates is a good, and therefore to this good also it is contrary. But while it is contrary to God only as evil to good, it is contrary to the nature it vitiates, both as evil and as hurtful. For to God no evils are hurtful; but only to natures mutable and corruptible, though, by the testimony of the vices themselves, originally good. For were they not good, vices could not hurt them. For how do they hurt them but by depriving them of integrity, beauty, welfare, virtue, and, in short, whatever natural good vice is wont to diminish or destroy? But if there be no good to take away, then no injury can be done, and conse
quently there can be no vice. For it is impossible that there should be a harmless vice. Whence we gather, that though vice cannot injure the unchangeable good, it can injure nothing but good; because it does not exist where it does not injure. This, then, may be thus formulated: Vice cannot be in the highest good, and cannot be but in some good. Things solely good, therefore, can in some circumstances exist; things solely evil, never; for even those natures which are vitiated by an evil will, so far indeed as they are vitiated, are evil, but in so far as they are natures they are good. And when a vitiated nature is punished, besides the good it has in being a nature, it has this also, that it is not unpunished. For this is just, and certainly everything just is a good. For no one is punished for natural, but for voluntary vices. For even the vice which by the force of habit and long continuance has become a second nature, had its origin in the will. For at present we are speaking of the vices of the nature, which has a mental capacity for that enlightenment which discriminates between what is just and what is unjust.

## Footnotes

* ↑ With this may be compared the argument of Socrates in the Gorgias, in which it is shown that to escape punishment is worse than to suffer it, and that the greatest of evils is to do wrong and not be chastised.
# Midwinter Night

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
The year begins in the winter,
 And the day begins in the night,
And the soul that shall live forever  On the earth begins its flight.
The new year shall yet be summer;  The night shall be followed by day; And the soul that shall live forever
 From the earth shall speed away.
The earth is the night and the winter,
 And heaven is summer and day; As we tread on the steps of the hours  Be as sure and as patient as they.
# Miedreich v. Lauenstein

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
232 U.S. 236
Miedreich v. Lauenstein
Argued: and submitted October 31, 1913. --- Decided: February 2, 1914
Mr. George K. Denton for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 237-241 intentionally omitted]
Messrs. Louis T. Michener, Perry G. Michener, and Peter Maier for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Day 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
# Mirrikh, or, A Woman from Mars

Full title: Mirrikh, or, A Woman from Mars. A tale of occult adventure.
| “ | Astonished at the words of my strange companion, knowing as I knew that the next moment must bring me face to face with the mob even then rushing down the alley, I was about to speak, when it suddenly struck me that the man's face had undergone a change. It was growing thin and shadowy, his whole body also seemed to be assuming a certain vapory indistinctness, to become etherealized, so to speak. As he stood there motionless before the wall, I gazed at him in speechless amazement. Was it actually as I saw it, or was the trouble with my own brain? He seemed to be sinking slowly downward, his feet and legs disappeared, seemingly dissolving as he went, until nothing but the head rested on the ground. | ” |
MIRRIKH
OR
A WOMAN FROM MARS
A TALE OF OCCULT ADVENTURE
BY
Francis Worcester Doughty
ILLUSTRATED
NEW YORK
THE BURLEIGH & JOHNSTON COMPANY
30 GREAT JONES STREET
1892
COPYRIGHTED IN 1892
— BY —
BURLEIGH & JOHNSTON COMPANY.
CONTENTS
BOOK I
LEVITATION
CHAP.
* I. PANOMPIN
* II. THE SHADOWS OF THE NAGKON WAT
* III. MORE MYSTERY
* IV. OUR REVEREND GUEST
* V. JUNGLE ADVENTURES
* VI. STORM BOUND IN THE OLD STONE TOWER
* VII. A DRY DISCOURSE ON MARRIAGE AND OTHER THINGS
* VIII. A MAN FROM ANOTHER WORLD
BOOK II
THE TRANSMIGRATION OF A SOUL
* IX. THREE TRAVELERS IN THIBET
* X. RESURGAM
* XI. ON THE ROAD TO PSAM-DAGONG
* XII. WHAT WE FOUND IN THE STORM
* XIII. AT PSAM-DAGONG
* XIV. A PLANETARY MAUSOLEUM
* XV. ALIVE OR DEAD
* XVI. DIABLERIE
BOOK III.
IN UNUM DUO
* XVII. A VISIT FROM MAURICE
* XVIII. GONE—WHERE?
* XIX. I INHALE THE FATAL GAS
* XX. MY SECOND JOURNEY TO MARS
* XXI. PRISONERS UNDERGROUND
* XXII. THE RETURN
* XXIII. DESERTED
* XXIV. HOPE
* XXV. CHAOS
* XXVI. ON THE ROCK
* XXVII. MIRRIKH ONCE MORE
* XXVIII. ACROSS THE RIFT
* XXIX. "BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY!"
* XXX. CONCLUSION
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
# Miriam

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Miriam."
* 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.
* Miriam by Louisa Jane Hall
* Miriam, a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier
# Montana Railway Company v. Warren

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
137 U.S. 348
Montana Railway Company v. Warren
John F. Dillon and Harry Hubbard, for plaintiff in error.
S. S. Burdett, for defendant in error.
BREWER, 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
# Montana v. Kennedy

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
366 U.S. 308
Montana v. Kennedy
Argued: March 22, 1961. --- Decided: May 22, 1961
Miss Anna R. Lavin, Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
Mr. Charles Gordon, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice HARLAN 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
# Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County Mont

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 499
Montana National Bank of Billings v. Yellowstone County Mont
Argued: Jan. 20, 1928. --- Decided: April 9, 1928
Messrs. Horace S. Davis, of Billings, Mont., and M. S. Gunn, of Helena, Mont., for plaintiff in error.
Mr. L. A. Foot, of Helena, Mont.,
[Argument of Counsel from page 500 intentionally omitted] for defendants in error.
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book III/Chapter 8

Chapter 8.—Whether Rome Ought to Have Been Entrusted to the Trojan Gods.
Where, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to the Trojan gods, who had demonstrated their weakness in the loss of Troy? Will some one say that, when Fimbria stormed Troy, the gods were already resident in Rome?  How, then, did the image of Minerva remain standing? Besides, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy, perhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was taken and set on fire by the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing, and very swift in their movements, they came quickly at the cackling of the goose to defend at least the Capitol, though to defend the rest of the city they were too long in being warned.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book IV/Chapter 1

Chapter 1.—Of the Things Which Have Been Discussed in the First Book.
Having begun to speak of the city of God, I have thought it necessary first of all to reply to its enemies, who, eagerly pursuing earthly joys and gaping after transitory things, throw the blame of all the sorrow they suffer in them—rather through the compassion of God in admonishing than His severity in punishing—on the Christian religion, which is the one salutary and true religion. And since there is among them also an unlearned rabble, they are stirred up as by the authority of the learned to hate us more bitterly, thinking in their inexperience that things which have happened unwontedly in their days were not wont to happen in other times gone by; and whereas this opinion of theirs is confirmed even by those who know that it is false, and yet dissemble their knowledge in order that they may seem to have just cause for murmuring against us, it was necessary, from books in which their authors recorded and published the history of bygone times that it might be known, to demonstrate that it is far otherwise than they think; and at the same time to teach that the false gods, whom they openly worshipped, or still worship in secret, are most unclean spirits, and most malignant and deceitful demons, even to such a pitch that they take delight in crimes which, whether real or only fictitious, are yet their own, which it has been their will to have celebrated in honor of them at their own festivals; so that human infirmity cannot be called back from the perpetration of damnable deeds, so long as authority is furnished for imitating them that seems even divine. These things we have proved, not from our own conjectures, but partly from recent memory, because we ourselves have seen such things celebrated, and to such deities, partly from the writings of those who have left these things on record to posterity, not as if in reproach but as in honor of their own gods. Thus Varro, a most learned man among them, and of the weightiest authority, when he made separate books concerning things human and things divine, distributing some among the human, others among the divine, according to the special dignity of each, placed the scenic plays not at all among things human, but among things divine; though, certainly, if only there were good and honest men in the state, the scenic plays ought not to be allowed even among things human. And this he did not on his own authority, but because, being born and educated at Rome, he found them among the divine things. Now as we briefly stated in the end of the first book what we intended afterwards to discuss, and as we have disposed of a part of this in the next two books, we see what our readers will expect us now to take up.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book IV/Chapter 12

Chapter 12.—Concerning the Opinion of Those Who Have Thought that God is the Soul of the World, and the World is the Body of God.
Ought not men of intelligence, and indeed men of every kind, to be stirred up to examine the nature of this opinion? For there is no need of excellent capacity for this task, that putting away the desire of contention, they may observe that if God is the soul of the world, and the world is as a body to Him, who is the soul, He must be one living being consisting of soul and body, and that this same God is a kind of womb of nature containing all things in Himself, so that the lives and souls of all living things are taken, according to the manner of each one’s birth, out of His soul which vivifies that whole mass, and therefore nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. And if this is so, who cannot see what impious and irreligious consequences follow, such as that whatever one may trample, he must trample a part of God, and in slaying any living creature, a part of God must be slaughtered? But I am unwilling to utter all that may occur to those who think of it, yet cannot be spoken without irreverence.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book III/Chapter 5

Chapter 5.—That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.
But whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor, we leave as unsettled questions. For our own Scriptures suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men. At present, then, I will limit my discussion to this dilemma: If that which their books relate about the mother of Æneas and the father of Romulus be true, how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure? If it is false, not even in this case can the gods be angry that men should really commit adulteries, which, even when falsely attributed to the gods, they delight in. Moreover, if the adultery of Mars be discredited, that Venus also may be freed from the imputation, then the mother of Romulus is left unshielded by the pretext of a divine seduction. For Sylvia was a vestal priestess, and the gods ought to avenge this sacrilege on the Romans with greater severity than Paris’ adultery on the Trojans. For even the Romans themselves in primitive times used to go so far as to bury alive any vestal who was detected in adultery, while women unconsecrated, though they were punished, were never punished with death for that crime; and thus they more earnestly vindicated the purity of shrines they esteemed divine, than of the human bed.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book III/Chapter 6

Chapter 6.—That the Gods Exacted No Penalty for the Fratricidal Act of Romulus.
I add another instance: If the sins of men so greatly incensed those divinities, that they abandoned Troy to fire and sword to punish the crime of Paris, the murder of Romulus’ brother ought to have incensed them more against the Romans than the cajoling of a Greek husband moved them against the Trojans: fratricide in a newly-born city should have provoked them more than adultery in a city already flourishing.  It makes no difference to the question we now discuss, whether Romulus ordered his brother to be slain, or slew him with his own hand; it is a crime which many shamelessly deny, many through shame doubt, many in grief disguise. And we shall not pause to examine and weigh the testimonies of historical writers on the subject.  All agree that the brother of Romulus was slain, not by enemies, not by strangers. If it was Romulus who either commanded or perpetrated this crime; Romulus was more truly the head of the Romans than Paris of the Trojans; why then did he who carried off another man’s wife bring down the anger of the gods on the Trojans, while he who took his brother’s life obtained the guardianship of those same gods? If, on the other hand, that crime was not wrought either by the hand or will of Romulus, then the whole city is chargeable with it, because it did not see to its punishment, and thus committed, not fratricide, but parricide, which is worse. For both brothers were the founders of that city, of which the one was by villainy prevented from being a ruler. So far as I see, then, no evil can be ascribed to Troy which warranted the gods in abandoning it to destruction, nor any good to Rome which accounts for the gods visiting it with prosperity; unless the truth be, that they fled from Troy because they were vanquished, and betook themselves to Rome to practise their characteristic deceptions there. Nevertheless they kept a footing for themselves in Troy, that they might deceive future inhabitants who re-peopled these lands; while at Rome, by a wider exercise of their malignant arts, they exulted in more abundant honors.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book III/Chapter 9

Chapter 9.—Whether It is Credible that the Peace During the Reign of Numa Was Brought About by the Gods.
It is also believed that it was by the help of the gods that the successor of Romulus, Numa Pompilius, enjoyed peace during his entire reign, and shut the gates of Janus, which are customarily kept open during war. And it is supposed he was thus requited for appointing many religious observances among the Romans. Certainly that king would have commanded our congratulations for so rare a leisure, had he been wise enough to spend it on wholesome pursuits, and, subduing a pernicious curiosity, had sought out the true God with true piety. But as it was, the gods were not the authors of his leisure; but possibly they would have deceived him less had they found him busier. For the more disengaged they found him, the more they themselves occupied his attention. Varro informs us of all his efforts, and of the arts he employed to associate these gods with himself and the city; and in its own place, if God will, I shall discuss these matters. Meanwhile, as we are speaking of the benefits conferred by the gods, I readily admit that peace is a great benefit; but it is a benefit of the true God, which, like the sun, the rain, and other supports of life, is frequently conferred on the ungrateful and wicked. But if this great boon was conferred on Rome and Pompilius by their gods, why did they never afterwards grant it to the Roman empire during even more meritorious periods? Were the sacred rites more efficient at their first institution than during their subsequent celebration? But they had no existence in Numa’s time, until he added them to the ritual; whereas afterwards they had already been celebrated and preserved, that benefit might arise from them. How, then, is it that those forty-three, or as others prefer it, thirty-nine years of Numa’s reign, were passed in unbroken peace, and yet that afterwards, when the worship was established, and the gods themselves, who were invoked by it, were the recognized guardians and pa
trons of the city, we can with difficulty find during the whole period, from the building of the city to the reign of Augustus, one year—that, viz., which followed the close of the first Punic war—in which, for a marvel, the Romans were able to shut the gates of war?

## Footnotes

* ↑ The gates of Janus were not the gates of a temple, but the gates of a passage called Janus, which was used only for military purposes; shut therefore in peace, open in war.
* ↑ The year of the Consuls T. Manlius and C. Atilius, a.u.c. 519.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume II/City of God/Book IV

Book IV.
Argument—In this book it is proved that the extent and long duration of the Roman empire is to be ascribed, not to Jove or the gods of the heathen, to whom individually scarce even single things and the very basest functions were believed to be entrusted, but to the one true God, the author of felicity, by whose power and judgment earthly kingdoms are founded and maintained.

## 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

## Footnotes

* ↑ In Augustin’s letter to Evodius (169), which was written towards the end of the year 415, he mentions that this fourth book and the following one were begun and finished during that same year.
# Miller v. Rhay (383 U.S. 965)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 965
Robert A. MILLER, petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington granted. Case transferred to the appellate docket and placed on the summary calendar.

## 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
# Miller v. Rhay (383 U.S. 965)

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
383 U.S. 965
Robert A. MILLER, petitioner, v. B. J. RHAY, Superintendent, Washington State Penitentiary.
Robert A. Miller, pro se.
John J. O'Connell, Atty. Gen. of Washington, and Stephen C. Way, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

## 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
# Miller v. Schoene

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Miller v Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 (1928) was a classic property rights case in balancing the rights of a property owner against a social policy that is not unreasonable. Warning: template has been deprecated.
United States Supreme Court
276 U.S. 272
Miller v. Schoene
Argued: January 20, 1928. --- Decided: February 20, 1928
Messrs. Randolph Harrison, of Lynchburg, Va., and D. O. Dechert, of Harrisonburg, Va., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 273-275 intentionally omitted]
Mr. F. S. Tavenner, of Woodstock, Va., for defendant in error.
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
# Miller v. Rhay (384 U.S. 892)/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
384 U.S. 892
Miller v. Rhay
In light of the representations of the Attorney General of Washington and upon an examination of the entire record, the motion to remand is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further consideration in light of its opinion in Dillenburg v. Maxwell, Wash., 413 P.2d 940.

## 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