OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Association Football and How to Play It/Chapter 2

CHAPTER II.
Full-Back Play.
One associates the full back with long and lusty kicking, but he must possess many more qualifications. He must be speedy, a fine tackier, and, above all, a good header of the ball.
He must also keep himself thoroughly fit, although in one way he has not so much to do as the men in front of him. He must be strong in defence, but again, when his side is having the most of the play he should be able to put in many a good shot. It is also requisite that he should be able to kick as well with one foot as the other, and boys especially should study this point. It is simply a case of practice. Every opportunity should be utilised in developing the left foot, ​which is rather weaker than the other, and every eleven out of twelve are greatly inclined to use the right foot, but if you keep on practising, it will not be long before you will be quite as proficient with your left as your right. To become a good artist you must study kicking the ball from any position or angle that it may come to you. There is what we call the drop kick, the free kick, the overhead kick, the place kick, and taking the ball on the run. The overhead kick is practically one to be avoided, except in a grave case of emergency, because you are never certain of it coming off, or of placing it to any advantage. The drop kick also takes a great deal of practice to be accomplished with anything like success, but the essential thing is to be able to keep the ball on the run and kick it where you desire. A back should be of a steady disposition and always keep cool, for if he loses his head he is of little or no use to the side. It is also necessary to know when to head or kick the ball. It is often imperative that a back, for the good of his side, should punt the ball over the touch-line, but when doing so he should not make a lusty kick and put it over the grand stand. All that is wanted is a gentle touch to the railings, which is the proper thing to do. As I have already remarked, to know how to head the ball is of the utmost importance, and it is effective in clearing the line, especially from corner kicks. Heading is quite an art of its own, and takes a long time to master. You should be able to get at the ball not only with the forehead, but with either side of the head.
# Association Football and How to Play It/Chapter 5

CHAPTER V.
Training.
Not the least important thing about football is the matter of training, and nearly every professional club has a trainer, whose business it is not only to get the men fit, but also to keep them so for eight months. I have spoken to a great many whose work it is to get their men into condition and keep them so, and I find that a great many of them have different methods, but nearly all are agreed that every individual must be taken by himself. The majority of people, however, are not paid players, although, as I have already said, these are largely increasing in number, because year by year we see fresh clubs springing up, besides which every member of an ordinary club should be bound to turn out in as perfect a condition as possible. Many make a practice of walking to and from their work, and
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXI

Chapter XXI.
Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a statement of Celsus, when he asserts “that he who was partaker of a man’s table would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him.” For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on the table, have entered into a conspiracy against their entertainers? The whole of Greek and Barbarian history is full of such instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros, when upbraiding Lycambes with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says to him:—
“But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the table.”
And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge more necessary for the conduct of life, can quote numerous instances, showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others entered into conspiracies against them.
* ↑ ἁλῶν καὶ τραπέζης.
* ↑ Archilochus.
* ↑ Guietus would expunge these words as “inept.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXIX

Chapter XXIX.
In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz., the prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection, supposed to be urged by a Jew, that “the prophets declare the coming one to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies.” But it is in the spirit of a Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies against Jesus, that he adds: “Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence.” For neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil to a life which is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other virtues.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXVI

Chapter XXVI.
This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented these statements, saying to them: “Even although guilty of falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your inventions.” In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these occurrences,—that, viz., of not recording them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXIII

Chapter XXIII.
He continues in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things, and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing, how did He grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one voluntarily chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXV

Chapter XXV.
We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the “first-born of every creature,” such as, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life,” and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him which is understood to be man, such as, “But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the Father.” And here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me;” the readiness of the spirit in this, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” And since it is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is mentioned only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me,” is only one: whereas more numerous are those others, viz., “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;” and, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” It is to be noted also, that the words are not, “let this cup depart from Me;” but that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” I know, indeed, that there is another explanation of this passage to the following effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me.” It is as if He had said, “Because of My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be altogether deserted by Thee.” But if, as Celsus would allege, “nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing,” how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVII.
After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXVIII.
And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of Christ’s life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he says, and to expound the prophecies themselves, and after admitting the probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use which they make of them may be overturned. For in this way he would not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds, and particularly when he asserts that the “prophecies agree with ten thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus.” And he ought to have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians, as being the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who was an opponent of the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put in the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied to countless other things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour, after giving what appears to him the meaning of each, to oppose the Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing convincing reasons, but only attempting to do so.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book II/Chapter XXII

Chapter XXII.
He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his table, by converting them into traitors and impious men.” But how Jesus could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 10

10. Greeting to divinities etc. of the three spheres.
[Çaṁtāti.—nānādevatyam: 1. āgneyī, 2. vāyavyā, 3. sāuryā. 1. sāmnī triṣṭubh, 2. prājāpatyā bṛhatī, 3. sāmnī bṛhatī.]
This prose hymn is not found in Pāipp. In Kāuç. (9. 3, 5), it is quoted after each çānti gaṇa, to accompany a pouring out of water three times (iti triḥ pratyāsiñcati; the comm. does not notice this use); and again (12. 3), it is prescribed in all rites for success; being further (note to 8. 23) reclconed to the vāstu gaṇa.
Translated: Florenz, 258 or 10; Griffith, i. 249.
1. To earth, to hearing, to the forest-trees—to Agni [their] overlord, hail!
It is not easy to read 22 syllables in the verse.
2. To breath, to the atmosphere, to the birds—to Vāyu [their] overlord, hail!
It is strange that in this verse the sphere is placed after the human faculty.
3. To the sky, to sight, to the asterisms—to Sūrya [their] overlord, hail!
The first anuvāka, of 10 hymns and 30 verses, ends here. The quotation is simply prathama (or -mā): see under the next anuvāka.
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 101

101. For virile power.
[Atharvān̄giras (çepaḥprathanakāmaḥ).—brāhmaṇaspatyam. ānuṣṭubham.]
Not found in Pāipp. Used by Kāuç. (40. 18) in a rite for sexual vigor, after vi. 72.
Translated: Griffith, i. 474.—Cf. iv. 4; vi. 72.
1. Play thou the bull, blow, increase and spread; let thy member increase limb by limb; with it smite the woman.
The comm. takes yathā and an̄gam in c as two separate words, and many of SPP's saṁhitā mss. accent yáthā ’n̄gám According to the comm., the amulet of arka-wood is the remedy here used. ⌊Cf. also the Bower Manuscript, ed. Hoernle, Part I., p. 5, çloka 60, and p. 17, where pomegranate rind and mustard oil take the place of arka.⌋
2. Wherewith they invigorate one who is lean, wherewith they incite (hi) one who is ill—with that, O Brahmaṇaspati, make thou his member taut like a bow.
Our Bp. reads vājayánti in a. The second half-verse is nearly a repetition of iv. 4. 6 c, d. The comm. reads vaçam for kṛçam in a.
3. I make thy member taut, like a bowstring on a bow; mount, as it were a stag a doe, unrelaxingly always.
This verse is a repetition of iv. 4. 7. The Anukr. passes unnoticed the abbreviated iva both here and in vs. 2.
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book V/Hymn 9

9. For protection: to various gods.
[Brahman.—aṣṭakam. vāstoṣpatyam. 1, 5. dāivī bṛhatī; 2, 6. dāivī triṣṭubh; 3, 4. dāivī jagatī; 7. virāḍuṣṇigbṛhatīgarbhā 5-p. jagatī; 8. puraskṛtitriṣṭubbṛhatīgarbhā 4-p. 3-av. jagatī.]
⌊This piece is prose.⌋ Neither this piece nor the next is found in Pāipp. This one is quoted in Kāuç. (28. 17) in a remedial ceremony, together with vi. 91; and it is reckoned (8. 23, note) to the vāstu gaṇa and (26. 1, note) the takmaṇāçana gaṇa.
Translated: Griffith, i. 201; Weber, xviii. 197.
1. To heaven hail!
2. To earth hail!
3. To atmosphere hail!
4. To atmosphere hail!
5. To heaven hail!
6. To earth hail!
⌊The invocations of vss. 4-6 are those of 1-3 with changed order.⌋
7. The sun my eye, wind my breath, atmosphere my soul (ātmán), earth my body; unquelled (astṛtá) by name am I here; [as] such I deposit myself for heaven and earth to guard (gopīthá).
8. Up life-time, up strength, up act (kṛtá), up action (kṛtyā́), up skill (manīṣā́), up sense (indriyá); O life- (ā́yus-) maker, O ye (two) mistresses of life, rich in svadhā́⌊m.⌋, be ye my guardians, guard me; be my soulsitters; do not harm me.
The nouns with 'up' are accusatives, but what verb should be supplied for the construction it is not easy to see. Perhaps ā́yuṣkṛt (p. ā́yuḥ-kṛt) should be -kṛtā, as dual; at any rate, all that follows it is dual. Apparently the Anukr. would divide vs. 7 as 9 + 12: 10 + 7 + 10 = 48; and vs. 8 as 9 + 11: 20: 11 = 51; but the descriptions are blind and inaccurate. ⌊Weber discusses the peculiarities of gender.⌋
A passage corresponding to this hymn is found in K. xxxvii. 15.
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 102

102. To win a woman.
[Jamadagni (abhisammanaskāmaḥ) .—āçvinam. ānuṣṭubham.]
Found also in Pāipp. xix. Used by Kāuç. (35. 21) in a rite concerning women, with vi. 8, 9, etc., for reducing to one's will. Verse 3 is also reckoned (19. 1, note) to the puṣṭika mantras.
Translated: Weber, Ind. Stud. 243; Grill, 54, 169; Griffith, i. 301; Bloomfield, 101, 512.
1. As this draft-horse (vāhá), O Açvins, comes together and moves together [with his mate], so unto me let thy mind come together and move together.
The comm. paraphrases vāhas with suçikṣito ’çvaḥ, 'a well-trained horse,' but regards the driver (vāhaka) as the unexpressed object ⌊? or adjunct⌋ of the verbs—which is also possible.
2. I drag along (ā-khid) thy mind, as a king-horse a side-mare (?); like grass cut by a whirlwind, let thy mind twine itself to me.
Some of SPP's authorities give pṛṣṭhyā́m in b; but in general the mss. cannot be relied on to distinguish ṣṭy and ṣṭhy. The Pet. Lex. understands the word with ṭh, but the minor Pet. Lex. with ṭ, in the sense here given, which Grill (following Roth) accepts. ⌊Cf. W's note to xviii. 4. 10.⌋ The comm. explains the word as çan̄kubaddhām '[a mare] tied to a stake (to the pole of the chariot?)', rājāçva as açvaçreṣṭha, and ā khidāmi as madabhimukham utkhanāmy unmūlayāmy āvarjayāmi. The reading tṛ́ṇma in c, which our edition wrongly accepts, is that of only two of our mss. (Bp.Bp.$^2$). ⌊Read therefore tṛ́ṇam.⌋ The comm. explains reṣman as reṣako vātyātmako vāyuḥ. Ppp. ends b with pṛṣṭyāmayaḥ.
3. Of ointment, of madúgha, of kúṣṭha, and of nard, by the hands of Bhaga, I bring up quick a means of subjection.
The construction of the genitives in the first half-verse is obscure. The comm. makes them depend on anurodhanam, and so also Grill. They are perhaps rather the means by which the anurodhana (= anulepana, comm.) or gaining to one's purposes of the desired person is to be brought about, and so are coördinate with Bhagasya, the latter's 'hands' taking the place of the 'means' or 'aid' which would have better suited them. Turás in c is possibly genitive, 'of quick' (or powerful) Bhaga (so the comm.: = tvaramāṇasya). Ppp. reads (as in other places) madhugasya in a; the comm. madhughasya. Ppp. has also ā for ud in d. Several of our mss. (P.M.I.O.T.) accent ánu ródh-, ⌊and so do six of⌋ SPP's authorities.
The tenth anuvāka, of 10 hymns and 30 verses, ends here; the quoted Anukr. says simply daçama.
Here ends also the fourteenth prapāṭhaka.
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VI/Hymn 100

100. Against poison.
[Garutman.—vānaspatyam. ānuṣṭubham.]
Found also in Pāipp. xix. Used by Kāuç. (31. 26) in a remedial rite against various poisons, with aid of earth from an ant-hill etc.; and the comm. ⌊considers this (and not xviii. 4. 2) to be intended at 81. 10⌋ when the sacrificial cake is laid on the breast of a deceased sacrificer on the funeral-pile.
Translated: Ludwig, p. 511; Griffith, i. 300; Bloomfield, 27, 511.—See also Bergaigne-Henry, Manuel, p. 153; Bloomfield, AJP. vii. 482. Griffith quotes an interesting paragraph about the moisture of the white-ants.
1. The gods have given, the sun has given, the sky has given, the earth has given, the three Sarasvatīs have given, accordant, the poison-spoiler.
Ppp. combines devā ’duḥ in a, and has sarvās instead of tīsras in c. The comm. renders the first verb correctly, by dattavantas, but the others as imperatives.
2. The water which the gods poured for you, O upajī́kās, on the waste, with that, which is impelled by the gods, spoil ye this poison.
All the authorities* read upajīkās, vocative, which was, without good reason, altered to upajī́kās in our edition. The comm., however, with his ordinary disregard of accent, understands devā́s as vocative, and upajīkās as nominative. He quotes from TA. v. i. 4 the passage which describes the upadī́kās (so called there) as 'penetrating to water, wherever they dig'; they are a kind of ant: cf. note to ii. 3. 4. Ppp. reads upacīkā, and combines -kā ”siñcan; also, in b, dhanvann. *⌊But SPP's Bh. has upajīkā́s!⌋
3. Thou art daughter of the Asuras; thou, the same, art sister of the gods; arisen from the sky, from the earth, thou hast made the poison sapless.
Ppp. omits sā in b, and reads jajñiṣe instead of sambhatā in c. The second pāda is found also as v. 5. 1 d. The comm. has, in d, cakarṣa instead of cakartha; he regards earth from the ant-hill (valmīkamṛttikā) as addressed in the verse.
# Australian Legendary Tales/Mooregoo the Mopoke, and Bahloo the Moon

Mooregoo the Mopoke, and Bahloo the Moon
Mooregoo the Mopoke had been camped away by himself for a long time. While alone he had made a great number of boomerangs, nullah-nullahs, spears, neilahmans, and opossum rugs. Well had he carved the weapons with the teeth of opossums, and brightly had he painted the inside of the rugs with coloured designs, and strongly had he sewn them with the sinews of opossums, threaded in the needle made of the little bone taken from the leg of an emu. As Mooregoo looked at his work he was proud of all he had done.
One night Bahloo the moon came to his camp, and said: "Lend me one of your opossum rugs."
"No. I lend not my rugs."
"Then give me one."
"No I give not my rugs."
Looking round, Bahloo saw the beautifully carved weapons, so he said, "Then give me, Mooregoo, some of your weapons."
"No, I give, never, what I have made, to another."
​Again Bahloo said, "The night is cold. Lend me a rug."
"I have spoken," said Mooregoo. "I never lend my rugs."
Bahloo said no more, but went away, cut some bark and made a dardurr for himself. When it was finished and he safely housed in it, down came the rain in torrents. And it rained without ceasing until the whole country was flooded. Mooregoo was drowned. His weapons floated about and drifted apart, and his rugs rotted in the water.