OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Observational Diary of the Habits of Great Crested Grebe and Peewit, Selous 1901

'An Observational Diary of the Habits—Mostly Domestic—of the Great Crested Grebe (Podicipes cristatus), and of the Peewit (Vanellus vulgaris), with Some General Remarks' was published in The Zoologist, 4th series, vol 5 and vol 6 in four parts:
* Part 1, in: issue 719 (May, 1901), p. 161–183
* Part 2, in: issue 723 (September, 1901), p. 339–350
* Part 3, in: issue 726 (December, 1901), p. 454–462
* Part 4, in: issue 730 (April, 1902), p. 133–144
See also:
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1934, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 89 years or less. 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
# Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816

"Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816 is an 1818 paper written by Robert Brown on the botany of the Congo, based on collections made during the expedition of James Hingston Tuckey. Though nominally concerned with the floristics and biogeography of the area, it is today considered most significant for its systematical contributions, especially at family rank, including the first publication of Connaraceae and Chrysobalanaceae, and insightful circumscriptions of Flacourtiaceae, Loganiaceae and Berberidaceae.

## Publications in English

* "Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816" in Tuckey, James Hingston (1818), Narrative of an expedition to explore the River Zaire: 420–485.
* Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816 (an offprint with separate pagination).
* "Observations, systematical and geographical, on the herbarium collected by Professor Christian Smith, in the vicinity of the Congo, during the expedition to explore that river, under the command of Captain Tuckey, in the year 1816" in Bennett, John Joseph (ed.) (1866) The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown, Esq., D.C.L., F.R.S. 1: 97–173.

## Translations

* A German translation of this work appeared in Nees von Esenbeck, C. G. D. (ed.) (1827), Robert Brown's Vermischte botanische Schriften 1:167–336.
* A German translation of this appeared in Isis (1918).
* A French translation of Tuckey's book was published; presumably Brown's botanical appendix was included.

## Reviews

* Barrow, John; Salt, Henry; Hamilton, William (1818). "Narrative of an Expedition to explore the River Zaire, usually called the Congo, in South Africa, in 1816, under the Direction of Captain J. H. Tuckey, R. N.". Quarterly Review 18 (36): 335–379.
* Salisbury, Richard (1818). "Narrative of an Expedition to explore the River Zaire". Monthly Review 86: 113–129,292–305
# Observations géographiques sur les découvertes en Afrique

English-language translations of Observations géographiques sur les découvertes en Afrique include:
* "Observations on the Discoveries in Africa" in Travels in the Interior of Africa translated by Thomas Edward Bowdich (1820) (external scan)
* "Preface" in Travels in Africa, to the Sources of the Senegal and Gambia in 1818, translated anonymously (1820) (external scan)
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
# Observations on Man (6th edition)

* information about this edition.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Contents

* Preface
* Contents
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
# Observations on Man

* (1749) Observations on Man, 1st edition
* (17xx) Observations on Man, 2nd edition
* (1xxx) Observations on Man, 3rd edition
* (1xxx) Observations on Man, 4th edition
* (1xxx) Observations on Man, 5th edition
* (1834) Observations on Man, 6th edition
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
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume III/Theodoret/Ecclesiastical History/Book II/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—Concerning the Banishment and Return of the Holy Liberius.
This victorious champion of the truth was sent into Thrace, according to the imperial order. Two years after this event Constantius went to Rome. The ladies of rank urged their husbands to petition the emperor for the restoration of the shepherd to his flock: they added, that if this were not granted, they would desert them, and go themselves after their great pastor. Their husbands replied, that they were afraid of incurring the resentment of the emperor. “If we were to ask him,” they continued, “being men, he would deem it an unpardonable offence; but if you were yourselves to present the petition, he would at any rate spare you, and would either accede to your request, or else dismiss you without injury.” These noble ladies adopted this suggestion, and presented themselves before the emperor in all their customary splendour of array, that so the sovereign, judging their rank from their dress, might count them worthy of being treated with courtesy and kindness. Thus entering the presence, they besought him to take pity on the condition of so large a city, deprived of its shepherd, and made an easy prey to the attacks of wolves. The emperor replied, that the flock possessed a shepherd capable of tending it, and that no other was needed in the city. For after the banishment of the great Liberius, one of his deacons, named Felix, had been appointed bishop. He preserved inviolate the doctrines set forth in the Nicene confession of faith, yet he held communion with those who had corrupted that faith. For this reason none of the citizens of Rome would enter the House of Prayer while he was in it. The ladies mentioned these facts to the emperor. Their persuasions were successful; and he commanded that the great Liberius should be recalled from exile, and that the two bishops should conjointly rule the Church. The edict of the emperor was read in the circus, and the multitude shouted that the imperial ordinance was just; that the spectators were divided into two factions, each deriving its name from its own colours, and that each faction would now have its own bishop. After having thus ridiculed the edict of the emperor, they all exclaimed with one voice, “One God, one Christ, one bishop.” I have deemed it right to set down their precise words. Some time after this Christian people had uttered these pious and righteous acclamations, the holy Liberius returned, and Felix retired to another city.
I have, for the sake of preserving order, appended this narrative to what relates to the proceedings of the bishops at Milan. I shall now return to the relation of events in their due course.

## Footnotes

* ↑ There were originally four factions in the Circus; blue, green, white, and red. Domitian added two more, golden and purple. But the blue and the green absorbed the rest, and divided the multitude at the games. Cf. Juv. XI. 197. “Totam hodie Romam circus capit, et fragor aurem Percutit, eventum viridis quo colligo panni.” Cf. Amm. Marc. xiv. 6, and Plin. Ep. ix. 6.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book V/Chapter 25

Chapter XXV.—How All came to an Agreement respecting the Passover.
1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:
2. “Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ In chaps. 22 and 23. For particulars in regard to them, see chap. 22, notes 6 and 7.
* ↑ Cassius and Clarus are otherwise unknown men.
* ↑ i.e. in the Palestinian council mentioned in chap. 23. Upon this and the other councils held at the same period, see chap. 23, note 2.
* ↑ This fragment is given, with annotations, by Routh, Rel. Sac. II. p. 3 sq. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. p. 774.
* ↑ These epistles, like all the rest written at this time on the paschal question, are now lost (see chap. 23, note 4).
# Nixon v. Administrator of General Services/Concurrence-dissent Blackmun

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stevens
* Concurrence/Dissents White Blackmun Powell
* Dissenting Opinions Berger Rehnquist
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
My posture in this case is essentially that of MR. JUSTICE POWELL, post, p. [433 U.S. 425#492 433 U.S. 492]. I refrain from joining his opinion, however, because I fall somewhat short of sharing his view, post at [433 U.S. 425#490 433 U.S. 498] and [433 U.S. 425#501 433 U.S. 501]-502, that the incumbent President's submission, made through the Solicitor General, that the Act serves, rather than hinders, the Chief Executive's Art. II functions, is dispositive of the separation of powers issue. I would be willing to agree that it is significant and that it is entitled to serious consideration, but I am not convinced that it is dispositive. The fact that President Ford signed the Act does not mean that he necessarily approved of its every detail. Political realities often guide a President to a decision not to veto.
One must remind oneself that our Nation's history reveals a number of instances where Presidential transition has not been particularly friendly or easy. On occasion, it has been openly hostile. It is my hope and anticipation — as it obviously is of the others who have written in this case — that this Act, concerned as it is with what the Court describes, ante at [433 U.S. 425#472 433 U.S. 472], as "a legitimate class of one," will not become a model for the disposition of the papers of each President who leaves office at a time when his successor or the Congress is not of his political persuasion.
I agree fully with my Brother POWELL when he observes, post at [433 U.S. 425#503 433 U.S. 503], that the "difficult constitutional questions lie ahead" for resolution in the future. Reserving judgment on ​ those issues for a more appropriate time — certainly not now — I, too, join the judgment of the Court, and agree with much of its opinion. I specifically join Part VII of the Court's opinion.
# Nixon's letter to Nguyen van Thieun

* related portals: Presidents of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
January 5, 1973
Dear Mr. President:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 20, 1972.
There is nothing substantial that I can add to my many previous messages, including my December 17 letter, which clearly stated my opinions and intentions. With respect to the question of North Vietnamese troops, we will again present your views to the Communists as we have done vigorously at every other opportunity in the negotiations. The result is certain to be once more the rejection of our position. We have explained to you repeatedly why we believe the problem of North Vietnamese troops is manageable under the agreement, and I, therefore, see no reason to repeat all the arguments.
We will proceed next week in Paris along the lines that General Haig explained to you. Accordingly, if the North Vietnamese meet our concerns on the two outstanding substantive issues in the agreement, concerning the DMZ and type method of signing and if we can arrange acceptable supervisory machinery, we will proceed to conclude the settlement. The gravest consequence would then ensue if your government chose to reject the agreement and split off from the United States. As I said in my December 17 letter, "I am convinced that your refusal to join us would be an invitation to disaster - to the loss of all that we together have fought for over the past decade. It would be inexcusable above all because we will have lost a just and honorable alternative. "
As we enter this new round of talks, I hope that our countries will now show a united front. It is imperative for our common objectives that your government take no further actions that complicate our task and would make more difficult the acceptance of the settlement by all parties. We will keep you informed of the negotiations in Paris through daily briefings of Ambassador Lam.
I can only repeat what I have so often said: The best guarantee for the survival of South Vietnam is the unity of our two countries which would be gravely jeopardized if you persist in your present course. The actions of our Congress since its return have clearly borne out the many warnings we have made.
Should you decide, as I trust you will, to go with us, you have my assurance of continued assistance in the post-settlement period and that we will respond with full force should the settlement be violated by North Vietnam. So once more I conclude with an appeal to you to close ranks with us.
Sincerely, Richard Nixon

## Annotations

* ↑ Ambassador Pham Dang Lam
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 II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference III/Chapter 18

Chapter XVIII.
That the continual fear of God must be bestowed on us by the Lord.
And lastly the prophet Jeremiah, speaking in the person of God, clearly testifies that even the fear of God, by which we can hold fast to Him, is shed upon us by the Lord: saying as follows: “And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear Me all days: and that it may be well with them and with their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them and will not cease to do them good: and I will give My fear in their hearts that they may not revolt from Me.” Ezekiel also says: “And I will give them one heart, and will put a new spirit in their bowels: and I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh and will give them a heart of flesh: that they may walk in My commandments, and keep My judgments and do them: and that they may be My people, and I may be their God.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Jerem. xxxii. 39, 40.
* ↑ Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference III/Chapter 20

Chapter XX.
That nothing can be done in this world without God.
But it is right for us to hold with unswerving faith that nothing whatever is done in this world without God. For we must acknowledge that everything is done either by His will or by His permission, i.e., we must believe that whatever is good is carried out by the will of God and by His aid, and whatever is the reverse is done by His permission, when the Divine Protection is withdrawn from us for our sins and the hardness of our hearts, and suffers the devil and the shameful passions of the body to lord it over us. And the words of the Apostle most assuredly teach us this, when he says: “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful passions:” and again: “Because they did not like to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.” And the Lord Himself says by the prophet: “But My people did not hear My voice and Israel did not obey me: Wherefore I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lusts. They shall walk after their own inventions.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. i. 26, 28.
* ↑ Ps. lxxx. (lxxxi.) 12, 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference III/Chapter 21

Chapter XXI.
An objection on the power of free will.
Germanus: This passage very clearly shows the freedom of the will, where it is said “If My people would have hearkened unto Me,” and elsewhere “But My people would not hear My voice.” For when He says “If they would have heard” He shows that the decision to yield or not to yield lay in their own power. How then is it true that our salvation does not depend upon ourselves, if God Himself has given us the power either to hearken or not to hearken?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ps. lxxx. (lxxxi.) 12, 13.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference III/Chapter 22

Chapter XXII.
The answer; viz., that our free will always has need of the help of the Lord.
Paphnutius: You have shrewdly enough noticed how it is said “If they would have hearkened to Me:” but have not sufficiently considered either who it is who speaks to one who does or does not hearken; or what follows: “I should soon have put down their enemies, and laid My hand on those that trouble them.” Let no one then try by a false interpretation to twist that which we brought forward to prove that nothing can be done without the Lord, nor take it in support of free will, in such a way as to try to take away from man the grace of God and His daily oversight, through this test: “But My people did not hear My voice,” and again: “If My people would have hearkened unto Me, and if Israel would have walked in My ways, etc.:” but let him consider that just as the power of free will is evidenced by the disobedience of the people, so the daily oversight
of God who declares and admonishes him is also shown. For where He says “If My people would have hearkened unto Me” He clearly implies that He had spoken to them before. And this the Lord was wont to do not only by means of the written law, but also by daily exhortations, as this which is given by Isaiah: “All day long have I stretched forth My hands to a disobedient and gain-saying people.” Both points then can be supported from this passage, where it says: “If My people would have hearkened, and if Israel had walked in My ways, I should soon have put down their enemies, and laid My hand on those that trouble them.” For just as free will is shown by the disobedience of the people, so the government of God and His assistance is made clear by the beginning and end of the verse, where He implies that He had spoken to them before, and that afterwards He would put down their enemies, if they would have hearkened unto Him. For we have no wish to do away with man’s free will by what we have said, but only to establish the fact that the assistance and grace of God are necessary to it every day and hour. When he had instructed us with this discourse Abbot Paphnutius dismissed us from his cell before midnight in a state of contrition rather than of liveliness; insisting on this as the chief lesson in his discourse; viz., that when we fancied that by making perfect the first renunciation (which we were endeavouring to do with all our powers), we could climb the heights of perfection, we should make the discovery that we had not yet even begun to dream of the heights to which a monk can rise, since after we had learnt some few things about the second renunciation, we should find out that we had not before this even heard a word of the third stage, in which all perfection is comprised, and which in many ways far exceeds these lower ones.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Ib. ver. 15.
* ↑ Is. lxv. 2.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XI/John Cassian/Conferences of John Cassian, Part I/Conference III/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.
That the beginning of our good will and its completion comes from God.
And this plainly teaches us that the beginning of our good will is given to us by the inspiration of the Lord, when He draws us towards the way of salvation either by His own act, or by the exhortations of some man, or by compulsion; and that the consummation of our good deeds is granted by Him in the same way: but that it is in our own power to follow up the encouragement and assistance of God with more or less zeal, and that accordingly we are rightly visited either with reward or with punishment, because we have been either careless or careful to correspond to His design and providential arrangement made for us with such kindly regard. And this is clearly and plainly described in Deuteronomy. “When,” says he, “the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land which thou art going to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Gergeshite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art and stronger than thou, and the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them.
Thou shalt make no league with them. Neither shalt thou make marriage with them.” So then Scripture declares that it is the free gift of God that they are brought into the land of promise, that many nations are destroyed before them, that nations more numerous and mightier than the people of Israel are given up into their hands. But whether Israel utterly destroys them, or whether it preserves them alive and spares them, and whether or no it makes a league with them, and makes marriages with them or not, it declares lies in their own power. And by this testimony we can clearly see what we ought to ascribe to free will, and what to the design and daily assistance of the Lord, and that it belongs to divine grace to give us opportunities of salvation and prosperous undertakings and victory: but that it is ours to follow up the blessings which God gives us with earnestness or indifference. And this same fact we see is plainly taught in the healing of the blind men. For the fact that Jesus passed by them, was a free gift of Divine providence and condescension. But the fact that they cried out and said “Have mercy on us, Lord, thou son of David,” was an act of their own faith and belief. That they received the sight of their eyes was a gift of Divine pity. But that after the reception of any blessing, the grace of God, and the use of free will both remain, the case of the ten lepers, who were all healed alike, shows us. For when one of them through goodness of will returned thanks, the Lord looking for the nine, and praising the one, showed that He was ever anxious to help even those who were unmindful of His kindness. For even this is a gift of His visitation; viz., that he receives and commends the grateful one, and looks for and censures those who are thankless.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Deut. vii. 1–3.
* ↑ S. Matt. xx. 31.