OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles/The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles/Elucidations

Elucidations.
I
(Thus baptize ye, p. 379.)
If we compare this chapter with the corresponding one in the Apostolic Constitutions, the Teaching seems to me to be a somewhat abridged form of a common original. This being designed for the catechumens, there is an omission of what they are afterwards to know. A form originally drawn up for clergy and people has been very inartificially expurgated for the instruction of young disciples. This appears from the ninth chapter (p. 380), where only certain receptive or responsive forms are given. The liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions, book viii., embodies what was studiously kept from all but the τέλειοι, i.e., those “of full age.”
II
(Concerning Apostles, p. 380, note 16.)
The reference to “apostles,” probably itinerant, in Rev. ii. 2, corresponds with this. There were officers known in the Apostolic day (compare 2 Cor. viii. 23, Greek) as ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησιω̑ν, for the pseud-apostles of the Apocalypse could not have pretended what they did had it been otherwise. Neither would it have been needful to “try those who said they were apostles,” in that case: the mere assertion of such a pretence would have sufficiently convicted them.
The very childish directions (suited to mere catechumens) given in the text illustrates Rev ii. 2, and is, so far, evidence of the very early origin of the Teaching.
The name apostles was made technical by Christ Himself: “He named them Apostles” (Luke vi. 13). And the word is never used in the loose way which Bishop Lightfoot hazardously suggests, as I must venture to believe.
III
(Incipient fanaticism, p. 381, note 25.)
Unquestionably, for even in St. Paul’s day his admonitions imply nothing less. See 1 Cor. cap. xiv., passim. But, as in the Introductory Notice I hinted my suspicions of incipient Montanism in the Teaching, so I am strengthened in this idea by the learned critic to whose note I venture to append this remark for the purpose of asking a reference to my annotations of Hermas in vol. ii. of this series. May I also ask a reference to the same volume, pp. 4, 5, and 6? The “meal” (note 23, p. 380) of the Teaching is doubtless the Agape, which had been abused at so early a day, that St. Peter himself was forced to denounce the “false prophets” who polluted this feast of charity.

## Footnotes

* ↑ P. 371, supra.
* ↑ Pet. ii. 13. Compare 1 John iv. 1.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Venantius

Venantius

## Contents

* On Easter
# Arkansas Women's Political Caucus v. Riviere/Dissent Hubbell

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinions Hubbell Hickman
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
​WEBB HUBBELL, Chief Justice, dissenting. The only issue before us is whether Amendment 65's ballot title and popular name are (1) intelligible, (2) honest, and (3) impartial. Leigh v. Hall, 232 Ark. 558, 339 S.W.2d 104 (1960). The petitioner does not raise the constitutionality of the proposed amendment, so that issue cannot be considered.
The ballot title is an almost verbatim reproduction of the amendment and is not misleading. The popular name "Unborn Child Amendment" need not have the same detailed information as is required for the ballot title. Although many people oppose the use of the term "unborn child," since Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the term is understood and widely used. Several of our surrounding states use "unborn child" in their abortion statutes and define unborn child as the entity from conception to birth. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 188.015; Okla. Stat. 6351-730. The popular name, although certainly used to provoke emotion, is intelligible.
We should always heistate to remove any initiated act from the ballot. Our function is to unify, not fracture, to set limits and define boundaries within which the political process can operate. We cannot ordain specific solutions to vexatious, divisive, and perhaps insoluble problems of ​public policy. Unless the people stray beyond the bounds of reasonable constitutional interpretation, we should not hurl our constitutional thunderbolts.
# Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland/Concurrence Stevens

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Stevens
* Dissenting Opinion Scalia
Justice Stevens, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
To the extent that the Court's opinion relies on the proposition "'that government has no power to restrict expression [p235] because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,'" see ante, at 229 (quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972)), I am unable to join it. I do, however, agree that the State has the burden of justifying its content-based discrimination and has plainly failed to do so. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, III-B, IV, and V of the Court's opinion and concur in its judgment.

## Notes

* ↑ See my separate opinions in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U.S. 530, 544 (1980); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 277 (1981); and Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641, 692 (1984); see also FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364, 408 (1984).
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
# Arkansas ex rel. Utley v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
269 U.S. 172
Arkansas ex rel. Utley v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
Argued: and Submitted Oct. 22, 1925. --- Decided: Nov 16, 1925
Messrs. Horace Sloan, of Jonesboro, Ark., and J. S. Utley, of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Thomas B. Pryor, of Ft. Smith, Ark., Gordon Frierson, of Jonesboro, Ark., Wm. J. Orr, of Springfield, Mo., Edward L. Westbrooke, of Jonesboro, Ark., and Edward T. Miller, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants 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
# Ballads of Battle/The Broken Heart

THE BROKEN HEART
# Ballads of Battle/The Drum

THE DRUM
# Ballads of Battle/The Green Grass

THE GREEN GRASS
# Ballads of Battle/Stand-to!

STAND-TO!
# Ballads of Battle/The Bayonet

THE BAYONET
# Ballads of Battle/The Billet

THE BILLET
* ↑ There is something slightly sardonic in the fact that the old Jacobite rant, "Hey, Johnnie Cope, are ye waukin' yet?" which was used for the berousing and belabouring of the Whigs, should now do duty as Reveille to a Highland regiment. So, at least, it seems to one at seven o'clock of a cold winter's morning !
* ↑ The greatest compliment I ever received to my power as a story-teller was paid me by a comrade, who, on the morning after the recital of Bierce's "The Middle Toe of the Right Foot," presented me with a small model of a human foot, minus a toe, which he had executed in the wax of a candle!
# Ballads of Battle/The Combat

THE COMBAT
"For I am fearfully and wonderfully made."
# Ballads of Battle/The Dead Man

THE DEAD MAN
# Ballads of Battle/Song of True Lovers

SONG OF TRUE LOVERS
# Ballads of Battle/The Bullet

THE BULLET
# Aristopia

* related portals: Alternate history.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
ARISTOPIA
A Romance-History of the New World
By
Castello N. Holford
BOSTON
ARENA PUBLISHING COMPANY
Copley Square
1895
Copyrighted, 1895, by C. N. HOLFORD
All Rights Reserved.
* Introduction
* 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
* 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
# Arcades

Arcades is a masque written by John Milton and performed on 4 May 1634. The piece was written to celebrate the character of Alice Spencer, the Countess Dowager of Derby, widow of Ferdinando Stanley, during her 75th birthday. The piece served as a basis for Milton's later masque, Comus.
* Arcades, in Poems of Mr. John Milton, Both English and Latin, Compos'd at several times (1645)
* Arcades, an extract in Comus and other poems (1906)
# Arcana Coelestia

English-language translations of Arcana Coelestia include:
* Arcana Coelestia (1870-1873) translated by the American Swedenborg Printing And Publishing Society (transcription project)
* Arcana Coelestia (1905-1910) translated by John Faulkner Potts
# Arcadia

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Arcadia."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, travel guide, 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.
* The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia by Philip Sidney
* "Arcadia" by Jacopo Sannazaro
* "Arcadia" by H.P. Lovecraft

## See also

* Happy Arcadia by William Schwenck Gilbert
* Arcadia, Ohio v. Ohio Power Company, a US Supreme Court case whose decision was written by Antonin Scalia
* The Arcadians by Mark Ambient, Alexander Thomson, and Arthur Wimperis
# Armstrong v. Morrill

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Strong
United States Supreme Court
81 U.S. 120
Armstrong v. Morrill

## 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
# Armstrong v. Lear

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
33 U.S. 52
Armstrong v. Lear

## 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
# Armstrong v. Railroad Armstrong

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
350 U.S. 568
Armstrong v. Railroad Armstrong
Argued: Nov. 15, 1955. --- Decided: April 9, 1956
See 351 U.S. 943, 76 S.Ct. 832.
Mr. Robert N. Gorman, Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner.
Mr. Walter K. Sibbald, Cincinnati, Ohio, for respondent.
Mr. Justice MINTON 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
# Armstrong v. Manzo

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
380 U.S. 545
Armstrong v. Manzo
Argued: March 9, 1965. --- Decided: April 27, 1965
Ewell Lee Smith, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for petitioner.
William Duncan, El Paso, Tex., for respondents.
Mr. Justice STEWART 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
# Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Dissenting Opinion

    Clark
United States Supreme Court
372 U.S. 658
Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company
Argued: Jan. 10, 1963. --- Decided: April 15, 1963
John C. Lovett, Benton, Ky., for petitioners.
Ralph S. Spritzer, Washington, D.C., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.
Dean Acheson, Washington, D.C., for respondents.
Mr. Justice BRENNAN 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
# Arrowsmith

* related portals: Pulitzers, American literature.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
Winner of the 1926 Pulitzer Prize for the Novel
Layout 2
ARROWSMITH
By SINCLAIR LEWIS
Author of Main Street, Babbitt, etc.
NEW YORK HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY 130
COPYRIGHT, 1925, BY HARCOURT, BRACE AND COMPANY, INC.
Copyright, 1924, 1925, by The Designer Publishing Company, Inc.
The first edition of Arrowsmith consists of 500 copies on handmade paper, numbered and signed by the author.
Second printing [first trade edition], January, 1925
PRINTED IN THE U. S. A. BY THE QUINN & BODEN COMPANY RAHWAY, N. J.
To Dr. Paul H. DeKruif I am indebted not only for most of the bacteriological and medical material in this tale but equally for his help in the planning of the fable itself—for his realization of the characters as living people, for his philosophy as a scientist. With this acknowledgment I want to record our months of companionship while working on the book, in the United States, in the West Indies, in Panama, in London and Fontainebleau. I wish I could reproduce our talks along the way, and the laboratory afternoons, the restaurants at night, and the deck at dawn as we steamed into tropic ports.
Sinclair Lewis
* Chapter I
* Chapter II
* Chapter III
* Chapter IV
* Chapter V
* Chapter VI
* Chapter VII
* Chapter VIII
* Chapter IX
* Chapter X
* Chapter XI
* Chapter XII
* Chapter XIII
* Chapter XIV
* Chapter XV
* Chapter XVI
* Chapter XVII
* Chapter XVIII
* Chapter XIX
* Chapter XX
* Chapter XXI
* Chapter XXII
* Chapter XXIII
* Chapter XXIV
* Chapter XXV
* Chapter XXVI
* Chapter XXVII
* Chapter XXVIII
* Chapter XXIX
* Chapter XXX
* Chapter XXXI
* Chapter XXXII
* Chapter XXXIII
* Chapter XXXIV
* Chapter XXXV
* Chapter XXXVI
* Chapter XXXVII
* Chapter XXXVIII
* Chapter XXXIX
* Chapter XL
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 1951, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 72 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
# Areopagitica

* Areopagitica (1644)
* "Plea for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing" in The World's Famous Orations, Volume 3 (1906)
* Areopagitica in The Harvard Classics Vol. 3 (1909)
# Argentina

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Argentina."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, taxonomy, 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.
* "Argentina," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
* "Argentina," in The World Factbook, (ed.) by CIA (1982)
* "Argentina," in CIA World Fact Book, (ed.) by CIA (2004)

## See also

* Portal:Argentina
# Argersinger v. Hamlin/Concurrence Brennan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinions Brennan Burger Powell
[p40] MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS and MR. JUSTICE STEWART join, concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court and add only an observation upon its discussion of legal resources, ante, at 37 n. 7. Law students as well as practicing attorneys may provide an important source of legal representation for the indigent. The Council on Legal Education for Professional Responsibility (CLEPR) informs us that more than 125 of the country's 147 accredited law schools have established clinical programs in which faculty-supervised students aid clients in a variety of civil and criminal matters. CLEPR Newsletter, May 1972, p. 2. These programs supplement practice rules enacted in 38 States authorizing students to practice law under prescribed conditions. Ibid. Like the American Bar Association's Model Student Practice Rule (1969), most of these regulations permit students to make supervised [p41] court appearances as defense counsel in criminal cases. CLEPR, State Rules Permitting the Student Practice of Law: Comparisons and Comments 13 (1971). Given the huge increase in law school enrollments over the past few years, see Ruud, That Burgeoning Law School Enrollment, 58 A.B.A. J. 146 (1972), I think it plain that law students can be expected to make a significant contribution, quantitatively and qualitatively, to the representation of the poor in many areas, including cases reached by today's decision.

## Notes

* ↑ A total of 57 law schools have also established clinical programs in corrections, where law students, under faculty supervision, aid prisoners in the preparation of petitions for post-conviction relief. CLEPR Newsletter, May 1972, p. 3. See United States v. Simpson, 141 U.S. App. D.C. 8, 15-16, 436 F. 2d 162, 169-170 (1970).
# Barker Painting Company v. Local No 734 Brotherhood of Painters Decorators and Paperhangers of America

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 462
Barker Painting Company v. Local No 734 Brotherhood of Painters Decorators and Paperhangers of America
Argued: May 2, 1930. --- Decided: May 19, 1930
Mr. Merritt Lane, of Newark, N. J., for petitioner.
Mr. Morris Hillquit, of New York City, for respondents.
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
# Barker v. Craig

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
127 U.S. 213
Barker v. Craig
Geo. E. Pritchett, for appellants.
W. J. Connell, for appellee.
MILLER, 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
# Barker Painting Company v. Local No 734 Brotherhood of Painters Decorators and Paperhangers of America/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
281 U.S. 462
Barker Painting Company v. Local No 734 Brotherhood of Painters Decorators and Paperhangers of America
Argued: May 2, 1930. --- Decided: May 19, 1930
For the purpose of the present decision this case may be stated as it is stated by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The Barker Painting Company, a corporation of New York with its 'home office' in New York City, had a contract for painting at Somerville, New Jersey. The job was about thirty per cent. completed when the defendant union called off its men by force of the offending rules which require a contractor to pay the wage rate of his home district or that of the locality of the work, whichever is higher. The Barker Company filed the bill in equity in this case stating the facts and alleging unlawfulness of the rules because violative of sundry provisions of the federal Constitution and federal laws. The trial judge issued a preliminary injunction, mandatory in character in that it restrained the workmen from observing the union rules and from not returning to work. All the men save one obeyed the injunction, returned to work and completed the job.' This happened before a decision upon the merits by the District Court, April 14, 1926, 12 F. (2d) 945, and a final decree dismissing the bill, March 23, 1928. The Circuit Court of Appeals, while intimating its probable adhesion to its former decision in a similar case, Barker Painting Co. v. Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of America, 15 F.(2d) 16, in accord with the decree below, declined to deal with the merits on the ground that it had become unnecessary to deal with them and for that reason affirmed the dismissal of the bill. 34 F.(2d) 3.
Both sides desired that the Court should go farther afield. But a Court does all that its duty compels when it confines itself to the controversy before it. It cannot be required to go into general propositions or prophetic statements of how it is likely to act upon other possible or even probable issues that have not yet arisen. See Willing v. Chicago Auditorium Association, 277 U.S. 274, 48 S.C.t. 507, 72 L. Ed. 880. The controversy here was between the plaintiff and the painters in Somerville who prevented its finishing its job. If the case had needed to be considered on its merits, it would have been likely to involve a discussion more or less far reaching of the powers of the Union, but the plaintiff could not impose a duty to go into that discussion when before the time for it the resistance had been withdrawn and the job had been done.
Decree affirmed.

## 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
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VII/Hymn 10 (11)

10 (11). To Sarasvatī.
[Çāunaka.—sārasvatam. trāiṣṭubham.]
This hymn and the one next following are not found in Pāipp. This verse is RV. i. 164. 49 (which has the pāda-order a, c, b, d), also occurring in VS. (xxxviii. 5), TA. (iv. 8. 2), MS. (iv. 14. 3), and CB. (xiv. 9. 4. 28). ⌊See also Kaṭha-hss., p. 104.⌋ Kāuç. (32. 1), in the chapter of remedies, has it accompany the suckling of a child seized by the demon Jambha (suffering from dentition?).
Translated: Henry, 4, 53; Griffith, i. 332.
1. The breast of thine that is unfailing (?), that is kindly, that is favorable, easy of invocation, that is very liberal, with which thou gainest ​(? puṣ) all desirable things—O Sarasvatī, mayest thou cause [us] to suck that here.
RV. reads in a çaçayás; and in b (its c) ratnadhā́ vasuvíd (for sumnayúḥ suhávo). TA.MS. agree in all respects with RV.,* save that TA. has absurdly víçvāḥ in c (its b). VS. and ÇB. have the RV. readings,* but our order of the pādas. The comm. reads çiçayus in a, explaining it as either 'causing the prosperity of [its] young (çiçu)' or 'hidden (nigūḍha).' ⌊In d, Henry understands the "child" rather than "us."⌋ *⌊VS.ÇB.TA. have akar, combined (dhā́tave) ‘kaḥ; but the comm. to each of these texts renders it by kuru.⌋
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book VII/Hymn 103 (108)

103 (108). For betterment.
[Brahman.—ātmadāivatam. trāiṣṭubham.]
Found also in Paipp. xx. Used by Kāuç. (59. 19) with hymn 17 etc. (see under 17).
Translated: Ludwig, p. 269; Henry, 41, 116; Griffith, i. 378.—Cf. Bloomfield, AJP. xvii. 408-9.
1. What Kshatriya, seeking betterment, shall lead us up out of this reproachful hate—who that desires sacrifice, or who that desires bestowal? who wins long life-time among the gods?
This is apparently the appeal of a Brahman seeking employment (so Ludwig also). The comm. (also Ppp.) reads vanate in d; he gives alternative conjectural explanations, and tries, of course, on account of the repeated ka, to bring the verse into connection with Prajāpati (Ka). Ppp. further has no ‘syā in a, and kaṣ pūr. ko yaj. in c.