OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Birrel, Robert

​BIRREL, ROBERT (fl. 1567–1605), diarist, was a burgess of Edinburgh. His ‘Diary, containing Divers passages of Staite, and Uthers Memorable Accidents. From the 1532 yeir of our Redemption, till ye Beginnin of the yeir 1605,’ was published in 1798 in 'Fragments of Scottish History,' edited by Sir John Graham Dalyell. Extracts from the ‘Diary’ were also published in 1820. There is not much minuteness in the record of events till about 1567, when Birrel probably began to keep a note of them. There is no evidence in the ‘Diary’ regarding the political or religious views of the writer, facts being simply recorded as they happened, without comment or any apparent bias of opinion. There is some evidence that the work was intended for publication, the writer having apparently taken some trouble to collect his facts. A considerable part of it was incorporated by Sir James Balfour in his ‘Annals.' The original manuscript is in the Advocates' Library.
[Diary as ahove.]
T. F. H.
# Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Biscoe, John

​BISCOE, JOHN (d. 1679), puritan divine, was born at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, and educated at few Inn Hall, Oxford. In ‘Athenæ Oxonienses’ (ed. Bliss, iii. 1198) Wood states that he was born in 1646, which is probably a literal error for 1606. From the ‘Fasti’ we learn that he took his bachelors degree on 1 Feb, 1626-7. He left the university about two years afterwards, and became a preacher at Abingdon. Having joined the puritan party he was appointed minister of St. Thomas's, Southwark. He served as assistant to the commissioners of Surrey appointed to eject 'scandalous and insufficient ministers.' At the Restoration, being ejected from his living, he preached in conventicles. He died at High Wycombe, where he was buried on 9 June 1679. Biscoe is the author of: 1. 'Glorious Mystery of God's Mercy, or a Precious Cordial for Fainting Souls,' 1647, 8vo. 2. 'The Grand Trial of True conversion, or Sanctifying Grace appearing and acting first and chiefly in their Thoughts,' 8vo, 1655. 3. 'Mystery of Free Grace in the Gospel, and Mystery of the Gospel in the Law,' n.d.
Wood's Athenæ Oxonienses, ed. Bliss, iii. 1198; Wood's Fasti, ed. Bliss, i. 426; Calamy's Nonconformist's Memorial, ed. Palmer, i. 135.]
A. H. B.
# Cynthia, with certaine Sonnets and the Legend of Cassandra

Collection of poems, first published 1595.
* Cynthia, with certaine Sonnets and the Legend of Cassandra, in The Complete Poems of Richard Barnfield, (ed.) by Alexander B. Grosart (1876).
* Cynthia, with certaine Sonnets and the Legend of Cassandra, in Barnfield's Poems, (ed.) by Edward Arber (1878).
# Cyrano de Bergerac

Layout 2
CYRANO DE BERGERAC
A PLAY in Five Acts
By EDMOND ROSTAND Author of 'The Fantasticks' etc.
Translated from the French by GLADYS THOMAS and MARY F. GUILLEMARD
LONDON: WILLIAM HEINEMANN MCMXIX
* Act I
* Act II
* Act III
* Act IV
* Act V
ROBERT LORAINE AS CYRANO DE BERGERAC
CYRANO DE BERGERAC
SOME PRESS OPINIONS
William Archer, in The World.–'I am reading it with wonder and delight. Rumour has in no way exaggerated its extraordinary brilliancy. The translation is a remarkably able piece of work.'
St. James's Gazette.–'The translation has been faithfully, cleverly, and also artistically accomplished.'
Scotsman.–'The translation is eminently readable, and it will prove welcome to the many who are unable to taste the beauties of the work in French. To begin with, it follows the original faithfully, and so enables the reader to have an adequate notion of the character of Cyrano and of the story which has made such a stir.'
Outlook.–'The translators have managed to preserve intact the atmosphere, the spirit, all essentials. They have done wisely in subordinating all else to a faithful reproduction of the intentions of M. Rostand. They are to be congratulated on the result, also on the sympathetic and unselfish loyalty which has enabled them to accomplish with all possible success a task which must have presented countless difficulties. Their work makes pleasant and brave reading.'
Birmingham Gazette.–'We should say that we have in the work of these two ladies a rendering of M. Rostand's play as faithful as it is spirited…and betrays, from a literary standpoint, no trace of being an English version of a foreign work.'
London: WILLIAM HEINEMANN
21 Bedford Street, W. C.
First Impression. 5s. 1898 New Impressions (1s. 6d.) 1899, April 1900, May 1900, April 1907, April 1912, June 1914, February, May, June 1919
All rights reserved
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 1935, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 88 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
# Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
288 U.S. 188
Dickson v. Uhlmann Grain Company
Argued: Nov. 16, 17, 1932. --- Decided: Feb 6, 1933
Mr. S. J. Jones, of Carrollton, Mo., for petitioners.
Mr. Paul R. Stinson, of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 189 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS 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
# Dickson v. Luck Land Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
242 U.S. 371
Dickson v. Luck Land Company
Argued: December 6, 1916. --- Decided: January 8, 1917
Messrs. Frank Healy, Clyde R. White, and Charles C. Haupt for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Marshall A. Spooner for defendant in error.
Mr. Justice Van Devanter 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
# Dickson v. Patterson

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
160 U.S. 584
Dickson v. Patterson
W. W. Morsman, for appellant.
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
# Dauterive v. United States

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
101 U.S. 700
Dauterive v. United States
APPEAL from the District Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Edward Janin for the appellants.
The Solicitor-General, contra.
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD 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
# Davis v. Virginian Railway Company/Dissent Harlan

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Whittaker
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 354
Davis v. Virginian Railway Company
Argued: Dec. 10, 1959. --- Decided: Jan 25, 1960
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.
From the point of view of the functions of this Court, this decision provides another example of the futility of continuing to bring here for review cases of this kind. So long as jury verdicts remain subject to some degree of judicial supervision, cf. Harris v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 361 U.S. 15, 27-28, 80 S.Ct. 22, 29-30, 4 L.Ed.2d 1 (dissenting opinion), whether or not the evidence is sufficient to warrant removing a particular case from consideration of the jury is a question which will doubtless continue to divide equally conscientious judges in all except the clearest instances. As to the issue upon which the judgment below is now reversed, a majority of the Court disagrees with the unanimous view of the record taken by the two state courts. My Brother WHITTAKER, in dissent, takes a different view from that of the majority. And I, also in dissent, take still a different view from either approach.

## 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
# Davis v. Virginian Railway Company/Concurrence Whittaker

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Whittaker
* Dissenting Opinion Harlan
United States Supreme Court
361 U.S. 354
Davis v. Virginian Railway Company
Argued: Dec. 10, 1959. --- Decided: Jan 25, 1960
Mr. Justice WHITTAKER, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree that there was no evidence to support petitioner's contention that respondent is liable to him upon his claim of malpractice by the treating physician, But, with all deference, I must disagree that there was any evidence of negligence by respondent that caused or directly contributed to cause petitioner's injury. I am unable to find in the record any evidence of any 'direction' by respondent to petitioner 'to complete the spotting operation within 30 minutes.' And the 'senior brakeman,' whom the Court finds to have been 'inexperienced', is shown by his own undisputed testimony to have pursued that occupation for more than a year. Even the 'junior brakeman' is shown by his undisputed testimony to have worked at that occupation for respondent for 'about a year.' Moreover, no act either of commission or omission-of those brakemen is shown to have in any way caused or contributed to cause petitioner to slip and fall from the ladder of the standing or very slowly moving boxcar, and that is what caused his injury. Nor is there any evidence, or even any claim, of defect in that ladder. Where, then, is the evidence of respondent's negligence and of causation that is thought to have presented an issue of fact for the jury? Petitioner has pressed upon us an assignment that respondent failed to provide him with a safe place to work, in that it failed to make smooth and level the right of way adjoining the track so that, if a trainman were to slip and fall from a car ladder to the ground, he would land on level ground and be less likely to suffer injury. It is easy to understand why the Court makes no mention of that claim, but, as I see it and as the judges of the two state courts unanimously saw it, the claims it does mention are equally without substance.
Citing Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co., 319 U.S. 350, 353, 354, 63 S.Ct. 1062, 1064, 87 L.Ed. 1444, the Court quotes: 'To withdraw such a question from the jury is to usurp its functions.' If by that quotation the Court means that the Bailey case involved 'such a question' as we have here, I must respectfully disagree. For the facts of that case see 319 U.S. at pages 351-352, 63 S.Ct. at page 1063. On this record, I am compelled to think that the trial court and the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals were right in holding that petitioner failed to make a submissible case of negligence and causation, and I would affirm the judgment.
Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

## 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
# Davis v. Wechsler

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
263 U.S. 22
Davis v. Wechsler
Argued: Oct. 12, 1923. --- Decided: Oct 22, 1923
Messrs. Roy B. Thomson, H. M. Langworthy, and O. H. Dean, all of Kansas City, Mo., for petitioner.
Messrs. W. S. Hogsett and Mont T. Prewitt, both of Kansas City, Mo., for respondent.
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
# Davis v. Wallace

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
257 U.S. 478
Davis v. Wallace
Argued: , Dec. 16, 1921. --- Decided: Jan 9, 1922
Messrs. C. W. Bunn, D. F. Lyons, and M. L. Countryman, all of St. Paul, Minn., for appellants.
Mr. George E. Wallace, of Bismarck, N. D., for appellees.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER 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
# Davis v. Wells

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
104 U.S. 159
Davis v. Wells
ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. James M. Woolworth for the plaintiffs in error.
Mr. Samuel Shellabarger and Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS 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
# Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Sirmium, Stonemasons of

Sirmium, Stonemasons of. The Acts giving the history of the martyrdom of the five stonemasons of Sirmium have been known for centuries, being found in substance in Ado's Martyrology, but only last century was their relation to the history of Diocletian's period recognized. They were stonemasons belonging to Pannonia, engaged in the imperial quarries; one of them, Simplicius, was a pagan. They distinguished themselves by their genius and ability, and attracted the notice of Diocletian by the beauty of their carving. Simplicius was converted by his four companions, and baptized secretly by a bishop, Cyril of Antioch, who had been three years a slave in the quarries and had suffered many stripes for the faith. The pagans, jealous of their skill, accused them before Diocletian, who, however, continued to protect them. When, however, the emperor ordered them to make, among other statues, one of Aesculapius, the masons made all the others, but refused to carve that. The pagans thereupon procured an order for their execution. They were enclosed in lead coffins and flung into the Save. Their Acts then proceed to narrate the martyrdom of the saints called the Quatuor Coronati, whose liturgical history has been told at length in D. C. A. t. i. p. 461. Diocletian, coming to Rome, ordered all the troops to sacrifice to Aescuapius. Four soldiers, Carpophorus Severus, Severianus, and Victorinus, refusing, were flogged to death, and their bodies buried by pope Melchiades and St. Sebastian on the Via Lavicana at the 3rd milestone from the city. These Acts are very valuable illustrations of the great persecution, but are full of difficulties. The whole story is in Mason's Diocletian Persecution, p. 259. Attention was first called to the Acts as illustrating Diocletian's period by Wattenbach in the Sitsungsberichte der Wiener Akad. Bd. x. (1853) S. 118–126. They were discussed in Büdinger, Untersuch. zur röm. Kaisergesch, ii. 262, iii. 321–338, with elaborate archaeological and chronological commentaries.
[G.T.S.]
# Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Soter, bp. of Rome

Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.) gives 166 or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates of his accession and death. In his time the Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, though there is no evidence of Roman Christians having suffered under it. But they sympathized with those who did. Eusebius (H. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging their accustomed benevolence to sufferers elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. Soter: "From the beginning it has been your custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, to send supplies to many churches in every city, thus relieving the poverty of those that need, and succouring the brethren who are in the mines. This ancient traditional custom of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not only continued, but also added to, in both supplying to the saints the transmitted bounty, and also, as an affectionate father towards his children, comforting those who resort to him with words of blessing."
The unknown author of a book called Praedestinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a treatise against the Montanists. But the writer is generally so unworthy of credit that his testimony is of no value. [MONTANUS; PRAEDESTINATUS.]
As to the Easter dispute between Rome and the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. His immediate predecessor Anicetus had communicated with Polycarp when at Rome; but Victor, who succeeded Soter's successor Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Irenaeus and others for desiring the general excommunication of the Asiatic churches on account of the dispute; and Irenaeus, in remonstrating with Victor, refers only to bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as having maintained communion with the Quartodecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24).
[J.B—Y.]
# Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Sixtus I., bp. of Rome

Sixtus I.—so called in the Liberian Catalogue by Optatus (l. 2) and Augustine (Ep. liii.); but Xystus, Xistus, or Xestus, in Catal. Felic., Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius (H. E. iv. 4, 5, and Chron.), Epiphanius (Haer. 97, 6)—one of the early bps. of Rome, called the 6th after the apostles, and the successor of Alexander. All assign him an episcopate of about 10 years, and place him in the reign of Hadrian. Catal. Liber. dates his episcopate 117–126; Eusebius (H. E.) 119–128; his Chronicle 114–124. Lipsius (Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.) gives 124–126 as the possible limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue and the Martyrologies represent him as a martyr, and he is commemorated among the apostles and martyrs, after Linus, Cletus, Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of Rome, to the great majority of whom it has been since assigned, is doubtful.
[J.B—Y.]
# Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Sixtus II., bp. of Rome

Sixtus II. (Xystus), bp. of Rome after Stephen for about one year, martyred under Valerian Aug. 6, 258. A contemporary letter of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as given in the Liberian Catalogue. Probably his accession was on Aug- 31, 257 (see Lipsius, Chronol. der röm. Bischöf.). His predecessor Stephen had been at issue with Cyprian of Carthage as to the rebaptism of heretics. Under Xystus, who was more conciliatory, though he upheld the Roman usage, peace was restored (Eus. H. E. vii. 5–7).
The circumstances of his martyrdom appear to have been as follows. The emperor Valerian had already, before the accession of Xystus, forbidden the resort of Christians to the cemeteries on pain of banishment. But in the middle of 258, when Valerian was arming for his Persian war, he sent a rescript to the senate of much severer import; ordering bishops, priests, and deacons to be summarily executed; senators and other persons of rank to be visited with loss of dignity and goods, and, on refusal to renounce Christianity, with death; matrons to be despoiled and exiled; and imperial officials (Caesarians) to be sent in chains to labour on the imperial domains (Cyp. Ep. 80). Xystus fell an early victim to this rescript. He was found by the soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the cemetery of Praetextatus on the Appian Way, surrounded by members of his flock. As these endeavoured to protect him, he thrust himself forward lest they should suffer in his stead, and was beheaded and several companions slain. His body was afterwards removed by the Christians to the usual burial place of the bishops of that period, the neighbouring cemetery of Callistus. His two deacons, Agapetus and Felicissimus, with others, were buried in the cemetery where they fell. This account of the occurrence is gathered from Cyprian's contemporary letter to Successus (Ep. 80), and from the Damasine inscription in the papal crypt of the cemetery of Callistus, of which a few fragments have been found by De Rossi, and which originally began as follows:
   "Tempore quo gladius secuit pia viscera matris
   Hic positus rector coelestia done docebam . . ."
   (Gruter, 1173, 13)
That these verses refer to Xystus, and not, as assumed in the Acts of St. Stephen, to his predecessor, is satisfactorily shewn by Lipsius (op. cit.). That he was buried there is expressly stated in the Liberian Catalogue of Martyrs, as well as by all later authorities; and the statement is confirmed by numerous graffiti on the walls of the crypt, in which his name is prominent. The line "Hic positus," etc., may refer to the cathedra on which he sat when found by the soldiers, which had been removed with his body to the papal crypt. That the cemetery of Praetextatus was the scene of his martyrdom ancient tradition bears witness, and in accordance with it an oratory was afterwards built on the spot, "coemeterium ubi decollatus est Xystus." The tradition is confirmed by representations of him and his chair in this cemetery, under one of which is the legend SVSTVS.
[J.B—Y.]
# Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century/Sophronius, bishop of Tella

Sophronius (10), bp. of Tella or Constantina in Osrhoene, first cousin of Ibas, bp. of Edessa. He was present at the synod of Antioch which investigated the case of Athanasius of Perrha, in 445 (Labbe, iv. 728). At the "Robbers' Synod" of Ephesus in 449 (Evagr. H. E. 10) he was accused of practising sorcery and magical arts. He was also accused of Nestorian doctrine, and his case was reserved for the hearing of the orthodox metropolitan of Edessa, to be appointed in the place of Ibas. No further steps appear to have been taken, and at the council of Chalcedon he took his seat as bp. of Constantia (Labbe, iv. 81). His orthodoxy, however, was not beyond suspicion, and in the 8th session, after Theodoret had been compelled by the tumultuous assembly reluctantly to anathematize Nestorius, Sophronius was forced to follow his example, with the addition of Eutyches (Labbe, iv. 623). Theodoret wrote to him in favour of Cyprian, an African bp. driven from his see by the Vandals (Theod. Ep. 53). Assemani, Bibl. Orient. i. 202, 404; Chron. Edess.; Tillemont, Mém. eccl. xv. 258, 579, 686; Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode d’Ephèse, p. 184; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 967.
[E.V.]