OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LVI

Chapter LVI.
Moreover, since Celsus asserts that “the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different; and that in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man, for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part alike,”—we have to say in answer to this argument of his, that if, since the same matter underlies the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, or of a man, these bodies will differ in no respect from one another, it is evident then that these bodies also will differ in no respect from the sun, or the moon, or the stars, or the sky, or any other thing which is called by the Greeks a god, cognisable by the senses. For the same matter, underlying all bodies, is, properly speaking, without qualities and without form, and derives its qualities from some (other) source, I know not whence, since Celsus will have it that nothing corruptible can be the work of God. Now the corruptible part of everything whatever, being produced from the same underlying matter, must necessarily be the same, by Celsus’ own showing; unless, indeed, finding himself here hard pressed, he should desert Plato, who makes the soul arise from a certain bowl, and take refuge with Aristotle and the Peripatetics, who maintain that the ether is immaterial, and consists of a fifth nature, separate from the other four elements, against which view both the Platonists and the Stoics have nobly protested. And we too, who are despised by Celsus, will contravene it, seeing we are required to explain and maintain the following statement of the prophet: The heavens shall perish, but Thou remainest: and they all shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same.” These remarks, however, are sufficient in reply to Celsus, when he asserts that “the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different;” for from his argument it follows that there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a heavenly being.
* ↑ αἰσθητοῦ θεοῦ.
* ↑ Cf. Plato in Timæo.
* ↑ ἄϋλον.
* ↑ πέμπτης παρὰ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα εἷναι φύσεως.
* ↑ Cf. Ps. cii. 26, 27.
* ↑ αἰθερίου.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LVII

Chapter LVII.
See, then, whether we ought to yield to one who, holding such opinions, calumniates the Christians, and thus abandon a doctrine which explains the difference existing among bodies as due to the different qualities, internal and external, which are implanted in them. For we, too, know that there are “bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial;” and that “the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial another;” and that even the glory of the celestial bodies is not alike: for “one is the glory of the sun, and another the glory of the stars;” and among the stars themselves, “one star differeth from another star in glory.” And therefore, as those who expect the resurrection of the dead, we assert that the qualities which are in bodies undergo change: since some bodies, which are sown in corruption, are raised in incorruption; and others, sown in dishonour, are raised in glory; and others, again, sown in weakness, are raised in power; and those which are sown natural bodies, are raised as spiritual. That the matter which underlies bodies is capable of receiving those qualities which the Creator pleases to bestow, is a point which all of us who accept the doctrine of providence firmly hold; so that, if God so willed, one quality is at the present time implanted in this portion of matter, and afterwards another of a different and better kind.  But since there are, from the beginning of the world, laws established for the purpose of regulating the changes of bodies, and which will continue while the world lasts, I do not know whether, when a new and different order of things has succeeded after the destruction of the world, and what our Scriptures call the end (of the ages), it is not wonderful that at the present time a snake should be formed out of a dead man, growing, as the multitude affirm, out of the marrow of the back, and that a bee should spring from an ox, and a wasp from a horse, and a beetle from an ass, and, generally, worms from the most of bodies. Celsus, indeed, thinks that this can be shown to be the consequence of none of these bodies being the work of God, and that qualities (I know not whence it was so arranged that one should spring out of another) are not the work of a divine intelligence, producing the changes which occur in the qualities of matter.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 41, etc.
* ↑ Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 44.
* ↑ ὁδοί.
* ↑ καινῆς διαδεξαμένης ὁδοῦ καὶ ἀλλοίας, etc. For διαδεξαμένης, Boherellus would read διαδεξομένης.  Cf. Origen, de Princip., iii. c. 5; ii. c. 3. [See also Neander’s Church History, vol. 1. p. 328, and his remarks on “the general ἀποκατάστασις” of Origen. S.]
* ↑ συντέλεια.
* ↑ Cf. Pliny, x. c. 66: “Anguem ex medullâ hominis spinæ gigni accepimus a multis.” Cf. also Ovid, Metamorphos., xv. fab. iv.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LII

Chapter LII.
After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not to be despised, the least important, such as might contribute, indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers, but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he continues:  “Of such a nature do I know the work to be, entitled Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason, which is fitted to excite pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this, that God made nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the soul is the work of God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man; for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part is alike.”  Nevertheless I could wish that every one who heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ was fitted to excite not laughter, but hatred, could take the work into his hands, and patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite even laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner not unbecoming the character of a Jew.
* ↑ τὸ εὐτελέστερον.
* ↑ ψυχή.
* ↑ ὕλη.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LVIII

Chapter LVIII.
But we have something more to say to Celsus, when he declares that “the soul is the work of God, and that the nature of body is different,” and puts forward such an opinion not only without proof, but even without clearly defining his meaning; for he did not make it evident whether he meant that every soul is the work of God, or only the rational soul. This, then, is what we have to say: If every soul is the work of God, it is manifest that those of the meanest irrational animals are God’s work, so that the nature of all bodies is different from that of the soul. He appears, however, in what follows, where he says that “irrational animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of divinity,” to maintain that not only is the soul of man, but in a much greater degree that of irrational animals, the work of God; for this follows from their being said to be more beloved by God than we. Now if the rational soul alone be the work of God, then, in the first place, he did not clearly indicate that such was his opinion; and in the second place, this deduction follows from his indefinite language regarding the soul—viz., whether not every one, but only the rational, is the work of God—that neither is the nature of all bodies different (from the soul). But if the nature of all bodies be not different, although the body of each animal correspond to its soul, it is evident that the body of that animal whose soul was the work of God, would differ from the body of that animal in which dwells a soul which was not the work of God. And so the assertion will be false, that there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LIII

Chapter LIII.
I do not know, indeed, how he could conjoin things that do not admit of union, and which cannot exist together at the same time in human nature, in saying, as he did, that “the above treatise deserved to be treated both with pity and hatred.”  For every one will admit that he who is the object of pity is not at the same moment an object of hatred, and that he who is the object of hatred is not at the same time a subject of pity. Celsus, moreover, says that it was not his purpose to refute such statements, because he thinks that their absurdity is evident to all, and that, even before offering any logical refutation, they will appear to be bad, and to merit both pity and hatred. But we invite him who peruses this reply of ours to the charges of Celsus to have patience, and to listen to our sacred writings themselves, and, as far as possible, to form an opinion from their contents of the purpose of the writers, and of their consciences and disposition of mind; for he will discover that they are men who strenuously contend for what they uphold, and that some of them show that the history which they narrate is one which they have both seen and experienced, which was miraculous, and worthy of being recorded for the advantage of their future hearers. Will any one indeed venture to say that it is not the source and fountain of all blessing (to men) to believe in the God of all things, and to perform all our actions with the view of pleasing Him in everything whatever, and not to entertain even a thought unpleasing to Him, seeing that not only our words and deeds, but our very thoughts, will be the subject of future judgment?  And what other arguments would more effectually lead human nature to adopt a virtuous life, than the belief or opinion that the supreme God beholds all things, not only what is said and done, but even what is thought by us? And let any one who likes compare any other system which at the same time converts and ameliorates, not merely one or two individuals, but, as far as in it lies, countless numbers, that by the comparison of both methods he may form a correct idea of the arguments which dispose to a virtuous life.
* ↑ The reading in the text of Spencer and of the Benedictine ed. is καταλειφθεῖσαν, for which Lommatzsch has adopted the conjecture of Boherellus, καταληφθεῖσαν.
* ↑ ὠφελείας.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LIX

Chapter LIX.
For it would, indeed, be absurd that certain stones and buildings should be regarded as more sacred or more profane than others, according as they were constructed for the honour of God, or for the reception of dishonourable and accursed persons; while bodies should not differ from bodies, according as they are inhabited by rational or irrational beings, and according as these rational beings are the most virtuous or most worthless of mankind. Such a principle of distinction, indeed, has led some to deify the bodies of distinguished men, as having received a virtuous soul, and to reject and treat with dishonour those of very wicked individuals.  I do not maintain that such a principle has been always soundly exercised, but that it had its origin in a correct idea. Would a wise man, indeed, after the death of Anytus and Socrates, think of burying the bodies of both with like honours? And would he raise the same mound or tomb to the memory of both? These instances we have adduced because of the language of Celsus, that “none of these is the work of God” (where the words “of these” refer to the body of a man or to the snakes which come out of the body and to that of an ox, or of the bees which come from the body of an ox; and to that of a horse or of an ass, and to the wasps which come from a horse, and the beetles which proceed from an ass); for which reason we have been obliged to return to the consideration of his statement, that “the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is different.”
* ↑ σωμάτων.
* ↑ τῶν διαφερότων.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LX

Chapter LX.
He next proceeds to say, that “a common nature pervades all the previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes and returns the same amid recurring changes.” In answer to this it is evident from what has been already said that not only does a common nature pervade those bodies which have been previously enumerated, but the heavenly bodies as well. And if this is the case, it is clear also that, according to Celsus (although I do not know whether it is according to truth), it is one nature which goes and returns the same through all bodies amid recurring changes. It is evident also that this is the case in the opinion of those who hold that the world is to perish; while those also who hold the opposite view will endeavour to show, with out the assumption of a fifth substance, that in their judgment too it is one nature “which goes and returns the same through all bodies amid recurring changes.” And thus, even that which is perishable remains in order to undergo a change; for the matter which underlies (all things), while its properties perish, still abides, according to the opinion of those who hold it to be uncreated. If, however, it can be shown by any arguments not to be uncreated, but to have been created for certain purposes, it is clear that it will not have the same nature of permanency which it would possess on the hypothesis of being uncreated. But it is not our object at present, in answering the charges of Celsus, to discuss these questions of natural philosophy.
* ↑ καὶ μία εἰς ἀμοιβὴν παλίντροπον ἰοῦσα καὶ ἐπανιοῦσα.
* ↑ σῶμα.
* ↑ οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον εἰς μεταβολὴν διαμένει.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book IV/Chapter LXI

Chapter LXI.
He maintains, moreover, that “no product of matter is immortal.” Now, in answer to this it may be said, that if no product of matter is immortal, then either the whole world is immortal, and thus not a product of matter, or it is not immortal. If, accordingly, the world is immortal (which is agreeable to the view of those who say that the soul alone is the work of God, and was produced from a certain bowl), let Celsus show that the world was not produced from a matter devoid of qualities, remembering his own assertion that “no product of matter is immortal.” If, however, the world is not immortal (seeing it is a product of matter), but mortal, does it also perish, or does it not? For if it perish, it will perish as being a work of God; and then, in the event of the world perishing, what will become of the soul, which is also a work of God? Let Celsus answer this! But if, perverting the notion of immortality, he will assert that, although perishable, it is immortal, because it does not really perish; that it is capable of dying, but does not actually die,—it is evident that, according to him, there will exist something which is at the same time mortal and immortal, by being capable of both conditions; and that which does not die will be mortal, and that which is not immortal by nature will be termed in a peculiar sense immortal, because it does not die!  According to what distinction, then, in the meaning of words, will he maintain that no product of matter is immortal? And thus you see that the ideas contained in his writings, when closely examined and tested, are proved not to be sound and incontrovertible. And after making these assertions he adds: “On this point these remarks are sufficient; and if any one is capable of hearing and examining further, he will come to know (the truth).” Let us, then, who in his opinion are unintelligent individuals, see what will result from our being able to listen to him for a little, and so continue our investigation.
# Anecdotes of Great Musicians/Anecdote 3

3.—WHY WE SHOULD SING.
It is generally admitted that there is a beneficial physiological side to the matter of singing as well as that of entertainment and musical pleasure. Long and learned articles on this subject come from erudite pens; but we venture that it would be hard to find anything more unique in this line than the "Reasons briefely set downe by th' auctor, to perswade euery one to learne to sing," given in William Byrd's "Psalmes, Sonets, and songs of Sadnes and Pietie," published in England in 1588.
These reasons that are "briefely set downe" are as follows:—
First, It is a knowledge easily taught, and quickly learned, when there is a good Master and an apt Scoller.
2. The exercise of singing is delightfull to nature, and good to preserue the health of Man.
3. It doth strengthen all parts of the brest, and doth open the pipes.
4. It is a singuler good remedie for a stutting and stamering in the speech.
​5. It is the best means to procure a perfect pronunciation, and to make a good Orator.
6. It is the only way to know when Nature hath bestowed the benefit of a good Voyce which guift is so rare, as there is not one among a thousand, that hath it; and in many, that excellent guift is lost, because they want Art to expresse Nature.
7. There is not any Musicke of Instruments whatsoeuer, comparable to that which is made of the Voyces of Men, where the voyces are good, and the same well sorted and ordered.
8. The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honor and serue God therewith; and the voyce of man is chiefly to be employed to that ende.
Since singing is so good a thing I wish all men would learne to singe.
# Anecdotes of Great Musicians/Anecdote 31

31.—TRAVELING IN STATE.
The great singers of the olden time, even of the first half of this century, would stand aghast at the splendor that surrounds the prima donna of to-day. The most regal elegance is thought none too good for her who has the public at her feet.
The prima donna of "ye olden tyme" traveled in a lumbering stage coach; the most favored one of to-day, in a private car costing some £11,600—for that was the cost of Patti's conveyance. In this beautiful coach the walls and ceiling were covered with gilded tapestry, the curtains were of silk damask, and the furniture was upholstered in the same material. The drawing-room was fitted in white and gold, with paintings by celebrated artists. The lamps were made of gold and the woodwork of sandalwood. The same wood was used in the piano, which alone cost £400.
These are some of the main points in the construction ​and adornment of this car, which might well have been built for royalty. But at the day Patti was thus accommodated, no king or emperor on earth enjoyed such luxurious traveling accommodations; for in no country in the world had there been built such a sumptuous coach.
# Anecdotes of Great Musicians/Anecdote 36

36.—AN ARMY, A COW, AND A PRIMA DONNA.
It is not often that an army does the bidding of a prima donna, but a story comes to us from the siege of Hamburg, many years ago, which intimates as much. It is said that during the bombardment of this city the opera continued as usual, and the beleagured officers and soldiers took great pleasure in hearing Madame Fodor, the prima donna of the occasion. Now all great singers have some favorite stimulant, from beer down to beefsteak, without which they think they cannot make a success of their singing. Madam Fodor's favorite beverage happened to be fresh milk, a very harmless drink, to be sure, but one not so easily obtainable when a town is in a state of siege and the last cow has been slaughtered for food.
Learning that their favorite was thus deprived of her customary beverage, the officers determined at all hazards to supply the deficiency, and the soldiers made a gallant sortie from out the city walls and, capturing—not the enemy, but a cow, returned in triumph. The cow was escorted by the officers to the theater and publicly presented to the fair songstress. It was then installed in a property room on the stage, and from that time on ​Madam Fodor could regale herself at will with the lacteal extract.
# Anecdotes of Great Musicians/Anecdote 30

30.—A CONCERT PREACHER.
Hans von Bülow, was considered by the political authorities of Berlin and Leipzig as a great nuisance as well as a great musician. This arose from the fact that he persisted in interpolating in the speeches he frequently made at his concerts, remarks of a political nature, and often they were of a decided incendiary cast.
In the latter city this "concert preacher" as he was called, was compelled by the police to sign a promise not to speak a word at his concerts, not even to announce the date of his next appearance. And this was not two hundred years ago, either, as one might suppose from the denial of the right of speech, but was in our own times, in a supposable free country.
But it was in Berlin that he had a still greater difficulty with the powers that be. Having conceived a strong dislike for the government intendant, that official which had control of the operatic performances, who in this case happened to be Count von Hulsen, he referred to him in one of his impromptu concert speeches in a ​derogatory way, and to the opera as "the circus that von Hulsen runs." As von Hulsen was a court officer, this brought on Bülow's head the wrath of the court, and he was deposed from his rank as court pianist, and stripped of his medals.
Shortly after, von Hulsen died, and at a commemoration concert his successor gave orders to the ushers that they were not to admit Doctor von Bülow, and furnished them photographs of him that there should be no mistake. So when Herr Doctor arrived he was spotted and summarily ejected.
But the pianist had his revenge. The next night, on his appearance at a concert, when he sat down at the instrument he began to improvise on a theme from Mozart's "Figaro," and immediately the audience broke into laughter and applause. The theme he had chosen was in the opera, set to the words "Will the Count venture on a little dance?"
# Anecdotes of Great Musicians/Anecdote 34

34.—BEETHOVEN'S KISS.
When Liszt was but twelve years of age (in 1823) he was advertised to give a concert; and upon the solicitation of Schindler, Beethoven went to hear and encourage this youthful prodigy. When the little Liszt came out on the platform, he saw Beethoven sitting in the front row. Instead of being unnerved by the great man's presence, it was an inspiration to him and he played with great fire and abandon. In the storm of applause which followed, the great master was seen to step up on the platform and catch up the little fellow in his arms and kiss him on both cheeks. Liszt never forgot this incident and used to repeat it with great pride, for he felt that the master had set the seal of greatness upon him in that kiss.