OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book I/Chapter I

1. Since I have found some who deem themselves very wise in their opinions, acting as if they were inspired, and announcing with all the authority of an oracle, that from the time when the Christian people began to exist in the world the universe has gone to ruin, that the human race has been visited with ills of many kinds, that even the very gods, abandoning their accustomed charge, in virtue of which they were wont in former days to regard with interest our affairs, have been driven from the regions of earth,—I have resolved, so far as my capacity and my humble power of language will allow, to oppose public prejudice, and to refute calumnious accusations; lest, on the one hand, those persons should imagine that they are declaring some weighty matter, when they are merely retailing vulgar rumours; and on the other, lest, if we refrain from such a contest, they should suppose that they have gained a cause, lost by its own inherent demerits, not abandoned by the silence of its advocates. For I should not deny that that charge is a most serious one, and that we fully deserve the hatred attaching to public enemies, if it should appear that to us are attributable causes by reason of which the universe has deviated from its laws, the gods have been driven far away, and such swarms of miseries have been inflicted on the generations of men.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The words insanire, bacchari, refer to the appearance of the ancient seers when under the influence of the deity. So Virgil says, Insanam vatem aspicies (Æn., iii. 443), and, Bacchatur vates(Æn., vi. 78). The meaning is, that they make their asseverations with all the confidence of a seer when filled, as he pretended, with the influence of the god.
* ↑ Et velut quiddam promptum ex oraculo dicere, i.e., to declare a matter with boldness and majesty, as if most certain and undoubted.
* ↑ Popularia verba, i.e., rumours arising from the ignorance of the common people.
* ↑ The Christians were regarded as “public enemies,” and were so called.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book I/Chapter LII

52. Come, then, let some Magian Zoroaster arrive from a remote part of the globe, crossing over the fiery zone, if we believe Hermippus as an authority. Let these join him too—that Bactrian, whose deeds Ctesias sets forth in the first book of his History; the Armenian, grandson of Hosthanes; and Pamphilus, the intimate friend of Cyrus; Apollonius, Damigero, and Dardanus; Velus, Julianus, and Bæbulus; and if there be any other one who is supposed to have especial powers and reputation in such magic arts. Let them grant to one of the people to adapt the mouths of the dumb for the purposes of speech, to unseal the ears of the deaf, to give the natural powers of the eye to those born without sight, and to restore feeling and life to bodies long cold in death. Or if that is too difficult, and if they cannot impart to others the power to do such acts, let themselves perform them, and with their own rites. Whatever noxious herbs the earth brings forth from its bosom, whatever powers those muttered words and accompanying spells contain—these let them add, we envy them not; those let them collect, we forbid them not. We wish to make trial and to discover whether they can effect, with the aid of their gods, what has often been accomplished by unlearned Christians with a word only.

## Footnotes

* ↑ This passage has furnished occasion for much discussion as to text and interpretation. In the text Orelli’s punctuation has been followed, who regards Arnobius as mentioning four Zoroasters—the Assyrian or Chaldean, the Bactrian (cf. c. 5 of this book), the Armenian, and finally the Pamphylian, or Pamphilos, who, according to Clem. Alex. (Strom. [vol. ii. p. 469]), is referred to in Plato’s Republic, book x., under the name Er; Meursius and Salmasius, however, regarding the whole as one sentence, consider that only three persons are so referred to, the first being either Libyan or Bactrian, and the others as with Orelli. To seek to determine which view is most plausible even, would be a fruitless task, as will be evident on considering what is said in the index under Zoroaster. [Jowett’s Plato, ii. 121.]
* ↑ So Orelli, reading veniat qu-is su-per igneam zonam. LB. reads for the second and third words, quæ-so per—“let there come, I pray you, through,” etc., from the ms. quæ super; while Heraldus would change the last three words into Azonaces, the name of the supposed teacher of Zoroaster. By the “fiery zone” Salmasius would understand Libya; but the legends should be borne in mind which spoke of Zoroaster as having shown himself to a wondering multitude from a hill blazing with fire, that he might teach them new ceremonies of worship, or as being otherwise distinguished in connection with fire. [Plato, Rep., p. 446, Jowett’s trans.]
* ↑ So Stewechius, Orelli, and others, for the ms. Zostriani—“grandson of Zostrianus,” retained in the 1st ed. and LB.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book I/Chapter LIII

53. Cease in your ignorance to receive such great deeds with abusive language, which will in no wise injure him who did them, but which will bring danger to yourselves—danger, I say, by no means small, but one dealing with matters of great, aye, even the greatest importance, since beyond a doubt the soul is a precious thing, and nothing can be found dearer to a man than himself. There was nothing magical, as you suppose, nothing human, delusive, or crafty in Christ; no deceit lurked in Him, although you smile in derision, as your wont is, and though you split with roars of laughter. He was God on high, God in His inmost nature, God from unknown realms, and was sent by the Ruler of all as a Saviour God; whom neither the sun himself, nor any stars, if they have powers of perception, not the rulers and princes of the world, nor, in fine, the great gods, or those who, feigning themselves so, terrify the whole human race, were able to know or to guess whence and who He was—and naturally so. But when, freed from the body, which He carried about as but a very small part of Himself, He allowed Himself to be seen, and let it be known how great He was, all the elements of the universe bewildered by the strange events were thrown into confusion. An earthquake shook the world, the sea was heaved up from its depths, the heaven was shrouded in darkness, the sun’s fiery blaze was checked, and his heat became moderate; for what else could occur when He was discovered to be God who heretofore was reckoned one of us?

## Footnotes

* ↑ So the edd., reading in rebus eximiis for the ms. exi-gu-is, which would, of course, give an opposite and wholly unsuitable meaning.
* ↑ So generally, Heraldus having restored delitu-it in Christo from the ms., which had omitted -it, for the reading of Gelenius, Canterus, and Ursinus, delicti—“no deceit, no sin was,” etc.
* ↑ So emended by Salmasius, followed by most later edd. In the earlier edd. the reading is et merito exutus a corpore (Salm. reading at instead of a, and inserting a period after mer.)—“and when rightly freed from the body,” etc.
* ↑ It may be instructive to notice how the simpler narrative of the Gospels is amplified. Matthew (xxvii. 51) says that the earth trembled, and Luke (xxiii. 45) that the sun was darkened; but they go no further. [See p. 301, note 4, supra.]
# Baltimore Buzz

There have been a thousand raggy-draggy dances That are danced in every hall And there have been a thousand raggy-draggy prances That are pranced at every ball
But the bestest one that was Is called the Baltimore Buzz
[Refrain:] First you take your babe and gently hold her Then you lay your head upon her shoulder Next you walk just like your legs are breaking Do a fango like a tango Then you star the shimmie to shaking
Then you do a raggy, draggo motion Just like any ship up on the ocean Slide, and then you hesitate Glide, oh honey ain't it great!
You just go simply in a trance With that Baltimore buzzing dance
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 1983, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 40 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
# Baltimore American

* related portals: Maryland, Newspapers.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Newspaper based in Baltimore
April 16, 1912 reporting the sinking of the RMS Titanic:
* Title page with Partial List of Those Who Have Been Rescued
* p. 6: The Sunken Steamer, Her Captain and the Rescue Ships
* p. 7: Prominent Persons Who Were On Titanic
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
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
# Baltimore Carolina Line v. Redman

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
295 U.S. 654
Baltimore Carolina Line v. Redman
Argued: Dec. 6, 1934. --- Decided: June 3, 1935
Mr. George Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. Martin A. Schenck, of New York City, for respondent.

## 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 XIX/Hymn 5

5. Praise and prayer to Indra.
[Atharvān̄giras (?).—ekarcam. āindram. trāiṣṭubham.]
The verse is RV. vii. 27. 3, without variation, and is found also, with the same text, in Pāipp. xx. The comm. gives as its viniyoga that one who desires riches may worship Indra with it.
Translated: Griffith, ii. 261; also by the RV. translators.
1. Indra [is] king of the moving creation (jágat), of human beings (carṣaṇí), whatever of various form is upon the earth (kṣám); thence he gives good things to his worshiper (dāçvā́ṅs); may he, whenever praised, urge (cud) hitherward bestowal (rā́dhas).
# Atharva-Veda Samhita/Book XIX/Hymn 51

51. Accompanying acceptance (?).
[Brahman.—dve. 1. ātmadevatyā; 2. sāvitrī. 1. 1-p. brāhmy anuṣṭubh; 2. 3-p. yavamadhyo ’ṣṇih (1, 2. 1-av.).]
⌊Prose.⌋ Both the "verses" of this hymn are quoted in Kāuç. 91. 3, in the madhuparka ceremony, accompanying acceptance (prati-grah) of the offering. The second verse contains a formula very often used in the liturgical literature,* and this formula, as far as hastābhyām, occurs several times in Kāuç., given in full, and not to be regarded as having anything to do with the verse here; the same is the case with the use of the formula in Vāit. 3.9. There is nothing to correspond to the hymn in Pāipp. *⌊An idea of its frequency may be gained from the array of citations (fourscore or more) given by Knauer in his Index to MGS., p. 151 a. See the table on p. 896, and cf. p. 896, end.⌋
Translated: Griffith, ii. 308.
1. Unrepelled (? áyuta) am I, unrepelled my soul, unrepelled my sight, unrepelled my hearing, unrepelled my breath, unrepelled my expiration, unrepelled my out-breathing, unrepelled the whole of me.
We unfortunately lack the comm's interpretation of áyuta, there being a lacuna in the ms. at this point; SPP. supplies sampūrṇa, it does not appear on what authority, but certainly without the least particle of plausibility. ⌊The count of the Anukr. (48 syllables) implies restoration of all the elided a's.⌋
2. In the impulse of the heavenly impeller (savitṛ́), with the arms of the Açvins, with the hands of Pūshan, I, impelled, take hold of thee.
To render (in the first clause) 'of god Savitar' would hide the word-play between prasava and savitṛ. The syllables (if the a of açvinos is restored) count 10 + 11 + 6 = 27: a pretty poor uṣṇih.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter IX

9. But why do we speak of your having bemired the Great Mother of the gods with the filth of earth, when you have not been able for but a little time even to keep from speaking evil of Jupiter himself? While the mother of the gods was then sleeping on the highest peak of Agdus, her son, you say, tried stealthily to surprise her chastity while she slept. After robbing of their chastity virgins and matrons without number, did Jupiter hope to gratify his detestable passion upon his mother? and could he not be turned from his fierce desire by the horror which nature itself has excited not only in men, but in some other animals also, and by common feeling? Was he then regardless of piety and honour, who is chief in the temples? and could he neither reconsider nor perceive how wicked was his desire, his mind being madly agitated? But, as it is, forgetting his majesty and dignity, he crept forward to steal those vile pleasures, trembling and quaking with fear, holding his breath, walking in terror on tiptoe, and, between hope and fear, touched her secret parts, trying how soundly his mother slept, and what she would suffer. Oh, shameful representation! oh, disgraceful plight of Jupiter, prepared to attempt a filthy contest! Did the ruler of the world, then, turn to force, when, in his heedlessness and haste, he was prevented from stealing on by surprise; and when he was unable to snatch his pleasure by cunning craft, did he assail his mother with violence, and begin without any concealment to destroy the chastity which he should have revered? Then, having striven for a very long time when she is unwilling, did he go off conquered, vanquished, and overcome? and did his spent lust part him whom piety was unable to hold back from execrable lust after his mother?

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “the feeling commonly implanted.”
* ↑ Lit., “was regard of piety wanting”—defuit, an emendation of Salmasius (according to Orelli) for the ms. depuit.
* ↑ Lit., “the depth and patience of his sleeping mother.”
* ↑ Lit., “from the theft of taking by surprise”—obreptionis, for which the ms., first four edd., Oberth., Hild., and Oehler read object.—“of what he proposed.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter XII

12. Would any one say this about the gods who had even a very low opinion of them? or, if they were taken up with such affairs, considerations, cares, would any man of wisdom either believe that they are gods, or reckon them among men even? Was that Acdestis, pray, the lopping off of whose lewd members was to give a sense of security to the immortals, was he one of the creatures of earth, or one of the gods, and possessed of immortality? For if he was thought to be of our lot and in the condition of men, why did he cause the deities so much terror? But if he was a god, how could he be deceived, or how could anything be cut off from a divine body? But we raise no issue on this point: he may have been of divine birth, or one of us, if you think it more correct to say so. Did a pomegranate tree, also, spring from the blood which flowed and from the parts which were cut off? or at the time when that member was concealed in the bosom of the earth, did it lay hold of the ground with a root, and spring up into a mighty tree, put forth branches loaded with blossoms, and in a moment bare mellow fruit perfectly and completely ripe? And because these sprang from red blood, is their colour therefore bright purple, with a dash of yellow? Say further that they are juicy also, that they have the taste of wine, because they spring from the blood of one filled with it, and you have finished your story consistently. O Abdera, Abdera, what occasions for mocking you would give to men, if such a tale had been devised by you! All fathers relate it, and haughty states peruse it; and you are considered foolish, and utterly dull and stupid.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “endowed with the honour of.”
* ↑ The ms. here inserts de—“from the body from a divine (being).”
* ↑ So the edd. (except Oehler), reading tum cum for the ms. tum quæ quod.
* ↑ Balaustiis, the flowers of the wild pomegranate.
* ↑ Dares supplied by Salmasius.
* ↑ [The Abderitans were proverbially such. “Hinc Abdera, non tacente me.”—Cicero, Ep. ad Attic., iv. 16.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter III

3. But let us admit that, as is said, Jupiter has himself appointed against himself ways and means by which his own declared purposes might fittingly be opposed: are we also to believe that a deity of so great majesty was dragged down to earth, and, standing on a petty hillock with a mannikin, entered into a wrangling dispute? And what, I ask, was the charm which forced Jupiter to leave the all-important direction of the universe, and appear at the bidding of mortals? the sacrificial meal, incense, blood, the scent of burning laurel-boughs, and muttering of spells? And were all these more powerful than Jupiter, so that they compelled him to do unwillingly what was enjoined, or to give himself up of his own accord to their crafty tricks? What! will what follows be believed, that the son of Saturn had so little foresight, that he either proposed terms by the ambiguity of which he was himself ensnared, or did not know what was going to happen, how the craft and cunning of a mortal would overreach him? You shall make expiation, he says, with a head when thunderbolts have fallen. The phrase is still incomplete, and the meaning is not fully expressed and defined; for it was necessarily right to know whether Diespiter ordains that this expiation be effected with the head of a wether, a sow, an ox, or any other animal. Now, as he had not yet fixed this specifically, and his decision was still uncertain and not yet determined, how could Numa know that Jupiter would say the head of a man, so as to anticipate and prevent him, and turn his uncertain and ambiguous words into “an onion’s head?”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “so great.”
* ↑ Lit., “the fumigation of verbenæ,” i.e., of boughs of the laurel, olive, or myrtle.
* ↑ The ms. omits ut.
* ↑ Lit., “the uncertain things of that ambiguity.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter V

5. In Timotheus, who was no mean mythologist, and also in others equally well informed, the birth of the Great Mother of the gods, and the origin of her rites, are thus detailed, being derived—as he himself writes and suggests—from learned books of antiquities, and from his acquaintance with the most secret mysteries:—Within the confines of Phrygia, he says, there is a rock of unheard-of wildness in every respect, the name of which is Agdus, so named by the natives of that district. Stones taken from it, as Themis by her oracle had enjoined, Deucalion and Pyrrha threw upon the earth, at that time emptied of men; from which this Great Mother, too, as she is called, was fashioned along with the others, and animated by the deity. Her, given over to rest and sleep on the very summit of the rock, Jupiter assailed with lewdest desires. But when, after long strife, he could not accomplish what he had proposed to himself, he, baffled, spent his lust on the stone. This the rock received, and with many groanings Acdestis is born in the tenth month, being named from his mother rock. In him there had been resistless might, and a fierceness of disposition beyond control, a lust made furious, and derived from both sexes. He violently plundered and laid waste; he scattered destruction wherever the ferocity of his disposition had led him; he regarded not gods nor men, nor did he think anything more powerful than himself; he contemned earth, heaven, and the stars.

## Footnotes

* ↑ So Ovid also (Metam., i. 321), and others, speak of Themis as the first to give oracular responses,
* ↑ So the ms. and edd., reading quam incestis, except Orelli, who adopts the conjecture of Barthius, nequam—“lustful Jupiter with lewd desires.”
* ↑ So the ms. and edd., except Hildebrand and Oehler, who throughout spell Agdestis, following the Greek writers, and the derivation of the word from Agdus.
* ↑ So Ursinus suggested, followed by later edd., ex utroque (ms. utra.) sexu; for which Meursius would read ex utroque sexus—“and a sex of both,” i.e., that he was a hermaphrodite, which is related by other writers.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter XI

11. There was doubt in the councils of the gods how that unyielding and fierce violence was to be subdued; and when there was no other way, they had recourse to one means, that he should be soaked with much wine, and bereft of his members, by their being cut off. As if, indeed, those who have suffered the loss of these parts become less arrogant, and as if we do not daily see those who have cut them away from themselves become more wanton, and, neglecting all the restraints of chastity and modesty, throw themselves headlong into filthy vileness, making known abroad their shameful deeds. I should like, however, to see—were it granted me to be born at those times—father Liber, who overcame the fierceness of Acdestis, having glided down from the peaks of heaven after the very venerable meetings of the gods, cropping the tails of horses, plaiting pliant halters, drugging the waters harmless while pure with much strong wine, and after that drunkenness sprung from drinking, to have carefully introduced his hands, handled the members of the sleeper, and directed his care skilfully to the parts which were to perish, so that the hold of the nooses placed round them might surround them all.

## Footnotes

* ↑ i.e., to form nooses with. The reading translated is an emendation of Jos. Scaliger, adopted by Orelli, peniculamenta decurtantem cantheriorum, for the ms. peniculantem decurtam tam cantherios, emended by each ed. as he has thought fit.
* ↑ Lit., “the cares of art.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Arnobius/Adversus Gentes/Book V/Chapter IV

4. But you will perhaps say that the king was a diviner. Could he be more so than Jupiter himself? But for a mortal’s anticipating what Jupiter—whom he overreached—was going to say, could the god not know in what ways a man was preparing to overreach him? Is it not, then, clear and manifest that these are puerile and fanciful inventions, by which, while a lively wit is assigned to Numa, the greatest want of foresight is imputed to Jupiter? For what shows so little foresight as to confess that you have been ensnared by the subtlety of a man’s intellect, and while you are vexed at being deceived, to give way to the wishes of him who has overcome you, and to lay aside the means which you had proposed? For if there was reason and some natural fitness that expiatory sacrifice for that which was struck with lightning should have been made with a man’s head, I do not see why the proposal of an onion’s was made by the king; but if it could be performed with an onion also, there was a greedy lust for human blood. And both parts are made to contradict themselves: so that, on the one hand, Numa is shown not to have wished to know what he did wish; and, on the other, Jupiter is shown to have been merciless, because he said that he wished expiation to be made with the heads of men, which could have been done by Numa with an onion’s head

## Footnotes

* ↑ Lit., “unless a mortal anticipated”—præsumeret, the ms. reading.
* ↑ So Oehler, supplying quem.
* ↑ Lit., “liveliness of heart is procured.”
* ↑ Lit., “why.”