OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/Letters/Letter IV

To the same Gaius Therapeutes.
How, you ask, is Jesus, Who is beyond all, ranked essentially with all men? For, not as Author of men is He here called man, but as being in absolute whole essence truly man. But we do not define the Lord Jesus, humanly, for He is not man only, (neither superessential nor man only), but truly man, He Who is pre-eminently a lover of man, the Super-essential, taking substance, above men and after men, from the substance of men. And it is nothing less, the ever Superessential, super-full of super-essentiality, disregards the excess of this, and having come truly into substance, took substance above substance, and above man works things of man. And a virgin supernaturally conceiving, and unstable water, holding up weight of material and earthly feet, and not giving way, but, by a supernatural power standing together so as not to be divided, demonstrate this. Why should any one go through the rest, which are very many? Through which, he who looks with a divine vision, will know beyond mind, even the things affirmed respecting the love towards man, of (the Lord) Jesus,—things which possess a force of superlative negation. For, even, to speak summarily, He was not man, not as not being man, but as being from men was beyond men, and was above man, having truly been born man, and for the rest, not having done things Divine as God, not things human as man, but exercising for us a certain new God-incarnate energy of God having become man.

## Footnotes

* ↑ C. II. §6.
* ↑ C. II. §6.
* ↑ τῇ ταύτης περιουσίᾳ.
# The Wolver/Chapter 14
### XIV

Late in March, down on Pukaso, the old trapper found a wolf-track in new-fallen snow, partly covered up. He picked the fresh flakes out of the track till he was at the bottom of it. He looked at it, felt of it, and then straightened up with an exclamation.
"By gar! Dat's an insult!" he grimaced. "Dat feller ain' gone yet! Two Toes ain' gone yet! He come along an' aroun' again!"
He found the same track on Twin Falls River, up on Swallow River, and where it led by his wigwams on two forks of his lines.
"Pore ole lonesome son of a goon!" he grumbled. "By gar! I feel sorry for dat ole feller. Ole Two Toes have a hard time, by gar! He get all crippled up in a trap, an' den he get all balled up in de col' an' sleet! Pore ole feller! Too bad I ain' got hees skin, by gar! But dat ole feller cross my track, when all dem other wolfs chased after me! By gar! He don' mean to harm me, an' he kep' right back in de woods, out of reach. I read it in the snow! It was like in a book, by gar! He don' hurt me, an' by gar, I don' hurt heem! Dat's only right, by gar!"
Nevertheless, French Louie must needs follow up the track with great caution, his rifle all ready. Presently he saw the wolf on the opposite side of a ravine, all curled up and sound asleep, unconscious of the near approach of the enemy who had broken up his great pack, slaying its, fiercest fighters and scattering the survivors.
French Louie raised his holster-rifle, drew down very steadily, and aimed for a long time; but he did not fire at Two Toes.
"By gar! A feller want to make sure!" he whispered to himself. "A feller don' want to make no mistake! By gar, a feller want to take good aim an' shoot straight!"
Always before, when French Louie had drawn a bead on a wolf, he had shot swiftly and surely; but this time he aimed and aimed. He changed the position of his feet, twisted his neck, around till he had a crick in it, and looked into the muzzle of his rifle to make sure that nothing was in it to deflect the bullet; but still he did not pull the trigger.
Suddenly Two Toes leaped to his feet, gave a startled sniff at the air, and jerked his head. Then away the wolf glided in the woods over the snow.
"By gar! It ain' no use shootin' at one of dem fellers, w'en he roons!" French Louie shook his head, "If dat feller' had laid still, an' my eyesight be'n all right, I bet I plug heem, right t'rough de heart! Yes, I bet dat feller never would keek, eef he hadn't jump up an' run jes' when he did! I bet I would! By gar!"
Then the old trapper, chuckling to himself at his joke, turned back to his trap-line and followed it again.
"Anyhow," he grinned, "de winter is 'mos' gone,, an' nex' time aroun' I take up de traps. Den I wait for de wind to be right, an' go over to Port Arthur in my boat. I bet dem fur-buyers look deir eyes out w'en dey see what a catch of mink, marten, lynx, pekans, an' foxes I have! Dem fellers ask, 'Wat yo' get dem wolfs for, anyhow? Dey ain' no good!' By gar! Not'in' but bounty an' t'ree, four dollaire a hide—dat what I tell 'em, by gar!"
THE END.
# The Wolver

Extracted from Munsey's magazine, September 1916, pp. 730-768. Accompanying title illustration omitted.
The Wolver
of Green Timber
by
Raymond S. Spears
* 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
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 1950, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 73 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
# The Wolf and the Sheep

Perry index 160; different from The Wolf and the Boy
* "A Wolfe and a Sheep", in Fables of Æsop and Other Eminent Mythologists (1692)
* "The Wolf and the Sheep", translated by George Fyler Townsend, in Three Hundred Æsop's Fables (1867)
* "The Wolf and the Sheep", translated by Vernon Stanley Jones, in Æsop's fables: A New Translation (1912)
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
# The Wolf and the Shepherd

Perry index 234
* "Wolfe turn'd Shepherd", in Fables of Æsop and Other Eminent Mythologists (1692)
* "The Wolf and the Shepherd", translated by George Fyler Townsend, illustrated by Harrison Weir, in Three Hundred Æsop's Fables (1867)
* "The Wolf and the Shepherd", translated by Vernon Stanley Jones, in Æsop's fables: A New Translation (1912)
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
# The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

* related authors: Aesop.
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Commons category, Wikidata item.
Perry index 451
* "A Wolfe in a Sheeps-skin", translated by Roger L'Estrange, in Fables of Æsop and Other Eminent Mythologists (1692)
* "The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", translated by George Fyler Townsend, in Three Hundred Æsop's Fables (1867)
* "The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", translated by Joseph Jacobs, edited by Joseph Jacobs, illustrated by Richard Heighway, in The Fables of Æsop (1894)
* "The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing", translated by Vernon Stanley Jones, in Æsop's fables: A New Translation (1912)
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
# The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/On the Heavenly Hierarchy/Caput XIII
## Footnotes

* ↑ John 1.1.
* ↑ Or super-original.
# The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/On the Heavenly Hierarchy/Caput XV
## Footnotes

* ↑ Le Cratyle de Platon, i. 302.
* ↑ Gen. xxxii. 24.
* ↑ See Maximus D.N. c. 4. s. 1.
* 1 2 3 4 Ezek. i. 10.
* ↑ The Lion was said to erase his footsteps by his tail.
# The Works of Edmund Spenser/Epithalamion

EPITHALAMION.
# The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite/On the Heavenly Hierarchy/Caput XII

Why the Hierarchs amongst men are called Angels.
# The Works of Edmund Spenser

THE
WORKS
OF
EDMUND SPENSER
EDMUND SPENSER.
THE
WORKS
OF
EDMUND SPENSER
With observations
ON HIS
LIFE & WRITINGS.
KILCOLMAN CASTLE.
PHILADELPHIA. WILLS P. HAZARD. 190 CHESTNUT St.
THE
WORKS
OF
EDMUND SPENSER.
WITH OBSERVATIONS
ON
HIS LIFE AND WRITINGS.
A NEW EDITION.
COMPLETE IN ONE VOLUME.
PHILADELPHIA: WILLIS P. HAZARD, 190 CHESTNUT STREET. 1857.
CONTENTS.
THE FAERIE QUEENE.
BOOK I.
The Legend of the Knight of the Red Crosse, or of Holinesse.
BOOK II.
The Legend of Sir Guyon, or of Temperaunce.
BOOK III.
The Legend of Britomartis, or of Chastity.
BOOK IV.
The Legend of Cambel and Triamond, or of Friendship.
BOOK V.
The Legend of Artegall, or of Justice.
BOOK VI.
The Legend of Sir Calidore, or of Courtesie.
FOWRE HYMNES.
THREE VISIONS.
BRITTAIN’S IDA.
GLOSSARY.
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
# The Works of Edmund Spenser/Prothalamion

Written in 1596
PROTHALAMION:
OR,
A SPOUSALL VERSE.
MADE BY
EDM. SPENSER,
In honour of the double marriage of the two honorable and vertuous ladies, the Ladie Elizabeth, and toe Ladie Katherine Somerset, daughters to the right honorable the Earle of Worcester, and espoused to the two worthie gentlemen, M. Henry Gilford and M. William Peter, Esquyers.
# The Works of Edmund Spenser/The Shepheards Calender

THE
SHEPHEARDS CALENDER:
CONTEYNING
TWELVE AEGLOGUES,
PROPORTIONABLE TO THE TWELVE MONETHES,
Entitled to the noble and vertuous Gentleman, most worthie of all titles both of learning and chivalry,
MAISTER PHILIP SIDNEY.
TO HIS BOOKE.
Goe, little Booke! thy selfe present, As childe whose parent is unkent, To him that is the president Of noblenesse and chevalree: And if that Envie barke at thee, As sure it will, for succour flee Under the shadow of his wing, And, asked who thee forth did bring, A shepheards swaine, say, did thee sing, All as his straying flocke he fedde: And, when his honour has thee redde, Crave pardon for thy hardy-hedde. But, if that any aske thy name, Say, thou wert base-begot with blame: Forthy thereof thou takest shame. And, when thou art past ieopardee, Come tell me what was said of mee, And I will send more after thee.
Immerito.
* Epistle
* Generall Argument
* Shepheards Calender
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter37

CHAPTER XXXVII
IS THERE ANY TRUE MARRIAGE LOVE
I have another question to answer: "You speak of true marriage love. Is such love anything else than the instinct for mating which characterizes all animal life? In other words, is it not merely an instinct to keep the race alive and hence purely animal? I fail to see that human beings are superior to animals when it comes to mating, or that your 'true marriage love' is anything else than the instinct to propagate, an appetite as animal as eating and drinking."
In answer to this attack let me say that I do not believe that men and animals are on the same plane of life. I admit that a man is primarily an animal, as to his body, and has instincts which beasts share with him, but a man is inexpressibly more than an animal. Of course, I perceive that many people seem to be little above the animal in their knowledge, in their passions and in their grossness of living.
But I am not satisfied to class myself with the ​animals. I am sure that most people are more than animal, with the capacity to become the sons of God. Animal mating seems to be inspired merely by the instinct to propagate. It is blind, unreasoning, animal.
But human mating is the highest friendship and companionship. The propagation of the human race ought to be, because of the superior nature of man, as superior to animal mating as heaven is superior to earth. True marriage love is human. Mere animal love in human beings is bestial. In animals it is merely the order of their nature.
I will go further and say that many unhappy marriages arize from the fact that one or both parties to the marriage enter into it merely as an animal might. If they are only animal in their feelings and outlook on life nothing better can be expected for them than a caricature of marriage. Such people can never know what true marriage is, or, for that matter, can never know what truly human living is and enjoy the life of a human being. They are still, despite the veneer of good clothes and apparent friendliness, animals dressed up as men.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter34

CHAPTER XXXIV
SHALL A MAN BE HEAD OF THE HOUSE?
What do you think of this question: "Should a man be the head of the house?"
I know what most men think about it. They have been trained for thousands of years to be the head of the house. Woman has been largely an appendage to a man or a household, so far as authority was concerned. At least, that has been the theory.
Actually we know in fact that many women have ruled the house with an iron hand. The name hen-pecked husband has a meaning all its own to many a man.
My own idea of marriage is that both should rule, in their own way and in their own departments.
There should be no opposition or conflict of authority. It is not enough for a man to scream, "I'm the head of this house. What I say goes." The basis of true marriage is love. Where love exists it should govern, and it should govern both the husband and the wife. The husband should listen to the woman's ​side of the case; and the wife should listen to the man's reasons for any given action.
But there should be infinite consideration and the spirit of co-operation on both sides. It is easy to be arbitrary, if one can get away with it.
It may be the case that the woman's will rules and the husband subsides into subjection, but he does not love the woman who rules him.
It may be that the wife subsides before the man's arrogance and violence, but she does not necessarily respect the man.
It is not worth while to have one's arbitrary way and lose the other's love and respect. Some victories are merely victories of force, of superior physical or mental strength.
Marriage is a partnership; and the partners in marriage have each his or her voice in the life of the household, not properly a noisy and strident voice, but the voice of love. Love should be the head of the house, not individuals.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter32

CHAPTER XXXII
HOW MUCH LIBERTY SHOULD MARRIED PARTNERS HAVE
Here follows a question somewhat similar to the one that went before. It reads: "How much liberty should married partners have?"
They should have the liberty that belongs to a self-respecting man or woman.
A woman can keep her husband straight oftentimes by constant vigilance, and unfortunately it is sometimes necessary. A woman does not usually need so much vigilance. If she does, I am sorry for the man, for it means, to my mind, that she is weak or wicked, whereas her husband in such a case may be simply silly.
But each ought to give the other relative liberty, the liberty that is in keeping with one's obligations to be faithful to the other. Each ought not to demand any so-called liberty that is not in keeping with ideal fidelity.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter35

CHAPTER XXXV
A THOUGHTLESS HUSBAND
Here is another question: "Is a thoughtless husband really at heart unloving?"
By this question I understand that the "thoughtless husband" mentioned is one who tries to have his own way and gives little thought to the wife in his attitudes and actions. He thinks he ought to rule because husbands have always ruled, and have his way, or have been supposed to rule and have their way, and he does not really take anyone else into consideration in his decisions.
Of course, such a man is in the wrong. He is apt to appear to be a brute. If his actions were viewed in the light of common day and thought of without charity in the heart, he would often be condemned as cruel and cold and hard.
But someone wants to know if, in spite of such an appearance, it may not be that such a man is not necessarily unloving. In other words, he may be actually loving, even though he does not show it.
​How often you and I have seen such men portrayed in novels and in plays and in moving pictures! They are usually men of violent character, accustomed to rule with an iron hand, to dominate their households and business in a despotic way. They have a daughter who falls in love with the hero and the bully of a father tries to separate them. Well, does he do it?
Possibly for a time, but after great accidents or unhappiness he relents and we then behold the love in the father's heart. And we then forgive the old curmudgeon because we see he has a heart after all. But I am sorry for the wife and the family who have to endure him.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter36

CHAPTER XXXVI
MARRIAGE A MOCKERY?
Here is a question that comes to me: "Don't you frankly believe that marriage is usually a hollow mockery? It promises much, but do you really believe that it often fulfils its promise?"
That question evidently comes from a pessimist, possibly from one who has tried marriage out, and because of his own failure believes that all marriages are a failure. That is the way we humans have of sizing a thing up,—by our own experience. Possibly the man who asks the question has merely observed marriage in others and thereby has grown cynical, become a crusty old bachelor.
Whoever he is, whatever his own personal experience, my answer is: Marriage is sometimes a hollow mockery, but in such cases it is due to the fact that it is entered into from wrong motives. Let us say from lust, or from convenience, or from the desire to have a home, or from parental pressure, or some other imperfect motive.
​Possibly it is a failure because of the failure of one or both parties before the marriage to ascertain if there was mutual fitness for each other, mutual congeniality. Possibly from ignorance of what marriage really means. Possibly from selfishness on the part of one or both of the contracting parties.
Marriage has two parts, an external and an internal. Too many people think of marriage as merely an external form, and give no attention to the soul of it. An external marriage is like a house without any furniture, thus empty, or with ill-assorted furniture. Marriage for its happiness depends upon what we ourselves put into it.
Marriage is also to be thought of as a partnership. We all know very well what a partnership in business is if the partners do not agree. It is not possible for any two men whatsoever to become associated in business successfully if, ill-mated, they do not agree with each other in the many details that arise in the conduct of the business. In marriage the partnership is far more intimate.
Our pessimistic friend ought to know that business partnerships are not necessarily failures; they may be, and often are; but that is due to inability of the partners to agree with each other.
He might likewise know that marriages are failures because of many reasons not inherent in the ​relationship itself. Marriage promises much only to those who enter into marriage intelligently.
Therefore we are pleading for education for this most beautiful of human relationships, in order that every marriage may be a success.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter38

CHAPTER XXXVIII
IS LOVE BLIND?
Someone asks: "Don't you think that love is blind?"
Yes, too often so. Many girls see in a young man their ideal. They do not see the qualities that really exist in him. They are blind to his defects and sometimes glaring faults. They see a hero instead of a very imperfect youth, often silly, often vain.
And young men are just as blind to girls they meet. They fail to see the obvious silliness and vanity of such girls, and even far worse faults. Other women could open their eyes. At the same time there is in true love often the power to see the really splendid qualities underneath the appearance.
A wife sometimes recognizes wonderful possibilities in her husband that other people do not see, and sometimes, like the sculptor working over the block of marble, is able to carve out a hero that others never suspected to exist.
Men when they attribute their success in things ​they undertake to their wives are proving that in the case of their wives love was not blind. She saw what was in her man and helped to bring it out in his development.
I read this statement the other day which strikes me as useful in this discussion: "Love should be always blind, or to read the saying aright, should keep so keen a vision for perfection hidden to other eyes that it can never ponder on the imperfections that do exist, should never accuse but always excuse defects, faults, failures. Yet a man should learn to call his wife an angel not because of her hazel eyes, but because of the pure soul that looks through them, be they hazel or iron grey."
In other words, the writer is trying to say that love should be blind to faults if people are once married and have eyes wide open to see qualities that make for perfection.
But before marriage I would urge young folks to keep their eyes open, open to see glaring faults as well as open to see possible virtues. For if we are not honest with ourselves before marriage we may plunge into a swamp.
The eyes of our mind are given us to see our pathway through life just as surely as the eyes of our body are to help us walk safely on the ground.
# The Truth about Marriage/Chapter33

CHAPTER XXXIII
WHAT GOOD WILL EDUCATION EFFECT?
This letter came to me: "Will more knowledge about marriage, and even careful education as to married life, make happy marriage possible? Mere ideas in the mind are not going suddenly to transform you or your partner into persons of perfection. In other words, how much can we avoid by knowledge and how much are we bound to learn by hard and often unlovely experience?"
Suppose one were going to cross the ocean on a ship which he was to steer. How useful would it be for him to know all about ships in general and his ship in particular? How useful would it be for him to know in theory how to steer a ship? How useful would it be for him to know about the shortest and best routes to the ports he might want to visit? How useful would it be for him to know about storms and other dangers he might encounter?
The fact is that knowledge about any course of life we want to pursue is of the greatest value.
​It is just as important in the matter of marriage as in anything else. And we have to learn these things by instruction first. Later on we learn by experience.
Let us say that one wanted to take up a course in engineering of one kind or another. Would he try to learn by experience without taking instruction first? He would after a lifetime not know as much as he could learn by getting the experience represented in the schools.
Experience is indispensable, but we need first of all instruction. Instruction represents the experience of ten thousand others and it is just as necessary in marriage as elsewhere.
That is the trouble today about marriage. People are trying to learn by experience alone without any previous instruction, and in doing so they are just as apt to fail as a young man who tried to become a doctor or a lawyer without taking advantage of the stored-up knowledge of the race in books and schools. The fact is that society does not allow a young man to become a doctor or lawyer without training in the theory of medicine or law; but we allow anyone at all to marry without any instruction whatsoever.
Is it any wonder that divorces occur so frequently?
​The writer of the letter from which I was quoting adds: "Are you not looking for Utopias when you expect ideal bliss from the beginning of marriage to the end?"
No, we are not looking for Utopias any more than we are looking for ideal doctors because of studies medical students pursue; but the chances of getting a good doctor are a thousandfold greater by giving one a training in a medical school.
The writer adds: "Are not life and experience and time the best and only teachers for most people?"
What I have already said answers that question. Life and experience and time are necessary to work out a successful marriage, but the preliminary knowledge I advocate would help here just as much as in other lines of human activities.