OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on John/Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John/From the Fifth Book
## Contents

* From the Preface
* How Scripture Warns Us Against Making Many Books
* The Apostles Wrote Little
* Chapter IV
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IX/Origen on John/Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John/From the Fifth Book/How Scripture Warns Us Against Making Many Books

2. How Scripture Warns Us Against Making Many Books.
For, to judge by the words of the phrase, “My son, beware of making many books,” two things appear to be indicated by it: first, that we ought not to possess many books, and then that we ought not to compose many books. If the first is not the meaning the second must be, and if the second is the meaning the first does not necessarily follow. In either case we appear to be told that we ought not to make many books. I might take my stand on this dictum which now confronts us, and send you the text as an excuse, and I might appeal in support of this position to the fact that not even the saints found leisure to compose many books; and thus I might cry off from the bargain we made with each other, and give up writing what I was to send to you. You, on your side, would no doubt feel the force of the text I have cited, and might, for the future, excuse me. But we must treat Scripture conscientiously, and must not congratulate ourselves because we see the primary meaning of a text, that we understand it altogether. I do not, therefore, shrink from bringing forward what excuse I think I am able to offer for myself, and to point out the arguments, which you would certainly use against me, if I acted contrary to our agreement. And in the first place, the Sacred History seems to agree with the text in question, inasmuch as none of the saints composed several works, or set forth his views in a number of books. I will take up this point: when I proceed to write a number of books, the critic will remind me that even such a one as Moses left behind him only five books.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul
## Contents

* Preface
* Section I
* Section II
* Section III
* Section IV
* Section V
* Section VI
* Section VII
* Elucidations
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Section IV

IV. Whether the Soul is Incorporeal.
That the soul is in our body, has been shown above. We ought now, therefore, to ascertain in what manner it is in the body. Now, if it is in juxtaposition with it, as one pebble with another, it follows that the soul will be a body, and also that the whole body will not be animated with soul, inasmuch as with a certain part it will only be in juxtaposition. But if again, it is mingled or fused with the body, the soul will become multiplex, and not simple, and will thus be despoiled of the rationale proper to a soul. For what is multiplex is also divisible and dissoluble; and what is dissoluble, on the other hand, is compound; and what is compound is separable in a threefold manner. Moreover, body attached to body makes weight; but the soul, subsisting in the body, does not make weight, but rather imparts life. The soul, therefore, cannot be a body, but is incorporeal.
Again, if the soul is a body, it is put in action either from without or from within. But it is not put in action from without; for it is moved neither by impulsion nor by traction, like soulless things. Nor is it put in action from within, like objects animated with soul; for it is absurd to talk of a soul of the soul: it cannot, therefore, be a body, but it is incorporeal.
And besides, if the soul is a body, it has sensible qualities, and is maintained by nurture. But it is not thus nurtured. For if it is nurtured, it is not nurtured corporeally, like the body, but incorporeally; for it is nurtured by reason. It has not, therefore, sensible qualities: for neither is righteousness, nor courage, nor any one of these things, something that is seen; yet these are the qualities of the soul. It cannot, therefore, be a body, but is incorporeal.
Still further, as all corporeal substance is divided into animate and inanimate, let those who hold that the soul is a body tell us whether we are to call it animate or inanimate.
Finally, if every body has colour, and quantity, and figure, and if there is not one of these qualities perceptible in the soul, it follows that the soul is not a body.

## Footnotes

* ↑ ἔμψυχον.
* ↑ πολυμερής.
* ↑ σύνθετον.
* ↑ ὄγκον.
* ↑ [These are Aristotle’s accidents, of which, see Thomas Aquinas and the schoolmen passim.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Section I

I. Wherein is the Criterion for the Apprehension of the Soul.
All things that exist are either known by sense or apprehended by thought. And what falls under sense has its adequate demonstration in sense itself; for at once, with the application, it creates in us the impression of what underlies it. But what is apprehended by thought is known not by itself, but by its operations. The soul, consequently, being unknown by itself, shall be known property by its effects.

## Footnotes

* ↑ αἰσθήσει.
* ↑ νοήσει.
* ↑ φαντασίαν.
* ↑ ἐνεργειῶν.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Section V

V. Whether the Soul is Simple or Compound.
We prove, then, that the soul is simple, best of all, by those arguments by which its incorporeality has been demonstrated. For if it is not a body, while every body is compound, and what is composite is made up of parts, and is consequently multiplex, the soul, on the other hand, being incorporeal, is simple; since thus it is both uncompounded and indivisible into parts.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Gospel According to Matthew

On the Gospel According to Matthew.
(Chapter VI. 22, 23.)
“The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”
The single eye is the love unfeigned; for when the body is enlightened by it, it sets forth through the medium of the outer members only things which are perfectly correspondent with the inner thoughts. But the evil eye is the pretended love, which is also called hypocrisy, by which the whole body of the man is made darkness. We have to consider that deeds meet only for darkness may be within the man, while through the outer members he may produce words that seem to be of the light: for there are those who are in reality wolves, though they may be covered with sheep’s clothing. Such are they who wash only the outside of the cup and platter, and do not understand that, unless the inside of these things is cleansed, the outside itself cannot be made pure. Wherefore, in manifest confutation of such persons, the Saviour says: “If the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!” That is to say, if the love which seems to thee to be light is really a work meet for darkness, by reason of some hypocrisy concealed in thee, what must be thy patent transgressions!

## Footnotes

* ↑ A fragment. (Gallandi, Vet. Patr. Biblioth., xiv. p. 119; from a Catena on Matthew, Cod. ms. 168, Mitarelli.)
* ↑ The text is apparently corrupt here: ἄξια μὲν σκότους πράγματα ἐννοούμενον ἔσωθεν· διὰ δὲ τῶν ἔξωθεν μερῶν φωτὸς εἶναι δοκοῦντα προφέον ῥήματα. Migne suggests ἐννοοῦμεν τόν and προφέροντα.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Section II

II. Whether the Soul Exists.
Our body, when it is put in action, is put in action either from without or from within. And that it is not put in action from without, is manifest from the circumstance that it is put in action neither by impulsion nor by traction, like soulless things. And again, if it is put in action from within, it is not put in action according to nature, like fire. For fire never loses its action as long as there is fire; whereas the body, when it has become dead, is a body void of action. Hence, if it is put in action neither from without, like soulless things, nor according to nature, after the fashion of fire, it is evident that it is put in action by the soul, which also furnishes life to it. If, then, the soul is shown to furnish the life to our body, the soul will also be known for itself by its operations.

## Footnotes

* ↑ ὠθούμενον.
* ↑ ἑλκόμενον.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Elucidations

Elucidations.
I.
(Substance or accident, p. 54.)
This essay is “rather the work of a philosopher than a bishop,” says Dupin. He assigns it to an age when “Aristotle began to be in some reputation,”—a most important concession as to the estimate of this philosopher among the early faithful. We need not wonder that such admissions, honourable to his candour and to his orthodoxy, brought on him the hatred and persecutions of the Jesuits. Even Bossuet thought he went too far, and wrote against him. But, the whole system of Roman dogma being grounded in Aristotle’s physics as well as in his metaphysics, Dupin was not orthodox in the eyes of the society that framed Aristotle into a creed, and made it the creed of the “Roman-Catholic Church.” Note, e.g., “transubstantiation,” which is not true if Aristotle’s theory of accidents, etc., is false. It assumes an exploded science.
II.
(Prerogative of the soul, p. 56.)
If this “Discourse” be worthy of study, it may be profitably contrasted, step by step, with Tertullian’s treatises on kindred subjects. That the early Christians should reason concerning the Soul, the Mind, the immortal Spirit, was natural in itself. But it was also forced upon them by the “philosophers” and the heretics, with whom they daily came into conflict. This is apparent from the Anti-Marcion of the great Carthaginian. The annotations upon that treatise, and those On the Soul’s Testimony and On the Soul, may suffice as pointing out the best sources of information on speculative points and their bearings on theology. Compare, however, Athenagoras and the great Clement of Alexandria.

## Footnotes

* ↑ See Bacon’s apophthegm, No. 275, p. 172, Works, London, 1730.
* ↑ Vol. iii. pp. 175–235, this series.
* ↑ Vol. iii. pp. 463, 474; also pp. 532, 537, 557, 570, and 587.
* ↑ Compare, also, Bishop Kaye’s Tertullian, p. 199, etc.
* ↑ E.g., vol. ii. p. 157, etc.
* ↑ Vol. ii. pp. 440, 584 (Fragment), and what he says of free-will.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VI/Gregory Thaumaturgus/Dubious or Spurious Writings/On the Subject of the Soul/Section III

III. Whether the Soul is a Substance.
That the soul is a substance, is proved in the following manner. In the first place, because the definition given to the term substance suits it very well. And that definition is to the effect, that substance is that which, being ever identical, and ever one in point of numeration with itself, is yet capable of taking on contraries in succession. And that this soul, without passing the limit of its own proper nature, takes on contraries in succession, is, I fancy, clear to everybody. For righteousness and unrighteousness, courage and cowardice, temperance and intemperance, are seen in it successively; and these are contraries. If, then, it is the property of a substance to be capable of taking on contraries in succession, and if the soul is shown to sustain the definition in these terms, it follows that the soul is a substance. And in the second place, because if the body is a substance, the soul must also be a substance. For it cannot be, that what only has life imparted should be a substance, and that what imparts the life should be no substance: unless one should assert that the non-existent is the cause of the existent; or unless, again, one were insane enough to allege that the dependent object is itself the cause of that very thing in which it has its being, and without which it could not subsist.

## Footnotes

* ↑ οὐσία.
* ↑ τῶν ἐναντίων παραμέρος εἰναι δεκτικόν, παραμέρος, here apparently = in turn, though usually = out of turn.
* ↑ The text has an apparent inversion: τὸ ἐν ᾧ τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον καὶ οὗ ἄνευ εἶναι μὴ δυνάμενον, αἴτιον ἐκείνου εἶναι τοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστί. There is also a variety of reading: καὶ ὁ ἄνευ τοῦ εἶναι μὴ δυνάμενον.
# An Essay towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language/Errata

ERRATA.
PAGE 6. Line 17. Read Instituted by Art. p.15.l.9.r.3. By assigning, &c. p.16.l.11.(y) p.27.l.39. dele relief. p.32.l.43. dele poor. p.40.l.28.r. defer. p.41.l.21,22. add administer, disperse, distribute Token, Fairing, to the preceding line. p.70.l.38.r. dryer. p.73.l.3.r. Lacinia. p.91.l.7,8.r. of this Tribe. p.94.l.19.r. expand. p.97.ll.21,31.r. Chickling. p.133.l.31.r. Oxyrhynchos. p.134.l.48.r. Iozo. p.139.l.18. Channa. p.147.l.20.r. Cariocatactes. p.150.l.20,21.r. Coccothrauctes. p.153. Of Birds. p.156.l.13. Avosetta. p.157.l.48. Strepsiceros. p.159.l.5.r. Shrewmouse. p.177.l.10, &c. r. More properly Organical; Whether such parts as are
| $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | External; used for the Senses, &c. |
| $\scriptstyle {\left\{{\begin{matrix}\ \\\ \end{matrix}}\right.}$ | Internal; used for Tasting, Speaking, or Eating. |
p.181.l.40.after superficies add imyplying a respect as the sides or limits of it. p.291.l.49. dele she, l.90.r. the word Change. p.292.l.22.r. Ares. p.200.l.35.r. Lux. p.301.l.14.r. Quantity. p.309.l.19.r. this. p.324.l.35.r. jabber. p.346.l.29.r. Flat. p.368.l.12.r. Thin. p.390.l.8,9.r. upward, downward, above, below.
In the MARGIN
PAge70.Read Museus. p.72. Oryza. p.76. Petasites. p.86. Conyza. p.89. Perfoliata. Eryngium. Sphoudylium. p.90. Charephyllon. p.91. Thysselinum. Chamadrys. p.92. Chamæpitis. p.93. Stachis. Bugulæ. p.95. Caryophyllata. p.99. Scorpioides. Bupleurifolio. p.102. Caryophyllus. Ascyrum. p.103. Chamadrys. p.104. Viola. Hyoscyamus. p.106. Ebælus. p.107. Grossulariæ. p.108.Mahæleb. p.109. Philyrheæ. Pyracantha. Thymelæa. p.115. Laurocerasus. p.116 Pistacia. Corylus. p.123. Proscarabæus. p.142. Leuciscus. p.148. Ruffa. Corylorum. p.150. Alaudæ. Cenchramus. p.152. Troglodytes. p.153. Gaxellæs.
Layout 2
# An Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language

ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY
OF THE
GAELIC LANGUAGE

## Table of Contents

* Biographical Notes
* Editorial Note
* Corrigendum et Addendum
* Preface to the First Edition
* Preface to further Gaelic words and etymologies
* Abbreviations
* Authors Quoted
* Outlines of Gaelic Etymology
* Supplement to Outlines
* A
* B
* C
* D
* E
* F
* G
* I
* L
* M
* N
* O
* P
* R
* S
* T
* U
* Supplementary words
* National names
* Personal names and surnames
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
# An Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language/A

A
# An Introduction to Dravidian Philology

Lectures delivered on behalf of the Oriental Research Institute, Madras University on the 29th Jan. 1929 and the succeeding days
AN INTRODUCTION TO DRAVIDIAN PHILOLOGY
C. NARAYANA RAO
ASIAN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES NEW DELHI ★ CHENNAI ★ 1991
​ASIAN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES * RZ-257, STREET No.19, TUGHLAKABAD EXT., NEW DELHI - 110019 Tel.: +91-11-29992586, 29994059, fax :+91-11-29994946 email: aes@aes.ind.in
* 2/15, 2nd FLOOR, ANSARI ROAD, DARYAGANJ, NEW DELHI - 1100 02 Tel : +91-11-23262044 email: aesdg@aes.ind.in
* 19, (NEW NO. 40), BALAJI NAGAR FIRST STREET, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014 Tel.: +91-44-28133040 / 28131391 / 28133020, Fax: +91-44 -28131391 email: aesmds@aes.ind.in
www.aes.ind.in
Printed and Hand-Bound in India
Price: Rs. 495 First Published: 1929. First AES Reprint: New Delhi, 1991.
ISBN: 8120601181
Published by Gautam Jetley For ASIAN EDUCATIONAL SERVICES RZ-257, Street No.19, Tughlakabad Ext., New Delhi - 110019 Processed by AES Publications Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi-110019 Printed at Gian offset Printers, New Delhil 10035.
* Preface
* Acknowledgement
* The Dravidian Culture-Complex
* Dravidian Philology
* The Dravidian Languages
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, all documents enter the public domain after 60 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year after the death of the author (i.e. as of 2024, prior to January 1, 1964). Film, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, and works first published over 60 years after the death of the author are protected for 60 years after publication.
Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years (before 1991) and copyright has not been restored.
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in India on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of India having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
The critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1941.
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
# An Introduction to Dravidian Philology/Acknowledgement

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
I must thank the Madras University for having given me an opportunity to collect my thoughts on the Dravidian linguistic problem in the shape of the following lectures. Ever since I became acquainted with Caldwell’s Comparative Grammar, I have been feeling that the opinion of the native Dravidian scholars has not received the attention that it deserved. In these lectures, therefore, I have endeavoured to present the other sides the native side, of the picture. How far I have succeeded in my attempts, it is for scholars to judge. Bat I rest satisfied with the thought that I have not allowed the question of the affiliation of the Dravidian languages to be set at rest once for all, and hope that a keener interest will be revived in solving this intricate problem.
These lectures were originally delivered in Telugu, but I have ​preferred to publish them in an English garb for the benefit of a wider circle of scholars.
It will not be possible to make a list of all the books which I have consulted in preparing these lectures. Especial mention must be made of the volumes of Dr. Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India, the latest Census Reports, the works of Drs. Beames and Hoernle, the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the various Prakrit grammars. For a good part of the first lecture dealing with the Anthropological problem, I have drawn upon Mr. Panchanan Mitra’s “Prehistoric India.”
In the following pages, the mark ‘ is used to denote the length of vowels and to distinguish the cerebral from the dentals, and the palatal from the dentals.
C. Narayana Rao.
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, all documents enter the public domain after 60 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year after the death of the author (i.e. as of 2024, prior to January 1, 1964). Film, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, and works first published over 60 years after the death of the author are protected for 60 years after publication.
Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years (before 1991) and copyright has not been restored.
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in India on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of India having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
The critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1941.
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
# An Introduction to Dravidian Philology/Preface

PREFACE.
[ The following is the second of the four lectures delivered by Mr C. Narayana Rao under the auspices of the Madras University as a part of the scheme of the Oriental Research Institute attached to the University The first lecture made a survey of the research carried on with respect to the Dravidian languages and proposed to give a fresher orientation and newer outlook to Dravidian research in accordance with the latest advances made in Philological investigation. The second and the third dealt with the Dravidian racial and culture complexes and sought to establish the relationship of the Vravidians racially and culturally with the Indo-Europeans, In the fourth, a detailed examination was made of the close connection between Telugu and Kanarese. ]
This work is in the public domain in India because it originates from India and its term of copyright has expired. According to The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, all documents enter the public domain after 60 years counted from the beginning of the following calendar year after the death of the author (i.e. as of 2024, prior to January 1, 1964). Film, sound recordings, government works, anonymous works, and works first published over 60 years after the death of the author are protected for 60 years after publication.
Works by authors who died before 1941 entered the public domain after 50 years (before 1991) and copyright has not been restored.
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in India on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of India having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
The critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1941.
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
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Nehrung

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Nehrung | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Nehrung, f., ‘a long narrow strip of ​land separating a Haff from the sea,’ first occurs in ModHG., allied to MidHG. (14th cent.) Nerge, ‘Kurische Nehrung’: “since Nehrung is a narrow strip of land, it may be derived from OSax. naru, ‘narrow.’” See Narbe.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Naue

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Naue | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Naue, f., ‘barque,’ from MidHG. nâwe, nœwe, f. and m., ‘small ship,’ espec. ‘ferryboat’; not primit. allied to Lat. nâvis, but rather borrowed from it in the MidHG. period. The Teut. cognate of Lat. nâvis, Gr. νηῦς, Sans. nãus, is OIc. nór, ‘ship,’ of which we should have expected the corresponding MidHG. form *nuowe. It is certainly remarkable that the Teut. primit. word corresponding to the Aryan terms adduced has been preserved only in Scand.