OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book I/Part 17

Chapter XV.—Socrates; His Philosophy Reproduced by Plato.
Socrates, then, was a hearer of Archelaus, the natural philosopher; and he, reverencing the rule, “Know thyself,” and having assembled a large school, had Plato (there), who was far superior to all his pupils. (Socrates) himself left no writings after him.  Plato, however, taking notes of all his (lectures on) wisdom, established a school, combining together natural, ethical, (and) logical (philosophy). But the points Plato determined are these following.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, “writing.” Still Socrates may be called the father of the Greek philosophy. “From the age of Aristotle and Plato, the rise of the several Greek sects may be estimated as so many successful or abortive efforts to carry out the principles enunciated by Socrates.”—Translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. iii. p. 45.
* ↑ This word signifies to take impressions from anything, which justifies the translation, historically correct, given above. Its literal import is “wipe clean,” and in this sense Hippolytus may intend to assert that Plato wholly appropriated the philosophy of Socrates. (See Diogenes Laertius, xi. 61, where the same word occurs.)
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book I/Part 12

Chapter X.—Leucippus; His Atomic Theory.
But Leucippus, an associate of Zeno, did not maintain the same opinion, but affirms things to be infinite, and always in motion, and that generation and change exist continuously. And he affirms plenitude and vacuum to be elements. And he asserts that worlds are produced when many bodies are congregated and flow together from the surrounding space to a common point, so that by mutual contact they made substances of the same figure and similar in form come into connection; and when thus intertwined, there are transmutations into other bodies, and that created things wax and wane through necessity. But what the nature of necessity is, (Parmenides) did not define.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [b.c. 370.]
* ↑ Or, “when again mutually connected, that different entities were generated.” (See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, ix. 30–32.)
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book I/Part 16

Chapter XIV.—Hippo; His Duality of Principles; His Psychology.
Hippo, a native of Rhegium, asserted as originating principles, coldness, for instance water, and heat, for instance fire. And that fire, when produced by water, subdued the power of its generator, and formed the world. And the soul, he said, is sometimes brain, but sometimes water; for that also the seed is that which appears to us to arise out of moisture, from which, he says, the soul is produced.
So far, then, we think we have sufficiently adduced (the opinions of) these; wherefore, inasmuch as we have adequately gone in review through the tenets of physical speculators, it seems to remain that we now turn to Socrates and Plato, who gave especial preference to moral philosophy.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, “holds.”
# Asiatic Petroleum Company v. Insular Collector of Customs

United States Supreme Court
297 U.S. 666
Asiatic Petroleum Company v. Insular Collector of Customs
Argued: March 13, 1936. --- Decided: March 30, 1936
Mr. Wm. D. Whitney, of New York City, for petitioner.
Mr. L. S. Tillotson, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Ask What You Will

"Ask what you will, I must obey your hest!"
* Coates, Florence Earle (1902), "Ask What You Will" from The Century Magazine V. 64 No. 4 (Aug 1902).
* Coates, Florence Earle (1904), "Ask What You Will" in Mine and Thine.
* Coates, Florence Earle (1916), "Ask What You Will" in Poems I.

## References

* ↑ View this version at Google books.
# Askew v. Hargrave/Concurrence Black

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Per Curiam Opinion of the Court
* Concurring Opinion Black
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 476
Askew v. Hargrave
Argued: Feb. 23 and 24, 1971. --- Decided: March 8, 1971
Mr. Justice BLACK concurs in the judgment and Part II of the opinion.

## 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
# Ask Me No More

Ask me no more: the moon may draw the sea; The cloud may stoop from heaven and take shape, With fold to fold, of mountain or of cape; But O too fond, when have I answer'd thee? Ask me no more.
Ask me no more: what answer should I give? I love not hollow cheek or faded eye: Yet O my friend, I will not have thee die! Ask me no more, lest I should bid thee live; Ask me no more.
Ask me no more: thy fate and mine are seal'd: I strove against the stream and all in vain: Let the great river take me to the main: No more, dear love, for at a touch I yield; Ask me no more.
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
# Aske me no more where Jove bestowes

ASK me no more where Jove bestows,
When June is past, the fading rose;
For in your beauty's orient deep
These flowers, as in their causes, sleep.
Ask me no more whither doth stray
The golden atoms of the day;
For in pure love heaven did prepare
Those powders to enrich your hair.
Ask me no more whither doth haste
The nightingale, when May is past;
For in your sweet, dividing throat
She winters, and keeps warm her note.
Ask me no more where those stars light,
That downwards fall in dead of night;
For in your eyes they sit, and there
Fixed become, as in their sphere.
Ask me no more if east or west
The phoenix builds her spicy nest;
For unto you at last she flies,
And in your fragrant bosom dies.
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
# Askew v. Hargrave

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.

## Concurring Opinion

    Black
United States Supreme Court
401 U.S. 476
Askew, Governor of Florida, et al. v. Hargrave et al.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
No. 573. Argued: February 23-24, 1971 --- Decided: March 8, 1971
Appellees brought this suit in federal court challenging Florida's Millage Rollback Law as violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment on the ground that it had an invidiously discriminatory effect in its distribution of taxing authority for educational purposes by a standard related solely to a county's wealth. Appellants contended that the statute was only part of a total plan more nearly to equalize schoolchildren's educational opportunities on a statewide basis. A three-judge District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on the basis of the pleadings and appellees' affidavit, having rejected appellants' argument that the District Court should abstain from considering the case because of an intervening state court proceeding attacking the law on state constitutional grounds.
Held:
    1. The District Court mistakenly relied upon Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, and McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668, in refusing to abstain from deciding the case on the merits pending resolution by the state courts of state constitutional claims, the sustainment of which would obviate the need for determining the Fourteenth Amendment. Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U.S. 82, is an example of the line of decisions that should inform the discretion of the District Court in determining whether to abstain.
    2. Since the matter in which Florida's overall program operates ma be critical in resolving the equal protection claim, that claim should be decided not by summary judgment but after a full hearing.
313 F. Supp. 944, vacated and remanded.
Charles E. Miner, Jr., argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Rivers Buford, Jr., and Stephen Marc Slepin.
Hershel Shanks argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Allan I. Mendelsohn, Robert M. Perce, Jr., Richard H. Frank, and David Rubin.
William H. Adams III filed a brief for the Florida Education Research Foundation as amicus curiae urging reversal.
PER CURIAM.

## 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
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VI/Part 2

Chapter I.—The Ophites the Progenitors of Subsequent Heresies.
Whatever opinions, then, were entertained by those who derived the first principles (of their doctrine) from the serpent, and in process of time deliberately brought forward into public notice their tenets, we have explained in the book preceding this, (and) which is the fifth of the Refutation of Heresies. But now also I shall not be silent as regards the opinions of (heresiarchs) who follow these (Ophites in succession); nay, not one (speculation) will I leave unrefuted, if it is possible to remember all (their tenets), and the secret orgies of these (heretics) which one may fairly style orgies,—for they who propagate such audacious opinions are not far distant from the anger (of God),—that I may avail myself of the assistance of etymology.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [Presuming that all who are disposed to study this work will turn to Dr. Bunsen’s first volume (Hippol.), I have not thought it wise to load these pages with references to his interesting reviewal.]
* ↑ κατὰ τελείωσιν τῶν χρόνων.  This is Bunsen’s emendation. The textual reading is μείωσιν.
* ↑ ἑκουσίως: Bunsen suggests ἀνοσίως, i.e., profanely.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VI/Part 22

Chapter XXI.—Other Opinions of Pythagoras.
Pythagoras, then, became a student of these doctrines likewise, in which he speaks both by enigmas and some such expressions as these: “When you depart from your own (tabernacle), return not; if, however, (you act) not (thus), the Furies, auxiliaries to justice, will overtake you,”—denominating the body one’s own (tabernacle), and its passions the Furies. When, therefore, he says, you depart, that is, when you go forth from the body, do not earnestly crave for this; but if you are eagerly desirous (for departure), the passions will once more confine you within the body. For these suppose that there is a transition of souls from one body to another, as also Empedocles, adopting the principles of Pythagoras, affirms. For, says he, souls that are lovers of pleasure, as Plato states, if, when they are in the condition of suffering incidental to man, they do not evolve theories of philosophy, must pass through all animals and plants (back) again into a human body. And when (the soul) may form a system of speculation thrice in the same body, (he maintains) that it ascends up to the nature of some kindred star. If, however, (the soul) does not philosophize, (it must pass) through the same (succession of changes once more). He affirms, then, that the soul sometimes may become even mortal, if it is overcome by the Furies, that is, the passions (of the body); and immortal, if it succeeds in escaping the Furies, which are the passions.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cruice thinks that the following words are taken from Heraclitus, and refers to Plutarch, De Exilio, c. xi.
* ↑ Phædo, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Bekker.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VI/Part 24

Chapter XXIII.—Pythagoras’ Astronomic System.
These, then, and such like assertions, the Pythagoreans put forward; and the heretics, imitating these, are supposed by some to utter important truths. The Pythagorean system, however, lays down that the Creator of all alleged existences is the Great Geometrician and Calculator—a sun; and that this one has been fixed in the whole world, just as in the bodies a soul, according to the statement of Plato. For the sun (being of the nature of) fire, resembles the soul, but the earth (resembles the) body. And, separated from fire, there would be nothing visible, nor would there be any object of touch without something solid; but not any solid body exists without earth. Whence the Deity, locating air in the midst, fashioned the body of the universe out of fire and earth. And the Sun, he says, calculates and geometrically measures the world in some such manner as the following: The world is a unity cognizable by sense; and concerning this (world) we now make these assertions. But one who is an adept in the science of numbers, and a geometrician, has divided it into twelve parts. And the names of these parts are as follow: Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius, Pisces. Again, he divides each of the twelve parts into thirty parts, and these are days of the month. Again, he divides each part of the thirty parts into sixty small divisions, and (each) of these small (divisions) he subdivides into minute portions, and (these again) into portions still more minute. And always doing this, and not intermitting, but collecting from these divided portions (an aggregate), and constituting it a year; and again resolving and dividing the compound, (the sun) completely finishes the great and everlasting world.

## Footnotes

* ↑ The text seems doubtful. Some would read, “The sun is (to be compared with) soul, and the moon with body.”
* ↑ Or, “completes the great year of the world” (see book iv. chap. vii. of The Refutation).
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VI/Part 20

Chapter XIX.—Pythagoras’ Duality of Substances; His “Categories.”
There are, then, according to Pythagoras, two worlds: one intelligible, which has the monad for an originating principle; and the other sensible. But of this (latter) is the quaternion having the iota, the one tittle, a perfect number. And there likewise is, according to the Pythagoreans, the i, the one tittle, which is chief and most dominant, and enables us to apprehend the substance of those intelligible entities which are capable of being understood through the medium of intellect and of sense. (And in this substance inhere) the nine incorporeal accidents which cannot exist without substance, viz., “quality,” and “quantity,” and “relation,” and “where,” and “when,” and “position,” and “possession,” and “action,” and “passion.” These, then, are the nine accidents (inhering in) substance, and when reckoned with these (substances), contains the perfect number, the i.  Wherefore, the universe being divided, as we said, into the intelligible and sensible world, we have also reason from the intelligible (world), in order that by reason we may behold the substance of things that are cognised by intellect, and are incorporeal and divine. But we have, he says, five senses—smelling, seeing, hearing, taste, and touch. Now, by these we arrive at a knowledge of things that are discerned by sense; and so, he says, the sensible is divided from the intelligible world. And that we have for each of these an instrument for attaining knowledge, we perceive from the following consideration. Nothing, he says, of intelligibles can be known to us from sense. For he says neither eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor any whatsoever of the other senses known that (which is cognised by mind). Neither, again, by reason is it possible to arrive at a knowledge of any of the things discernible by sense.  But one must see that a thing is white, and taste that it is sweet, and know by hearing that it is musical or out of tune. And whether any odour is fragrant or disagreeable, is the function of smell, not of reason. It is the same with objects of touch; for anything rough, or soft, or warm, or cold, it is not possible to know by hearing, but (far from it), for touch is the judge of such (sensations).  Things being thus constituted, the arrangement of things that have been made and are being made is observed to happen in conformity with numerical (combinations). For in the same manner as, commencing from monad, by an addition of monads or triads, and a collection of the succeeding numbers, we make some one very large complex whole of number; (and) then, again, from an amassed number thus formed by addition, we accomplish, by means of a certain subtraction and re-calculation, a solution of the totality of the aggregate numbers; so likewise he asserts that the world, bound by a certain arithmetical and musical chain, was, by its tension and relaxation, and by addition and subtraction, always and for ever preserved incorrupt.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Matt. v. 18.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Hippolytus/The Refutation of All Heresies/Book VI/Part 21

Chapter XX.—Pythagoras’ Cosmogony; Similar to that of Empedocles.
The Pythagoreans therefore declare their opinion concerning the continuance of the world in some such manner as this:—
“For heretofore it was and will be; never, I ween,
Of both of these will void the age eternal be.”
“Of these;” but what are they? Discord and Love. Now, in their system, Love forms the world incorruptible (and) eternal, as they suppose. For substance and the world are one. Discord, however, separates and puts asunder, and evinces numerous attempts by subdividing to form the world. It is just as if one severs into small parts, and divides arithmetically, the myriad into thousands, and hundreds, and tens; and drachmæ into oboli and small farthings. In this manner, he says, Discord severs the substance of the world into animals, plants, metals and things similar to these. And the fabricator of the generation of all things produced is, according to them, Discord; whereas Love, on the other hand, manages and provides for the universe in such a manner that it enjoys permanence. And conducting together into unity the divided and scattered parts of the universe, and leading them forth from their (separate) mode of existence, (Love) unites and adds to the universe, in order that it may enjoy permanence; and it thus constitutes one system. They will not therefore cease,—neither Discord dividing the world, nor Love attaching to the world the divided parts. Of some such description as this, so it appears, is the distribution of the world according to Pythagoras. But Pythagoras says that the stars are fragments from the sun, and that the souls of animals are conveyed from the stars; and that these are mortal when they are in the body, just as if buried, as it were, in a tomb: whereas that they rise (out of this world) and become immortal, when we are separated from our bodies.  Whence Plato, being asked by some one, “What is philosophy?” replied, “It is a separation of soul from body.”

## Footnotes

* ↑ Or, συνάγει, leads together.
* ↑ The Abbe Cruice considers that the writer of The Refutation did not agree with Pythagoras’ opinion regarding the soul,—a fact that negatives the authorship of Origen, who assented to the Pythagorean psychology. The question concerning the pre-existence of the soul is stated in a passage often quoted, viz., St. Jerome’s Letter to Marcellina (Ep. 82).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Bingham, Edmund Franklin

Edition of 1900. First name is Edward
​BINGHAM, Edmund Franklin, jurist, b. in West Concord, Vt., 13 Aug. 1828. He was graduated from Marietta college, and admitted to the Ohio bar in 1850. After practising in Columbus and elsewhere, he became judge of the fifth judicial district of Ohio in 1873, continuing in that office for fourteen years. He was defeated as a Democratic candidate for the supreme court of the state in 1881, and since 1887 he has been chief justice of the supreme court of the District of Columbia.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Bessey, Charles Edwin

Edition of 1891. This article does not appear in the 1900 edition, its space being taken by that for an extension of the article on Emil Bessels.
BESSEY, Charles Edwin, botanist, b. in Milton, Wayne co., Ohio, 21 May, 1845. He took a scientific course in Michigan agricultural college, where he was graduated in 1869, and afterward studied at Harvard. He was professor of botany in Iowa agricultural college from 1870 till 1884, when he accepted the professorship of botany and horticulture in the university of Nebraska. He became editor of the botanical department of the “American Naturalist” in 1881, and has published “Geography of Iowa” (Cincinnati, 1878); “Botany for High Schools and Colleges” (New York, 1880); a revision of McNab's Botany (1881), and “The Essentials of Botany” (1884).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Bicknell, Thomas Williams

Edition of 1888.
​BICKNELL, Thomas Williams, educator, b. in Barrington, R. I., 6 Sept., 1834. He began his collegiate education at Amherst, but was graduated at Brown in 1860. During his senior year in college he was elected a member of the Rhode Island state legislature. From 1860 till 1869 he taught, and was principal of schools in Rehobart, Bristol, Providence, R. I., and in Elgin, Ill., after which, until 1875, he was state commissioner of public schools. While holding that office he secured the re-establishment of the State Normal School in 1871, the appointment of a school superintendent in each town, the organization of a board of education, and other important measures. Mr. Bicknell has been very active in educational journalism, and during the years 1874–'86 he founded, edited, and owned "The Journal of Education," "The Primary Teacher," "The American Teacher," "Education; a Bimonthly Magazine," and "Good Times." The New England Bureau of Education and the National Council of Education were organized by him. He has delivered numerous educational lectures and addresses, and has at various times been president of the Rhode Island Institute of Instruction, American Institute of Instruction, National Council of Education, National Educational Association, Interstate Commission for Federal Aid, Chautauqua Teachers' Reading Union, and of the Massachusetts, New England, and International Sunday-school unions. He has published "Biography of William Lord Noyes" (Providence, 1867); "Historical Sketches of Barrington, R. I." (Providence, 1870); "Reports of the Commissioner of Public Schools" (Providence, 1869-'75); and "History of the Bicknell Family" (Boston, 1883).
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Bigelow, Timothy

Edition of 1900.
​BIGELOW, Timothy, soldier, b. in Worcester,Mass., 12 Aug., 1739; d. there, 31 March, 1790. At the beginning of the revolutionary war he was a blacksmith at Worcester and a zealous patriot. Hearing of the battle of Lexington, he led a company of minute-men to Cambridge, and on 23 May, 1775, became a major in Ward's regiment. He accompanied Arnold in his expedition to Quebec in 1775, and was captured there, remaining a prisoner until 1776. He was made colonel, 8 Feb., 1777, and, when in command of the 15th Massachusetts regiment, assisted at the capture of Burgoyne. He was also at Valley Forge, West Point, Monmouth, and Yorktown. After the war Col. Bigelow had charge of the arsenal at Springfield. He was one of the original grantees of Montpelier and a benefactor of the Leicester, Mass., academy.—His son, Timothy, lawyer, b. in Worcester, Mass., 30 April, 1767; d. 18 May, 1821, was graduated at Harvard in 1786, studied law, and practised at Groton, Mass., from 1789 until 1807, when he removed to Medford and opened a law office in Boston. He was an active federalist, was elected to the legislature in 1790, and served there twenty years, eleven years of the time as speaker of the house. He was also a member of the Hartford convention of 1814. He was an active member of many literary and benevolent societies, a prominent freemason, and stood high in his profession. It is said that in the course of thirty-two years he argued 15,000 cases. He published an oration, delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa society (1797).