OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Mather, Fred

Edition of 1900.
​MATHER, Fred, pisciculturist, b. in Albany, N. Y., in August, 1833. In 1854 he became interested in the lead-mines of Potosi, Wis., and afterward hunted and trapped in the Bad Axe country in that state. Here he learned enough of the Chippewa language to become interpreter to the government survey in northern Minnesota. During the political troubles in Kansas he served under Gen. James Lane, and was one of Jennison's “Jayhawkers.” He enlisted in the 113th New York regiment in 1862, and became 1st lieutenant two years later. At the close of the civil war he took a clerkship in the live-stock yards near Albany. In 1868 he bought a farm at Honeoye Falls, N. Y., and began to hatch fish of various kinds. When the U. S. fish commission was formed in 1872 he was sent for by Prof. Spencer F. Baird to hatch shad for the Potomac river. In 1875 he established hatcheries at Lexington and Blacksburg for the state of Virginia. A year earlier he had hatched the first sea-bass and graylings. After several vain attempts to transport salmon-eggs to Europe, he devised a refrigerator-box, and in 1875 succeeded in carrying the eggs to Germany. He also, at the same time, invented a conical hatching apparatus, by which, through the admission of water at the bottom, shad and other eggs were hatched in bulk instead of in layers upon trays or floating boxes. In 1884 he hatched the adhesive eggs of the smelt, although all previous attempts had been failures. He has been sent abroad several times by the U. S. government in connection with fish-culture, and he has medals and testimonials from many scientific societies of Europe. In 1877 he became fishery editor of “The Field” in Chicago, and since 1880 he has held a like position with “Forest and Stream” in New York city. In 1882 he was sent by Prof. Baird to Roslyn, Long Island, to hatch salmon for the Hudson river. In 1883 he was appointed superintendent of the New York fish commission station at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island. Here the hatching of lobsters, codfish, and other marine forms was begun. He has published “Ichthyology of the Adirondacks” (1885), which describes several fishes heretofore unknown.
# Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Mather, Samuel Holmes

Edition of 1900.
​MATHER, Samuel Holmes, financier, b. in Washington, N. H., 20 March, 1813. He was graduated at Dartmouth in 1834, studied law in Geneva, N. Y., and was admitted to the bar at Columbus, Ohio, in 1837. After practising twelve years in Cleveland, he organized the Society for savings in that city. The middle western states were then overrun with “wild-cat” banks, and the experiment of a conservative savings-bank on the plan of similar institutions in Massachusetts was not promising. His faith in the sober judgment of the western people was not shaken, and the bank grew stronger every year, constantly maintaining its place as a large institution, both as to deposits and surplus, equalled only by a few in New York and the New England states. He has been president of the bank for many years, and his judgment upon financial ventures and investments is considered of great value.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLIX

Chapter XLIX.
After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that His coming was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those who succeeded as well as preceded that legislator—from inability, as I think, to meet the argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in language like the following: “But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem, that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked.” Now it is not one of the prophets merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts, but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults against it, that their arguments might not have the least available influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used the expression, “The ‘Son of God’ will come;” for the term which they employ is, “The ‘Christ of God’ will come.” And many a time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the “Son of God,” saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy. We do not of course assert that the “Son of God” is not the subject of prophecy; but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant, who would not allow that He was, such language as, “My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the ‘Son of God’ will come.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLVI

Chapter XLVI.
For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the voice from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the Holy Spirit’s having then appeared in the form of a dove, although Celsus, from a desire to cast discredit upon them, alleges that He performed only what He had learned among the Egyptians. And I shall refer not only to His miracles, but, as is proper, to those also of the apostles of Jesus. For they could not without the help of miracles and wonders have prevailed on those who heard their new doctrines and new teachings to abandon their national usages, and to accept their instructions at the danger to themselves even of death. And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,—that many have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night. Many such instances have we known, which, if we were to commit to writing, although they were seen and witnessed by ourselves, we should afford great occasion for ridicule to unbelievers, who would imagine that we, like those whom they suppose to have invented such things, had ourselves also done the same. But God is witness of our conscientious desire, not by false statements, but by testimonies of different kinds, to establish the divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as it is a Jew who is perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, “Sir, who is it that says in Isaiah, ‘And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit?’” In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful—viz., whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the Holy Spirit—the latter is correct. For, because the Saviour was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfilment of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for that reason committed the result to writing.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XVII

Chapter XVII.
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a True Discourse, “Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error?” And here Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as Thrasymachus the Platonic philosopher did, when he would not allow Socrates to answer regarding justice, as he wished, but said, “Take care not to say that utility is justice, or duty, or anything of that kind.” For in like manner Celsus assails (as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault with those who understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing also some praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial (than those who do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his cavils those who are able to show the true state of the case from offering such a defence as they would wish to offer.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLV

Chapter XLV.
And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews who were reputed learned men, having employed the following argument in the presence of many judges: “Tell me, sirs,” I said, “since there are two individuals who have visited the human race, regarding whom are related marvellous works surpassing human power—Moses, viz., your own legislator, who wrote about himself, and Jesus our teacher, who has left no writings regarding Himself, but to whom testimony is borne by the disciples in the Gospels—what are the grounds for deciding that Moses is to be believed as speaking the truth, although the Egyptians slander him as a sorcerer, and as appearing to have wrought his mighty works by jugglery, while Jesus is not to be believed because you are His accusers? And yet there are nations which bear testimony in favour of both: the Jews to Moses; and the Christians, who do not deny the prophetic mission of Moses, but proving from that very source the truth of the statement regarding Jesus, accept as true the miraculous circumstances related of Him by His disciples. Now, if ye ask us for the reasons of our faith in Jesus, give yours first for believing in Moses, who lived before Him, and then we shall give you ours for accepting the latter. But if you draw back, and shirk a demonstration, then we, following your own example, decline for the present to offer any demonstration likewise. Nevertheless, admit that ye have no proof to offer for Moses, and then listen to our defence of Jesus derived from the law and the prophets. And now observe what is almost incredible! It is shown from the declarations concerning Jesus, contained in the law and the prophets, that both Moses and the prophets were truly prophets of God.”
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLVII

Chapter XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
* ↑ [ἀρχαιολογίας. S.] Cf. Joseph., Antiq., book xviii. c. v. sec. 2.
* ↑ [Ibid., b. xx. c. ix. § 1. S.]
* ↑ Cf. Gal. i. 19.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XV

Chapter XV.
How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean, who has given many proofs of being a very eloquent man, and who has carefully tested many opinions, and collected together from many sources what had the appearance of truth; for, in the first book of his treatise On the Good, speaking of those nations who have adopted the opinion that God is incorporeal, he enumerates the Jews also among those who hold this view; not showing any reluctance to use even the language of their prophets in his treatise, and to give it a metaphorical signification. It is said, moreover, that Hermippus has recorded in his first book, On Lawgivers, that it was from the Jewish people that Pythagoras derived the philosophy which he introduced among the Greeks. And there is extant a work by the historian Hecatæus, treating of the Jews, in which so high a character is bestowed upon that nation for its learning, that Herennius Philo, in his treatise on the Jews, has doubts in the first place, whether it is really the composition of the historian; and says, in the second place, that if really his, it is probable that he was carried away by the plausible nature of the Jewish history, and so yielded his assent to their system.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XVIII

Chapter XVIII.
And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would say, “Come now, good sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of Musæus, and of Orpheus, and the writings of Pherecydes, and carefully compare these with the laws of Moses—histories with histories, and ethical discourses with laws and commandments—and see which of the two are the better fitted to change the character of the hearer on the very spot, and which to harden him in his wickedness; and observe that your series of writers display little concern for those readers who are to peruse them at once unaided, but have composed their philosophy (as you term it) for those who are able to comprehend its metaphorical and allegorical signification; whereas Moses, like a distinguished orator who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who carefully introduces in every part language of twofold meaning, has done this in his five books: neither affording, in the portion which relates to morals, any handle to his Jewish subjects for committing evil; nor yet giving to the few individuals who were endowed with greater wisdom, and who were capable of investigating his meaning, a treatise devoid of material for speculation. But of your learned poets the very writings would seem no longer to be preserved, although they would have been carefully treasured up if the readers had perceived any benefit (likely to be derived from them); whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many, who were even aliens to the manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as these writings testify, the first who enacted these laws and delivered them to Moses, was the God who was the Creator of the world. For it became the Creator of the universe, after laying down laws for its government, to confer upon His words a power which might subdue all men in every part of the earth. And this I maintain, having as yet entered into no investigation regarding Jesus, but still demonstrating that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the Discourse will show, greatly superior to your wise poets and philosophers.”
* ↑ ᾽Επιτρίψαι.  Other readings are ἐπιστρέψαι and ἀποστρέψαι, which convey the opposite meaning.
* ↑ αὐτόθεν.
* ↑ [See Dr. Waterland’s charge to the clergy, on “The Wisdom of the Ancients borrowed from Divine Revelation,” Works, vol. v. pp. 10, 24. S.]
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XLIV

Chapter XLIV.
And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I who am a Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to show, on the footing of our common belief, that this man is far more worthy of credit than they are when He says that He beheld such a sight, and, as is probable, related to His disciples the vision which He saw, and told them of the voice which He heard. But another party might object, that not all those who have narrated the appearance of the dove and the voice from heaven heard the accounts of these things from Jesus, but that that Spirit which taught Moses the history of events before his own time, beginning with the creation, and descending down to Abraham his father, taught also the writers of the Gospel the miraculous occurrence which took place at the time of Jesus’ baptism. And he who is adorned with the spiritual gift, called the “word of wisdom,” will explain also the reason of the heavens opening, and the dove appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of no other living thing than that of a dove. But our present subject does not require us to explain this, our purpose being to show that Celsus displayed no sound judgment in representing a Jew as disbelieving, on such grounds, a fact which has greater probability in its favour than many events in which he firmly reposes confidence.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XVI

Chapter XVI.
I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the most ancient and learned nations, and should not deem the Jews worthy of a place among such, either for their learning or their antiquity, although there are many treatises in circulation among the Egyptians, and Phœnicians, and Greeks, which testify to their existence as an ancient people, but which I have considered it unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what Flavius Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity of the Jews, where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and there exists the Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger, in which with very great learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then, to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getæ, most learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred benefits upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon posterity by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists neither laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better among any tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world, obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned men, while asserting that Linus, and Musæus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also that he has omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the gods are described as affected by human weaknesses and passions.
* ↑ [ἀρχαιότητος. See Josephus’s Works, for the treatise in two books, usually designated, as written, Against Apion.  S.]
* ↑ [See vol. ii. pp. 80, 81. S.]
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Zaum

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Zaum | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Zaum, m., ‘bridle, rein,’ from the equiv. MidHG. and OHG. zoum, m.; corresponding to OSax. tôm, Du. toom, OIc. taumr, ‘bridle, rein.’ The meaning makes it probable that the word is derived from the Teut. root tug, tuh, ‘to draw’ (taumo- for *taugmo-, Aryan doukmo-; comp. Traum); hence Zaum is lit. ‘drawing strap.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Zaunkönig

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Zaunkönig | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Zaunkönig, m., ‘wren,’ in MidHG. merely küniclîn, OHG. chuninglî, n., ‘little king.’
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Zecke

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Zecke | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Zecke, f., ‘tick,’ from the equiv. MidHG. zëcke, m. and f.; corresponding to Du. teekt, AS. *tîca (ticia is misspelt for tiica), E. tike, tick. From the old West Teut. tī̆ko, tikko, are derived the equiv. Ital. zecca, Fr. tique. Aryan digh- is indicated by Armen. tiz, ‘tick,’ which is probably primit. allied to the Teut. cognates.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Zange

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Zange | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Zange, f., ‘tongs, pincers,’ from the equiv. MidHG. zange, OHG. zanga, f.; corresponding to Du. tang, AS. tǫnge, E. tongs, and the equiv. OIc. tǫng. The common Teut. tangô- assumes a pre-Teut. dankâ-, which is usually connected with the Sans. root danç (daç), ‘to bite’ (comp. Gr. δάκνω); hence Zange, lit. ‘biter.’ Comp. OHG. zangar, MidHG. zanger, ‘biting, sharp, lively,’ whence Ital. tanghero, ‘unpolished, coarse.’