OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Notable South Australians/Herr Linger

Layout 2
Herr Linger,
A NATIVE of Berlin, where he was born in March 1810. His father was an engraver of some eminence, and observing that he early manifested great taste for music, had him taught its rudiments. So rapid was young Linger's progress that, at the age of twelve, he had obtained sufficient proficiency to be able to give lessons on the pianoforte. Placed under Beissiger and Klein, from whom he obtained a thorough insight into the theory of counterpoint and the general principles of composition, he made rapid strides, and soon was almost the equal of his teachers. He then commenced his career as a composer, and amongst the first-fruits of his genius were six sacred songs, dedicated to the Princess Royal of Prussia. These established his reputation in his native land, and induced him to aim at higher attainments. He visited Milan, Venice, and other cities in Italy for the purpose of obtaining practical acquaintance with the Italian school of music, and then returned to Berlin, where he composed various musical pieces, regarded by competent judges as possessing great merit. Amongst these were two entire operas, entitled, "The fight with the Dragon" and "Alfred the Great," three or four masses, several symphonies ​cantatas, and other concerted pieces. His extreme modesty led to a tendency in him to depreciate his own attainments, and thus deprived the musical world of many of the fruits of his genius. He arrived in South Australia in 1849, and was induced to invest the savings of years in farming, in which, as he was unsuccessful, he sold out, and established himself in Adelaide as a music teacher. By his active exertions he created a taste for music. He was for several years leader of the Adelaide Choral Society, one of the originators of the Liedertafel, and always ready to assist any undertaking having for its object the cultivation of an art in which he pre-eminently excelled. As a composer he was probably unequalled here, and his "Song of Australia," which took the prize given by the Committee of the Gawler Institute, is likely to live long as a national air. Herr Linger died in Adelaide, February 16, 1862, aged 52 years.
# Notable South Australians/Hon. Jno. Dunn, M.L.C.

Layout 2
Hon. Jno. Dunn, M.L.C.,
WAS a lad of ten summers when he arrived in Adelaide, in 1840, with his father, who then had to avail himself of his aid in building the first windmill. In 1843 a second mill was built and started, and as Mr. Dunn appeared to possess much of his parent's genius for designing, plans for future mills were entrusted to him. He was admitted a partner in the business in 1852, and in ten years acquired a competency, which enabled him to carry out a long-cherished desire, viz., to devote his life and energies to Christian missions. Accompanied by his noble young wife, he embarked for the South Sea Islands, under the auspices of the Wesleyan Missionary Society, but after a year's trial he was compelled to abandon his enterprise on account of ill-health, and return to Adelaide. Being too energetic to remain idle, Mr. Dunn erected the well-known large and powerful mill at Port Adelaide, and on its completion arrangements were made for a re-union in business between father and son. Since then the sphere of operations has widened considerably and to-day the subject of this sketch is a partner of the largest milling firm in the Australias. Mr. Dunn first entered Parliament in 1875, when he contested a seat with Dr. Hübbe for the Assembly. He was returned at the head of the poll in 1880 for the Upper House, with more votes (6,375) than any member sent to the Council prior to this election. A leader in one of the dailies had the following ​remarks: —"Mr. Dunn is a practical gentleman, and a good man of business; a man of plain common sense, without any crotchets, and he may be expected to vote right as a rule," &c. Mr. Dunn's extensive business engagements prevent him from taking any prominent part in Parliament. A parliamentary critic, in commenting on the individual members of the House, says:—"The Hon. J. Dunn is a capital story-teller. You would hardly think it to look at him, but he has a keen appreciation of humour. He speaks so quietly and so quaintly that you do not expect jokes from him till you know his style. You would as soon expect a facetious remark from the statue of Carlyle; but with those who are familiar with Mr. Dunn there are current traditions of many a jolly trip with the unassuming Miller Prince." Though his time is devoted to business, he also renders good service to the public interests in many ways, and with hand and purse is ever ready to give assistance when and where it is really needed.
# Notable South Australians/Hon. John Crozier, M.L.C.

Layout 2
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Gregory the Great/Register of Epistles/Book II/Chapter 3

Epistle VII.
To Maximianus, Bishop of Syracuse.
Gregory to Maximianus, &c.
We execute more efficiently our heavenly commission, if we share our burdens with our brethren. For this cause we appoint thee, our most reverend brother and fellow-bishop, to have administration over all the churches of Sicily in the name of the Apostolical See, so that whosoever there is reckoned as being in a condition of religion may by our authority be subject to thy Fraternity, to the end that it may not hereafter be necessary for them to make such long sea-voyages in resorting to us for slight causes. But if by any chance there are matters of difficulty which can by no means be settled by the judgment of thy Fraternity, in these only let our judgment be solicited, that so we may occupy ourselves more efficaciously in greater causes, being relieved from the least. And be it understood that we give this delegation of authority, not to thy place, but to thy person, because we have learnt from thy past life what we may presume of thee in thy future conduct.
The month of December, the tenth Indiction.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Maximianus had been a monk, and for a time abbot, in Gregory’s monastery of St. Andrew at Rome, had accompanied him to Constantinople, and been recommended by him soon after his own accession, and elected Bishop of Syracuse (Joan. Diac. Vit. S. Greg. ii. 11, 12). He was highly esteemed by Gregory, and mentioned in his Dialogues as having been miraculously delivered from shipwreck on his return from Constantinople to Rome (Dialog. iii. 36. Cf. Hom. 34 in Evang.). His appointment now as delegate of the Roman See in Sicily would relieve Peter the subdeacon of his temporary jurisdiction over the ecclesiastics there. Maximianus died in November, a.d. 594. See V. 17, 22.  It is to be observed that the general authority now given to Maximianus was granted to him personally, and not permanently to the See of Syracuse.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Gregory the Great/Register of Epistles/Book II/Chapter 23

Epistle XLII.
To Luminosus, Abbot.
Gregory to Luminosus, abbot of the monastery of Saint Thomas of Ariminum.
We were glad to receive thine own and thy congregation’s petition, and accede to thy requests, in accordance with the statutes of the Fathers and with form of law.  For to our brother and fellow-bishop Castorius a letter has been sent by our order, whereby we have taken away entirely from him and his successors all power to harm thy monastery; so that neither may he any longer come among you to be a burden to you, nor schedules be made of the property of the monastery, nor any public procession take place there; this only jurisdiction being still left to him, that he must ordain in the place of a deceased abbot another whom the common consent of the congregation may have chosen as worthy. But now, these things being thus accomplished, be you diligent in the work of God, and assiduously devote yourselves to prayer, lest you should seem not so much to have sought security of mind for prayer, as to have wished to escape strict episcopal control over you while living amiss.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Processio usually denotes the celebration of Mass.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XII/Gregory the Great/Register of Epistles/Book II/Chapter 27

Epistle XLIX.
To Januarius, Archbishop.
Gregory to Januarius, archbishop of Caralis (Cagliari).
If with integrity of heart we consider the priestly office which we administer, the concord of personal charity ought so to unite us with our sons that, as we are fathers in name, so we should be proved by our affection to be so in deed. While, then, we ought to be such as has been said above, we wonder why such a mass of complaints has arisen against thy Fraternity. We still indeed hesitate to believe it: but, that we may be able to ascertain the truth, we have sent to your parts John the notary of our See, supported by our injunction, who may compel all parties to abide the judgment of chosen arbitrators, and by his own execution carry their judgments into effect. Wherefore we exhort thy Fraternity by this present writing to consider well with thyself beforehand the merits of the cases; and, if you find that you have taken or hold anything unjustly, in consideration of your priesthood to restore it before trial.
Now, among numerous complaints, the most distinguished Isidore has complained of having been excommunicated and anathematised by thy Fraternity for invalid reasons. And, when we had wished to learn from one of thy clergy who was here for what cause this had been done, he gave us to understand that it had been done for no other cause than that the man had done thee an injury. This distresses us exceedingly; since, if it is so, thou shewest that thou dost not think of heavenly things, but givest signs of having thy conversation among things of earth, having brought to bear
the malediction of anathema to avenge a private wrong; which is a thing forbidden by the sacred rules. Wherefore for the future be thoroughly circumspect and careful, and presume not to inflict any such penalty again for vindication of thine own wrongs. For, shouldest thou do anything of the kind, know that it will afterwards be avenged on thyself.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VII/Chapter 16

Chapter XVI.—Story in Regard to Astyrius.
Astyrius also is commemorated on account of his pious boldness in connection with this affair. He was a Roman of senatorial rank, and in favor with the emperors, and well known to all on account of his noble birth and wealth. Being present at the martyr’s death, he took his body away on his shoulder, and arraying him in a splendid and costly garment, prepared him for the grave in a magnificent manner, and gave him fitting burial. The friends of this man, that remain to our day, relate many other facts concerning him.

## Footnotes

* ↑ We know nothing more about this Astyrius than is recorded here. Rufinus, in his H. E. VII. 13, tells us that he suffered martyrdom at about this time; but Eusebius says nothing of the kind, and it is therefore not at all probable that Rufinus is correct. He probably concluded, from Eusebius’ account of him, that he also suffered martyrdom.
* ↑ Burton and Crusè close the chapter at this point, throwing the next sentence into chap. 17. Such a transposition, however, is unnecessary, and I have preferred to follow Valesius, Heinichen, Schwegler, and other editors, in dividing as above.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VII/Chapter 12

Chapter XII.—The Martyrs in Cæsarea in Palestine.
During the above-mentioned persecution under Valerian, three men in Cæsarea in Palestine, being conspicuous in their confession of Christ, were adorned with divine martyrdom, becoming food for wild beasts. One of them was called Priscus, another Malchus, and the name of the third was Alexander. They say that these men, who lived in the country, acted at first in a cowardly manner, as if they were careless and thoughtless. For when the opportunity was given to those who longed for the prize with heavenly desire, they treated it lightly, lest they should seize the Crown of martyrdom prematurely. But having deliberated on the matter, they hastened to Cæsarea, and went before the judge and met the end we have mentioned. They relate that besides these, in the same persecution and the same city, a certain woman endured a similar conflict. But it is reported that she belonged to the sect of Marcion.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Of these three men we know only what is told us in this chapter.
* ↑ Marcionitic martyrs are mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. IV. chap. 15, and in Martyrs of Pal. chap. 10. In H. E. V. 16, it is stated that the Marcionites as well as the Montanists had many martyrs, but that the orthodox Christians did not acknowledge them as Christians, and would not recognize them even when they were martyred together. Of course they were all alike Christians in the eyes of the state, and hence all alike subject to persecution.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VII/Chapter 14

Chapter XIV.—The Bishops that flourished at that Time.
At that time Xystus was still presiding over the church of Rome, and Demetrianus, successor of Fabius, over the church of Antioch, and Firmilianus over that of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; and besides these, Gregory and his brother Athenodorus, friends of Origen, were presiding over the churches in Pontus; and Theoctistus of Cæsarea in Palestine having died, Domnus received the episcopate there. He held it but a short time, and Theotecnus, our contemporary, succeeded him. He also was a member of Origen’s school. But in Jerusalem, after the death of Mazabanes, Hymenæus, who has been celebrated among us for a great many years, succeeded to his seat.

## Footnotes

* ↑ On Xystus II., see chap. 5, note 5.
* ↑ On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
* ↑ On Fabius, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 7.
* ↑ On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.
* ↑ Gregory Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus from about 233–270 (?). Upon Gregory, see Bk. VI. chap. 30, note 1.
* ↑ On Athenodorus, see ibid. note 2.
* ↑ On Theoctistus, see Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27.
* ↑ Of the life and character of Domnus we know nothing. So far as I am aware he is mentioned only here. His dates are uncertain, but his predecessor, Theoctistus, was still bishop in the time of Stephen of Rome (254–257; see above, Bk. VI. chap. 19, note 27), while he himself became bishop before the death of Xystus of Rome, as we may gather from this chapter, i.e. before August, 258 (see chap. 5, note 5), so that between these dates his accession must be placed. Eusebius’ words in this passage will hardly admit an episcopate of more than one or two years; possibly he was bishop but a few months.
* ↑ The dates of Theotecnus are likewise uncertain. Eusebius in Bk. VII. chap. 32, says that he was acquainted with Pamphilus during the episcopate of Agapius (the successor of Theotecnus), implying that he first made his acquaintance then. It is therefore likely that Agapius became bishop some years before the persecution of Diocletian, for otherwise we hardly allow enough time for the acquaintance of Pamphilus and Eusebius who did so much work together, and apparently were friends for so long a time. Pamphilus himself suffered martyrdom in 309 a.d. Theotecnus was quite a prominent man and was present at the two Antiochian synods mentioned in chaps. 27 and 30, which were convened to consider the heresy of Paul of Samosata.
* ↑ On Mazabanes, see Bk. VI. chap. 39, note 5.
* ↑ According to the Chron. of Eusebius, Hymenæus was bishop of Jerusalem from 265–298. It is expressly stated in the Chron. that the dates of the earlier Jerusalem bishops are not known (see Bk. V. chap. 12, note 1); but with the dates of the bishops of the latter part of the third century Eusebius can hardly have been unacquainted, and that Hymenæus was bishop at any rate as early as 265 is proved by chaps. 27 and 30 (see the note on Mazabanes referred to just above). The dates given in the Chron. may therefore be accepted as at least approximately correct.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VII/Chapter 19

Chapter XIX.—The Episcopal Chair of James.
The chair of James, who first received the episcopate of the church at Jerusalem from the Saviour himself and the apostles, and who, as the divine records show, was called a brother of Christ, has been preserved until now, the brethren who have followed him in succession there exhibiting clearly to all the reverence which both those of old times and those of our own day maintained and do maintain for holy men on account of their piety. So much as to this matter.

## Footnotes

* ↑ That James was appointed bishop of Jerusalem by Christ himself was an old and wide-spread tradition. Compare, e.g., the Clementine Recognitions, Bk. I. chap. 43, the Apostolic Constitutions, Bk. VIII. chap. 35, and Chrysostom’s Homily XXXVII. on First Corinthians. See Valesius’ note ad locum; and on the universal tradition that James was bishop of Jerusalem, see above, Bk. II. chap. 1, note 11.
* ↑ See Gal. i. 19. On the actual relationship of “James, the Brother of the Lord” to Christ, see Bk. I. chap. 12, note 14.
* ↑ There can be no doubt that a chair (θρόνος), said to be the episcopal seat of James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, was shown in that church in the time of Eusebius, but there can be no less doubt that it was not genuine. Even had James been bishop of Jerusalem, and possessed a regular episcopal chair, or throne (a very violent supposition, which involves a most glaring anachronism), it was quite out of the question that it should have been preserved from destruction at the fall of the city in 70 a.d. As Stroth drily remarks: “Man hatte auch wohl nichts wichtigeres zu retten, als einen Stuhl!” The beginning of that veneration of relics which later took such strong hold on the Church, and which still flourishes within the Greek and Roman communions is clearly seen in this case recorded by Eusebius. At the same time, we can hardly say that that superstitious veneration with which we are acquainted appeared in this case. There seems to be nothing more than the customary respect for an article of old and time-honored associations which is seen everywhere and in all ages (cf. Heinichen’s Excursus on this passage, Vol. III. p. 208 sq.). Crusè has unaccountably rendered θρόνος in this passage as if it referred to the see of Jerusalem, not to the chair of the bishop. It is plain enough that such an interpretation is quite unwarranted.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book VII/Chapter 17

Chapter XVII.—The Signs at Paneas of the Great Might of our Saviour.
Among these is also the following wonder. At Cæsarea Philippi, which the Phœnicians call Paneas, springs are shown at the foot of the Mountain Panius, out of which the Jordan flows. They say that on a certain feast day, a victim was thrown in, and that through the power of the demon it marvelously disappeared and that which happened was a famous wonder to those who were present. Astyrius was once there when these things were done, and seeing the multitude astonished at the affair, he pitied their delusion; and looking up to heaven he supplicated the God over all through Christ, that he would rebuke the demon who deceived the people, and bring the men’s delusion to an end. And they say that when he had prayed thus, immediately the sacrifice floated on the surface of the fountain. And thus the miracle departed; and no wonder was ever afterward performed at the place.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Cæsarea Philippi (to be distinguished from Cæsarea, the chief city of Palestine, mentioned in previous chapters) was originally called Paneas by the Greeks,—a name which it retained even after the name Cæsarea Philippi had been given it by Philip the Tetrarch, who enlarged and beautified it. The place, which is now a small village, is called Banias by the Arabs. It lies at the base of Mt. Hermon, and is noted for one of the principal sources of the Jordan, which issues from springs beneath the rocks of Mt. Hermon at this point. The spot is said to be remarkably beautiful. See Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine, Vol. III, p. 409 sq.
* ↑ Valesius remarks that the heathen were accustomed to throw victims into their sacred wells and fountains, and that therefore Publicola asks Augustine, in Epistle 153, whether one ought to drink from a fountain or well whither a portion of sacrifice had been sent.
# Notes and Queries/Series 1/Volume 1/Number 1/Madoc's Expedition to America

MADOC'S EXPEDITION TO AMERICA.
Mr. Editor,—Can any of your readers direct me to the different authors who have treated of the asserted expedition of Madoc to America; or to any Papers upon that subject which have appeared in any Periodicals, or Transactions of learned societies.
A Student.
# Notes and Queries/Series 1/Volume 1/Number 1/On a Poem Mentioned in One of the Lansdowne MSS.

ON A POEM MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE LANSDOWNE MSS.
In vol. 61. of the Lansdowne MSS. in the British Museum occurs the following remarkable letter from the Bishop of London (John Aylmer) to Lord Burghley. I wish to be informed to what "foolish rhime," which had been printed in Oxford and London, it applies? It is a question of some literary importance to me at the present moment, and I am glad to have the opportunity of putting it by means of your new hebdomadal undertaking. I hope to meet with a reply in your "Notes and Queries" of next week.
"To the Lord Treasurer.
"Yt may please your good L. to understand, that upon inquiry made for the setting forth of this foolish rime, I finde that it was first printed at Oxford, by Joseph Barnes, and after here by Toby Cooke, without licence, who is now out of towne, but as sone as he returneth, I will talke with him about it. I marvell that they of Oxford will suffer such toyes to be sett forth by their authority; for in my opinion it had been better to have thanked God, than to have insulted upon men, and especially upon princes. And so I take my leave of your good L., praying God to send you health to his honour and all our good. From my pallace at London, this xxixth of Aprill 1589.
"Your good L. to command in X$^o$., "John Lond."
If the above refer to any production in verse upon the defeat of the Armada, Lord Burghley (who had probably made inquiries of the Bishop) seems to have been actuated by some extraordinary and uncalled-for delicacy towards the King of Spain. Waiting an explanation, I am your Hearty Well-wisher.
I cannot find that Aylmer's letter has ever been noticed by any of our literary antiquaries.