OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Book Third - Chapter 14

Layout 2
Chapter XIV.
THE THREE LIGONIERS.
The ancient family of Ligonnier belonged to Castres, in Languedoc. An elder at the National Synod of the Reformed Churches of France, which met at Charenton on 26th December 1644, was “Anthony Ligonniere, Councillor and Secretary to the King, elder in the church of Castres.” At the epoch of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes the family was represented by Louis de Ligonnier, Sieur de Monteuquet. His eldest son, Abel, became the head of the family, and was alive in France in 1769.
Three younger sons became Protestant refugees in England at different dates; not, however, in 1685, as at that time they were not far advanced in boyhood. They adopted the spelling, “Ligonier.” The first who came to England was John (of whom afterwards). Antoine came over in 1698, served in several of Marlborough’s campaigns; he is mentioned as a Major in Harrison’s regiment (the 15th). In 1732 the Historical Register mentions Colonel Anthony Ligonier’s regiment of horse in Ireland. According to Haag, he died unmarried in 1767, and of him I have no more to say. The other two Ligoniers are Francis and Edward, father and son. [A Reverend Abel Ligonier was naturalised on the 15th April 1693. I have his signature on the title-page of a copy of the Colloquies of Erasmus.]
# Protestant Exiles from France/Volume 2 - Book Third - Chapter 15 - Section III

Layout 2
III. Croze and Despaignol.
Susanna, heiress of James Samuel Balaire, and widow of James Crozé (or Croissé or Croissy), Captain in the Dutch Navy, died in London 16th March 1716, and was buried in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. Her husband had died in Amsterdam in 1710, being a Huguenot refuguee born at Loudun in France. Their children were James Samuel Crozé (born 1697, died 1714), and two daughters Mary Anne and Susanne Mary.
Mary Anne was born at Rotterdam, 8th April 1693 (General F. Layard says 1689), and was married in London at St. Benet’s, Paul’s Wharf, to Major Peter Layard, whom she survived till June 16th, 1768; she was buried at Kensington on 23d June, when her deceased husband’s coffin was laid beside hers.
Samuel Despaignol, Esq., born at La Bastide, in France, in 1689, married in 1722 Susanna Mary Crozé. She was born in 1700, and died 3d June 1737. He survived till 1743. Their son was Peter Despaignol, Esq. (born 1733, died 1769). Their daughter was Elizabeth Despaignol (born in 1728), wife of the Very Rev. David Palairet, Dean of Bristol, to whom she was married on the 31st March 1765.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter35
### Chapter XXXV

Whatever has been created is in his Word and knowledge, life and truth.
But, since it is established that his word is consubstantial with him, and perfectly like him, it necessarily follows that all things that exist in him exist also, and in the same way, in his Word. Whatever has been created, then, whether alive or not alive, or howsoever it exists in itself, is very life and truth in him.
But, since knowing is the same to the supreme Spirit as conceiving or expressing, he must know all things that he knows in the same way in which he expresses or conceives of them. Therefore, just as all things are in his Word life and truth, so are they in his knowledge.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter36
### Chapter XXXVI

In how incomprehensible a way he expresses or knows the objects created by him.
Hence, it may be most clearly comprehended that how this Spirit expresses, or how he knows the created world, cannot be comprehended by human knowledge. For none can doubt that created substances exist far differently in themselves than in our knowledge. For, in themselves they exist by virtue of their own being; while in our knowledge is not their being, but their likeness.
We conclude, then, that they exist more truly in themselves than in our knowledge, in the same degree in which they exist more truly anywhere by virtue of their own being, than by virtue of their likeness. Therefore, since this is also an established truth, that every created substance exists more truly in the Word, that is, in the intelligence of the Creator, than it does in itself, in the same degree in which the creative being exists more truly than the created; how can the human mind comprehend of what kind is that expression and that knowledge, which is so much higher and truer than created substances; if our knowledge is as far surpassed by those substances as their likeness is removed from their being?
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter37
### Chapter XXXVII

Whatever his relation to his creatures, this relation his Word also sustains: yet both do not simultaneously sustain this relation as more than one being.
But since it has already been clearly demonstrated that the supreme Spirit created all things through his Word, did not the Word itself also create all things? For, since it is consubstantial with him, it must be the supreme essence of that of which it is the Word. But there is no supreme Essence, except one, which is the only creator and the only beginning of all things which have been created. For this Essence, through no other than itself, alone created all things from nothing. Hence, whatever the supreme Spirit creates, the same his Word also creates, and in the same way.
Whatever relation, then, the supreme Spirit bears to what he creates, this relation his Word also bears, and in the same way. And yet, both do not bear it simultaneously, as more than one, since there are not more supreme creative essences than one. Therefore, just as he is the creator and the beginning of the world, so is his Word also; and yet there are not two, but one creator and one beginning.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter32
### Chapter XXXII

The supreme Spirit expresses himself by a coeternal Word.
But since this is true, how can what is simple Truth be the Word corresponding to those objects, of which it is not the likeness? Since every word by which an object is thus mentally expressed is the likeness of that object, if this is not the word corresponding to the objects that have been created through it, how shall we be sure that it is the Word? For every word is a word corresponding to some object. Therefore, if there were no creature, there would be no word.
Are we to conclude, then, that if there were no creature, that Word would not exist at all, which is the supreme self-sufficient Essence? Or, would the supreme Being itself, perhaps, which is the Word still be the eternal Being, but not the Word, if nothing were ever created through that Being? For, to what has not been, and is not, and will not be, then can be no word corresponding.
But, according to this reasoning, if there were never any being but the supreme Spirit, there would be no word at all in him. If there were no word in him, he would express nothing to himself; if he expressed nothing to himself, since, for him, expressing anything is the same with understanding or conceiving of it (intelligere), he would not understand or conceive of anything; if he understood or conceived of nothing, then the supreme Wisdom, which is nothing else than this Spirit, would understand or conceive of nothing; which is most absurd.
What is to be inferred? For, if it conceived of nothing, how would it be the supreme Wisdom? Or, if there were in no wise anything but it, of what would it conceive? Would it not conceive of itself? But how can it be even imagined that the supreme Wisdom, at any time does not conceive of itself; since a rational mind can remember not only itself, but that supreme Wisdom, and conceive of that Wisdom and of itself? For, if the human mind could have no memory or concept of that Wisdom or of itself, it would not distinguish itself at all from irrational creatures, and that Wisdom from the whole created world, in silent meditation by itself, as my mind does now.
Hence, that Spirit, supreme as he is eternal, is thus eternally mindful of himself, and conceives of himself after the likeness of a rational mind; nay, not after the likeness of anything; but in the first place that Spirit, and the rational mind after its likeness. But, if he conceives of himself eternally, he expresses himself eternally. If he expresses himself eternally, his Word is eternally with him. Whether, therefore, it be thought of in connection with no other existing being, or with other existing beings, the Word of that Spirit must be coeternal with him.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter38
### Chapter XXXVIII

It cannot be explained why they are two, although they must be so.
Our careful attention is therefore demanded by a peculiarity which, though most unusual in other beings, seems to belong to the supreme Spirit and his Word. For, it is certain that in each of these separately and in both simultaneously, whatever they are so exists that it is separately perfected in both, and yet does not admit plurality in the two. For although, taken separately, he is perfectly supreme Truth and Creator, and his Word is supreme Truth and Creator; yet both at once are not two truths or two creators.
But although this is true, yet it is most remarkably clear that neither he, whose is the Word, can be his own Word, nor can the Word be he, whose Word it is, although in so far as regards either what they are substantially, or what relation they bear to the created world, they ever preserve an indivisible unity. But in respect of the fact that he does not derive existence from that Word, but that Word from him, they admit an ineffable plurality, ineffable, certainly, for although necessity requires that they be two, it can in no wise be explained why they are two.
For although they may perhaps be called two equals, or some other mutual relation may in like manner be attributed to them, yet if it were to be asked what it is in these very relative expressions with reference to which they are used, it cannot be expressed plurally, as one speaks of two equal lines, or two like men. For, neither are there two equal spirits nor two equal creators, nor is there any dual expression which indicates either their essence or their relation to the created world; and there is no dual expression which designates the peculiar relation of the one to the other, since there are neither two words nor two images.
For the Word, by virtue of the fact that it is a word or image, bears a relation to the other, because it is Word and image only as it is the Word and image of something; and so peculiar are these attributes to the one that they are by no means predicable of the other. For he, whose is the Word and image, is neither image nor Word. It is, therefore, evident that it cannot be explained why they are two, the supreme Spirit and the Word, although by certain properties of each they are required to be two. For it is the property of the one to derive existence from the other, and the property of that other that the first derives existence from him.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter39
### Chapter XXXIX

This Word derives existence from the supreme Spirit by birth.
And this truth, it seems, can be expressed in no more familiar terms than when it is said to be the property of the one, to be born of the other; and of the other, that the first is born of him. For it is now clearly proved, that the Word of the supreme Spirit does not derive existence from him, as do those beings which have been created by him; but as Creator from Creator, supreme Being from supreme Being. And, to dispose of this comparison with all brevity, it is one and the same being which derives existence from one and the same being, and on such terms, that it in no wise derives existence, except from that being.
Since it is evident, then, that the Word of the supreme Spirit so derives existence from him alone, that it is completely analogous to the offspring of a parent; and that it does not derive existence from him, as if it were created by him, doubtless no more fitting supposition can be entertained regarding its origin, than that it derives existence from the supreme Spirit by birth (nascendo).
For, innumerable objects are unhesitatingly said to be born of those things from which they derive existence, although they possess no such likeness to those things of which they are said to be born, as offspring to a parent. -- We say, for instance, that the hair is born of the head, or the fruit of the tree, although the hair does not resemble the head, nor the fruit the tree.
If, then, many objects of this sort are without absurdity said to be born, so much the more fittingly may the Word of the supreme Spirit be said to derive existence from him by birth, the more perfect the resemblance it bears to him, like a child's to its parent, through deriving existence from him.
# Proslogium and Monologium/Monologium/Chapter34
### Chapter XXXIV

How he can express the created world by his Word.
But how can objects so different as the creative and the created being be expressed by one Word, especially since that Word itself is coeternal with him who expresses them, while the created world is not coeternal with him? Perhaps, because he himself is supreme Wisdom and supreme Reason, in which are all things that have been created; just as a work which is made after one of the arts, not only when it is made, but before it is made, and after it is destroyed, is always in respect of the art itself nothing else than what that art is.
Hence, when the supreme Spirit expresses himself, he expresses all created beings. For, both before they were created, and now that they have been created, and after they are decayed or changed in any way, they are ever in him not what they are in themselves, but what this Spirit himself is. For, in themselves they are mutable beings, created according to immutable reason; while in him is the true first being, and the first reality of existence, the more like unto which those beings are in any way, the more really and excellently do they exist. Thus, it may reasonably be declared that, when the supreme Spirit expresses himself, he also expresses whatever has been created by one and the same Word.
# Popular Science Monthly/Volume 63/May 1903/Discussion and Correspondence

Layout 4
PROFESSOR PEARSON ON THE DISTRIBUTION OF FERTILITY.
In a note concerning the question of the birth rate in the April number of the Monthly, you quote Professor Karl Pearson's distributions of fertility and also refer to his measurements of the resemblance between mother and daughter in fertility. The skewness of the distribution of fertility in the case of the Quaker families probably represents no real condition, but is due to a statistical procedure, namely, to the combination in one distribution of groups of individuals of a number of different generations. As I show in an article in this number of the Monthly, the distribution of natural fertility in any one decade is approximately normal, there being no pronounced skewness save that due in late decades to the undistributed zeros. But if I combine all my results from Middlebury College, using thus families of men born from 1780 to 1850, I get a curve, as shown in the diagram, like Professor Pearson's in its pronounced positive skewness. If we suppose, as I am sure we must, that in Professor Pearson's Quaker families, the families are of larger and larger size as we go back in time and that also the number of families examined is fewer and fewer as we go back in time, we must conclude that even if the distribution were perfectly normal at any one period the total score would give just such skewness as he found. The abnormality of his distribution is thus a sign of the statistical mixture of species, not of any essential physiological characteristic. Of the Copenhagen records I can not speak assuredly as I do not know how the individuals were distributed in time. The occurrence in Professor Pearson's records of families of 13-22, higher that is than any that I have found in over 2,000 families of the last century, would seem to show that the beginning of the decadence of the American stock dates back beyond the nineteenth century.
It is possible too that the resemblance in fertility between mother and daughter which Professor Pearson has measured, and naturally enough attributed to heredity, may be really due to the necessary nearness in time of a mother and her daughter. If, for instance, in five generations fertility dropped steadily from 10 to 2, and we calculated a coefficient of filial correlation for a group of mother-daughter pairs distributed throughout the five generations, we should have a result showing marked mother-daughter resemblance, although heredity, as measured by the comparison of measures taken relatively to the average fertility at the time the individual lived, might amount to nil.
* Edward L. Thorndike.
* Teachers College, New York.
# Popular Science Monthly/Volume 63/May 1903/Scientific Literature

Layout 4
PSYCHOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY.
Since the publication of the brief review in the August number of the Monthly, the literature of this subject has continued to receive important additions, which indicate the increasing influence of the chemical aspects of biological study. The appreciation of this fact has given rise to the appearance of the Biochemisches Centralblatt under the editorial supervision of P. Ehrlich, E. Fischer, A. Kossel, O. Liebreich, F. Müller, B. Proskauer, E. Salkowski and N. Zuntz. These well known names alone suffice to assure a future for the new journal, which is to report at brief intervals abstracts of chemical or biochemical investigations having a bearing on the biological sciences and medicine in particular. It is hoped in this way to enable the chemist, the physician and the general biologist to obtain a brief survey of the entire domain of activity along related chemical lines of work. The few numbers of the Centralblatt already at hand contain, in addition, cursory reviews of the literature upon restricted topics, e. g., the proteids, alimentary processes, etc., written by competent scientists.
A more critical résumé is aimed at in the 'Ergebnisse der Physiologie,' the first volume of which has recently appeared under the joint editorship of Professor Leon Asher, of Berne, and Dr. Karl Spiro, of Strasburg. With the collaboration of a large number of many well-known physiologists, it is proposed to publish yearly two volumes, one of which is to be devoted to biochemistry, the other to biophysics and psychophysics. The entire field of physiology will thus be reviewed from time to time in the form of essays, more exhaustive, critical and suggestive than any mere compilation of abstracts could be. If one may judge by the character of the contributions to the first volume, it seems inevitable that the 'Ergebnisse' will become an important work of reference; and it will serve, even better than most textbooks, to keep the physiologist in touch with current progress in the study of the problems of biology.
Maly's 'Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der Thierchemie' completes its thirty-first year under the editorship of Professor Andreasch and Dr. Spiro, the latter taking the place of the late Professor v. Nencki. Dr. H. C. Jackson, of New York, has been added to the list of contributors.
Dr. O. V. Fürth's 'Vergleichende chemische Physiologie der niederen Thiere is one of the most valuable of the new books. The interest which the study of the lower forms has aroused lately has for the most part been confined to the more purely physical and morphological features of animal life. The chemical data accumulated during many years and scattered through various journals and monographs have now been collected by v. Fürth into a series of chapters useful for reference and helpful in suggesting opportunities for research.
* ↑ Gebrüder Bornträger, Berlin, 1903.
* ↑ J. F. Bergmann, Wiesbaden, 1902.
* ↑ Gustav Fischer, Jena, 1903.
# Professor

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Professor."
* sister projects: Wikipedia article, Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "The Professor", a poem by Charlotte Brontë
* "The Professor", a work by Oliver Wendell Holmes
# Proem

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Proem."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.
* "Proem", a poem by Richard Aldington; proem to War and Love (1919).
* "Proem", a poem by Don Marquis; proem to Dreams & Dust (1915).
* "Proem", a poem by Edmund Clarence Stedman; proem to Poems Now First Collected (1897).
* "A Proem", a poem by James Thomson
* "Proem", a poem by John Greenleaf Whittier
# Proem (Whittier)

PROEM
I LOVE the old melodious lays Which softly melt the ages through, The songs of Spenser's golden days, Arcadian Sidney's silvery phrase, Sprinkling our noon of time with freshest morning dew.
Yet, vainly in my quiet hours To breathe their marvellous notes I try; I feel them, as the leaves and flowers In silence feel the dewy showers, And drink with glad, still lips the blessing of the sky.
The rigor of a frozen clime, The harshness of an untaught ear, The jarring words of one whose rhyme Beat often Labor's hurried time, Or Duty's rugged march through storm and strife are here.
Of mystic beauty, dreamy grace, No rounded art the lack supplies; Unskilled the subtle lines to trace, Or softer shades of Nature's face, I view her common forms with unanointed eyes. ​Nor mine the seer-like power to show The secrets of the heart and mind; To drop the plummet-line below Our common world of joy and woe, A more intense despair or brighter hope to find.
Yet here at least an earnest sense Of human right and weal is shown; A hate of tyranny intense, And hearty in its vehemence, As if my brother's pain and sorrow were my own.
O Freedom! if to me belong Nor mighty Milton's gift divine, Nor Marvell's wit and graceful song, Still with a love as deep and strong As theirs, I lay, like them, my best gifts on thy shrine! Amesbury, 11th mo., 1847.
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
# Proem to "Poems Now First Collected"

"Thou,—whose endearing hand once laid in sooth"
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1897), "Proem" in Poems, now first collected.
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1908), "Proem to "Poems Now First Collected"" in The poems of Edmund Clarence Stedman.
# Proem to a Victorian Anthology

"England! since Shakespeare died no loftier day"
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1897), "Proem to a Victorian Anthology" in Poems, now first collected.
* Edmund Clarence Stedman (1908), "Proem to a Victorian Anthology" in The poems of Edmund Clarence Stedman.