OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Anglo-allied army order of the day

* related portals: Waterloo Campaign.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
After the 7th Coalition's victory at the Battle of Waterloo the Allied and Prussian armies crossed the frontier into France and marched on Paris. Shortly before or on crossing the border the following order of the day was issued to the Duke of Wellington's Anglo-allied army. It is similar to but not identical to general order that Wellington issued to the army at Nevilles the same day.
Source:
As the army is going to enter the French territory, the troops of different nations, now under the command of Field-marshal the Duke of Wellington, are desired to remember, that their respective sovereigns are the allies of his majesty the King of France, and that France must therefore be considered as a friendly country.
It is ordered, that nothing be taken either by the officers or soldiers without payment.
The commissaries of the army will provide for the wants of the troops in the usual manner, and it is not permitted to the officers or soldiers of the army to make requisitions.
The commissaries will be authorised by the field-marshal, or by the generals who command the troops of the respective nations (that is to say, in case their provisions are not regulated by an English commissary) to make the necessary requisitions, for which they will give regular receipts, and they must perfectly understand that they will be responsible for all that they receive by requisitions, from the inhabitants of France, in the same manner as if they made purchases for the account of their government in their own country.
(Signed) J. Waters acting adjutant-general.
# Angutivaun Taina

Our gloves are stiff with the frozen blood,  Our furs with the drifted snow, As we come in with the seal—the seal!  In from the edge of the floe.
Au jana! Aua! Oha! Haq!  And the yelping dog-teams go; And the long whips crack, and the men come back,  Back from the edge of the floe!
We tracked our seal to his secret place,  We heard him scratch below, We made our mark, and we watched beside,  Out on the edge of the floe.
We raised our lance when he rose to breathe,  We drove it downward—so! And we played him thus, and we killed him thus,  Out on the edge of the floe.
Our gloves are glued with the frozen blood,  Our eyes with the drifting snow; But we come back to our wives again,  Back from the edge of the floe!
Au jana! Aua! Oha! Haq!  And the loaded dog-teams go; And the wives can hear their men come back,  Back from the edge of the floe!
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Anhalt

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Anhalt."
* 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.
* "Anhalt," in Catholic Encyclopedia, (ed.) by Charles G. Herbermann and others, New York: The Encyclopaedia Press (1913)
* "Anhalt," in Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed., 1911)
# Anglo African writers

A speech in reply to Mr. Winston Churchill; the exploits of Major Burnham. From: Daily News (London, England), Tuesday, November 13, 1900; Issue 17048.
The monthly dinner of the Anglo-African Writer Club took place last night at the Grand Hotel, Charing Cross. Mr. F. H. Hamilton presided, and the company included Mr. A.G. Hales (Special Correspondent of the "Daily News"), Major F. R. Burnham, Lord Rosalyn, Mr. Lionel Phillips, the Hon. C. Macintosh (Governor of the North-West Canada), Mr. Stuart Cumberland, Captain J. Barlow, the Hon. Howard Spensley, Major Ricardo Seaver, Mr. Stephan J. Graff, the Hon. A. Wilmot, Mr. Spencer B. Todd, Mr. Arnold White, Sir Bartle Frere, Mr. Leigh Wood, Mr. G.E. Matherson, Mr. H. Spottiswood, and Mr. W.T. Madge.
The Chairman proposing "Our Guests," said any one of Major Burnham's adventures would provide the ordinary man with conversation for the rest of his life. He was an American, who first came in contact wit the practical work of fighting the operations of the great Indian reservations. Afterwards he was in the Western States at a time when lawlessness was rampant.

## Major Burnham in South Africa

Of his work in Rhodesia they already knew something. They knew how his reconnotoring services in the Matabele war were the greatest possible assistance to the Chartered Company. They knew how he accompanied the Wilson patrol. Perhaps they also knew how he had tracked out copper and other mines in Rhodesia. He represented a principle in warfare -- the principle of individual resources and initiative. In the Boer war he seemed to have gone pretty well where he liked. When Cronje was making his last stand Major Burnham penetrated into the laager and saw all he wished to see (Cheers.) Before Johannesburg was taken Major Burnham blew up the railway in three places and thus prevented the enemy removing their locomotive (Cheers.) When Lord Roberts made his dash upon Pretoria, Major Burnham, carrying a quantity of explosives, essayed to blow up the rail east of the town. For once the Boers saw and fired at him, killing his horse, and the animal fell upon him, causing severe injury. But he clung to his explosives, crawled through the Boer lines and blew up the railway east of Pretoria thereby preventing the Boer removing 3,000 British prisoners. Lord Roberts, the supreme judge of Major Burnham's achievements, wrote the following letter, which had not before been made public:
"Dear Major Burnham. As I hear you are about to return to Europe, I take this opportunity of thanking you for the valuable services you have rendered since you joined my headquarters at Paardeberg last February. I doubt if any other man in the force could have successfully carried out the thrilling enterprises in demanding as they did the training of a lifetime, combined with exceptional courage, caution, and powers of endurance. I was very sorry to hear of the seriousness of the accident you met with on your last successful attempt on the enemy's lines of rail, and I trust sincerely to hear that you are quite well again. Believe me, your sincerely, --Roberts." (Loud cheers)
# Angola China Communique Establishing Diplomatic Relations

* related portals: China, Angola.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
The People's Republic of China and the People's Republic of Angola, desirous to promote the harmonious relations and multiform cooperation between them so as to contribute to the realization of the purposes of the United Nations and conscious of the historical role that all the peoples should play in the course of rapprochement and solidarity among the countries that love peace and freedom, have decided to establish diplomatic relations between their two Governments at ambassadorial level as from January 12, 1983.
The Government of the People's Republic of China supports the Government of the People's Republic of Angola in its just struggle to safeguard national independence, state sovereignty and territorial integrity and to develop the national economy, and condemns the systematic aggression of the South African racist troops against Angola, and demands the withdrawal of South African troops from the territory of Angola.
The Government of the People's Republic of Angola recognizes that the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government representing all the Chinese people, and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
In this spirit, the People's Republic of China and the People's Republic of Angola wish to establish relations on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.
The People's Republic of China and the People's Republic of Angola also indicate that they wish to work, as always, for the establishment of relatively just and equitable world economic relations, and for the strengthening of their efforts in the maintenance of international peace and security.
The Governments of China and Angola have agreed to mutually provide each other with all the necessary assistance for the establishment, and performance of the functions, of diplomatic missions in their respective capitals in accordance with international practice.
For the Government of the People's Republic of China (Signed) Wang Jin
Charge d'Affaires ad Interim of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in the Republic of France
For the Government of the People's Republic of Angola (Signed) Luis Jose de Almeida, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the People's Republic of Angola to the Republic of France
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXII

Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression “God of Abraham,” pointing out by the very name the friendship (that existed) between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase “God of Abraham,” they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is untrue.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXIV

Chapter XXIV.
After this he continues: “These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that.” And in a subsequent part of his work he says, that “It makes no difference whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks, or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians.” Now, in answer to this, we have to remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz., respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with the circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanæans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of “the Good” from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXI

Chapter XXI.
The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: “Moses having,” he says, “learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity.” Now, in answer to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that Moses did indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable, and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people by means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation? Would, indeed, that not only Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments regarding providence are not so impious (as those of the former), and the Stoics, who assert that God is a body, had heard such a doctrine! Then the world would not have been filled with opinions which either disallow or enfeeble the action of providence, or introduce a corrupt corporeal principle, according to which the god of the Stoics is a body, with respect to whom they are not afraid to say that he is capable of change, and may be altered and transformed in all his parts, and, generally, that he is capable of corruption, if there be any one to corrupt him, but that he has the good fortune to escape corruption, because there is none to corrupt. Whereas the doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which preserves the immutability and unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as impious, because it does not partake of the profanity of those whose notions of God are marked by impiety, but because it says in the supplication addressed to the Divinity, “Thou art the same,” it being, moreover, an article of faith that God has said, “I change not.”
* ↑ Ps. cii. 27.
* ↑ Mal. iii. 6.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXIII

Chapter XXIII.
After this, Celsus next asserts that “Those herdsmen and shepherds who followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits, and so supposed that there was one God.” Let him show, then, how, after this irrational departure, as he regards it, of the herdsmen and shepherds from the worship of many gods, he himself is able to establish the multiplicity of deities that are found amongst the Greeks, or among those other nations that are called Barbarian. Let him establish, therefore, the existence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses by Zeus; or of Themis, the parent of the Hours; or let him prove that the ever naked Graces can have a real, substantial existence. But he will not be able to show, from any actions of theirs, that these fictitious representations of the Greeks, which have the appearance of being invested with bodies, are (really) gods. And why should the fables of the Greeks regarding the gods be true, any more than those of the Egyptians for example, who in their language know nothing of a Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor of a Themis, parent of the Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of any other of these names? How much more manifest (and how much better than all these inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable order of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author of one effect, and which, as being wholly in harmony with itself, cannot on that account have been the work of many makers; and that we should believe that the whole heaven is not held together by the movements of many souls, for one is enough, which bears the whole of the non-wandering sphere from east to west, and embraces within it all things which the world requires, and which are not self-existing! For all are parts of the world, while God is no part of the whole. But God cannot be imperfect, as a part is imperfect. And perhaps profounder consideration will show, that as God is not a part, so neither is He properly the whole, since the whole is composed of parts; and reason will not allow us to believe that the God who is over all is composed of parts, each one of which cannot do what all the other parts can.
* ↑ ἀναπλάσματα.
* ↑ τὴν ἀπλανῆ.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXVIII

Chapter XXVIII.
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having “invented his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus is the Son of God.
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XX

Chapter XX.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even to that of irrational also!—a view which goes far beyond the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!
# Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume IV/Origen/Origen Against Celsus/Book I/Chapter XXVII

Chapter XXVII.
Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted and successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power. For although, from the very beginning, all things opposed the spread of His doctrine in the world, —both the princes of the times, and their chief captains and generals, and all, to speak generally, who were possessed of the smallest influence, and in addition to these, the rulers of the different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,—yet it proved victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is such that it cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all such adversaries, it made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a considerable portion of Barbarian lands, and convened countless numbers of souls to His religion. And although, among the multitude of converts to Christianity, the simple and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the more intelligent, as the former class always does the latter, yet Celsus, unwilling to take note of this, thinks that this philanthropic doctrine, which reaches to every soul under the sun, is vulgar, and on account of its vulgarity and its want of reasoning power, obtained a hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself admits that it was not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to adopt His religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst them some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Fasnacht

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fasnacht | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Fasnacht, see Fastnacht.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Faxe

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Faxe | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Faxe, plur., ‘fooleries, tricks,’ ModHG. only; of obscure origin.
# An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Fee

| Expand abbreviations An Etymological Dictionary of the German Language/Annotated/Fee | Random word Special:RandomInCategory/Kluge's Etymological Dictionary of the German Language |
​ Fee, Fei, f., ‘fairy,’ from the equiv. MidHG. fei, feie, f.; borrowed from an OFr. dialect (Burgund.), feie, ModFr. fée (Ital. and Romance, fata, lit. ‘goddess of destiny,’ from Lat. fatum), whence also E. fay and fairy.