OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Ode

Edition of 1920. See also Ode on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
ODE, a lyric poem supposed to express the feelings of the poet in the pressure of high excitement, and taking an irregular form from the emotional fervency which seeks spontaneous rhythm for its varied utterance. The Greeks called every lyrical poem adapted to singing — and hence opposed to the elegiac poem — an ode (ōdē, that is, song). The Dorians are said to have been the inventors of the choral ode to be sung by a group of persons; the Spartan, Alcman, is credited with having first divided the chorus into two parts, the strophe (turn), and antistrophe (counterturn). These two names had their origin in the fact that as the one group of the performers answered the other they turned to the right and then to the left. Later on from Sicily came a third addition, the epode, which was sung by the united chorus at the end of the movements to the right and left. The principal ancient writers who employed this form of verse were Pindar, Anacreon, Sappho, Alcæns, among the Greeks, and Catullus and Horace among the Romans. As employed by English writers the ode takes either the Pindaric form of strophe, antistrophe, and epode irregularly arranged and contrasted; or, as in its later development, the form of a regular series of regular stanzas. The former style is found in Dryden's ‘Ode for Saint Cecilia's Day,’ while the latter is seen in Shelley's ‘Ode to a Skylark.’ The masters of English poesy who have carried the ode to its highest achievements are Milton, Marvell, Dryden, Collins, Gray, Coleridge, Wordsworth, Keats and Shelly. Consult Gosse, E. W., ‘English Odes’ (New York 1881); Scollard, Clinton, ‘Odes and Elegies’ (New York 1905); Sharp, William, ‘Great Odes, English and American’ (London 1890).
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Oehme, Ernst Erwin

Edition of 1920. See also Ernst Erwin Oehme on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
OEHME, ė'mĕ, Ernst Erwin, German painter: b. Dresden, 18 Sept. 1831; d. 1914;
son and pupil of Ernst Friedrich Oehme, the landscape painter. He attended the Dresden Academy of Art, and for a short time worked under Ludwig Richter; after which he made an artistic tour through Germany, Switzerland, England and France. He painted, in oils and water-colors, landscapes, architectural views, genre and portraits. The Court Theatre at Dresden was decorated by him; a series of tapestries was also painted by him in water-color, in imitation of Gobelin tapestry. His ‘Stone Quarry in Saxony’ (1860) is in the Dresden Gallery; and he executed for Queen Carola of Saxony a collection of views of Compiègne. The most important of his remaining pictures include ‘Funeral in Spreewald’; ‘Bear Hunt’ (in water-colors); ‘The Valley of Montafont.’
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Ode to God, The

Edition of 1920. See also Derzhavin's ode to God on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
ODE TO GOD, The (Russian title ‘Bog’). In the 18th century the Deists of various European nations reveled in singing praises to God. We have such odes by Voltaire, Klopstock, Haller, Brockes, Young; in Russia the fashion was set by Lomonosov's ‘The True God.’ But none of these productions could equal Derzhavin's ‘Bog,’ which was at once translated into most of the European languages and, by Admiral Golovin, into Japanese. There are at least 15 French versions of the poem, while in English we have ‘To God,’ in W. D. Lewis' ‘The Bakchesarian Fountain’ (Philadelphia 1849); ‘Ode to the Deity,’ by J. K. Stallybrass (in The Leisure Hour, London 1870), 2 May; and ‘Ode to God,’ by Dole, N. H. (in The Chautauquan, Vol. X). Derzhavin commenced writing the ode in 1780, but finished it only in 1784, under the influence of a strong religious emotion. It begins with an appeal to God, then extols his infinite power and wisdom. Man is the reflex of the Divinity, hence man is not insignificant. He recognizes his relationship to God and, therefore, is assured of immortality beyond the grave.
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Ochs, George Washington

Edition of 1920. See also George Oakes on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
OCHS, George Washington, American journalist, brother of Adolph S. Ochs (q.v.): b. Cincinnati, 27 Oct. 1861. He was graduated at the University of Tennessee in 1879. He was mayor of Chattanooga, Tenn., in 1894-95 and in 1896-97. He published the Paris edition of the New York Times at the Paris Exposition in 1900; and in 1901-02 he was general manager of the Philadelphia Times. He was editor of the Philadelphia Ledger in 1902-15, since when he has edited the Current History Magazine and the New York Times' Mid-Week Pictorial. He is a Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor.
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Octroi

Edition of 1920. See also Octroi on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
OCTROI, ok-trwa, an old French term particularly applied to the commercial privileges granted to a person or to a company. In a like sense the term is applied to the constitution of a state granted by a prince in contradistinction to those which are derived from a compact between the ruler and the representatives of the people. The tax was levied on articles of food brought into a city or town. A great deal of the money for the expenses of the local town government in France is obtained from the Octroi, nine-tenths of which are applied to local uses and one-tenth to the national treasury. Under the name “Alcabala” a similar tax was collected in Spain and the Spanish colonies. This tax was in force in Mexico until a few years before the revolution of 1910.
# The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Ode to Duty

Edition of 1920. See also Ode to Duty on Wikipedia, and the disclaimer.
ODE TO DUTY. Wordsworth's ‘Ode to Duty,’ written in 1805 and published in 1807, is a noble appeal to the principle of morality for guidance and support. It represents in a measure a recantation of Wordsworth's earlier faith in the spontaneous and unguided impulses
of the heart, written at a time when he was coming to feel more and more the need of an invariable standard. While continuing to recognize the worth and beauty of the creed of joy and love, he feels that there must be also the mandate of the stern power which preserves the stars in their courses and lays the law of sacrifice and self-restraint upon the soul of man. Stern as is the voice of duty, it is yet also divinely beautiful,
| “ | Nor know we anything so fair |
| | As is the smile upon thy face.” |
The mood and temper of the ‘Ode’ is characteristic of much of Wordsworth's later work. According to Wordsworth's own statement the ‘Ode to Duty’ was modeled on Gray's ‘Hymn to Adversity,’ which in turn was imitated from Horace's ‘Ode to Fortune.’ The stanza is identical with that used by Gray, and there are resemblances in idea and phraseology. Consult notes in Dowden's ‘Poems of Wordsworth’ (Athenæum Press Series).
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Gospels without Prejudice

THE GOSPELS WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
All this will become clear if we read the gospels without prejudice. When I was young it was impossible to read them without fantastic confusion of thought. The confusion was so utterly confounded that it was called the proper spirit to read the Bible in. Jesus was a baby; and he was older than creation. He was a man who could be persecuted, stoned, scourged, and killed; and he was a god, immortal and all-powerful, able to raise the dead and call millions of angels to his aid. It was a sin to doubt either view of him: that is, it was a sin to reason about him; and the end was that you did not reason about him, and read about him only when you were compelled. When you heard the gospel stories read in church, or learnt them from painters and poets, you came out with an impression of their contents that would have astonished a Chinaman who had read the story without prepossession. Even sceptics who were specially on their guard, put the Bible in the dock, and read the gospels with the object of detecting discrepancies in the four narratives to show that the writers were as subject to error as the writers of yesterday's newspaper.
All this has changed greatly within two generations. Today the Bible is so little read that the language of the Authorized Version is rapidly becoming obsolete; so that even in the United States, where the old tradition of the verbal infallibility of "the book of books" lingers more strongly than anywhere else except perhaps in Ulster, retranslations into modern English have been introduced perforce to save its bare intelligibility. It is quite easy today to find cultivated persons who have never read the New Testament, and on whom therefore it is possible to try the experiment of asking them to read the gospels and state what they have gathered as to the history and views and character of Christ.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Great Change

THE GREAT CHANGE.
So far the history is that of a man sane and interesting apart from his special gifts as orator, healer, and prophet. But a startling change occurs. One day, after the disciples have discouraged him for a long time by their misunderstandings of his mission, and their speculations as to whether he is one of the old prophets come again, and if so, which, his disciple Peter suddenly solves the problem by exclaiming, "Thou are the Christ, the son of the living God." At this Jesus is extraordinarily pleased and excited. He declares that Peter has had a revelation straight from God. He makes a pun on Peter's name, and declares him the founder of his Church. And he accepts his destiny as a god by announcing that he will be killed when he goes to Jerusalem; for if he is really the Christ, it is a necessary part of his legendary destiny that he shall be slain. Peter, not understanding this, rebukes him for what seems mere craven melancholy; and Jesus turns fiercely on him and cries, "Get thee behind me, Satan."
Jesus now becomes obsessed with a conviction of his divinity, and talks about it continually to his disciples, though he forbids them to mention it to others. They begin to dispute among themselves as to the position they shall occupy in heaven when his kingdom is established. He rebukes them strenuously for this, and repeats his teaching that greatness means service and not domination; but he himself, always instinctively somewhat haughty, now becomes arrogant, dictatorial, and even abusive, never replying to his critics without an insulting epithet, and even cursing a fig-tree which disappoints him when he goes to it for fruit. He assumes all the traditions of the folk-lore gods, and announces that, like John Barleycorn, he will be barbarously slain and buried, but will rise from the earth and return to life. He attaches to himself the immemorial tribal ceremony of eating the god, by blessing bread and wine and handing them to his disciples with the words "This is my body: this is my blood." He forgets his own teaching and threatens eternal fire and eternal punishment. He announces, in addition to his Barleycorn resurrection, that he will come to the world a second time in glory and establish his kingdom on earth. He fears that this may lead to the appearance of impostors claiming to be himself, and declares explicitly and repeatedly that no matter what wonders these impostors may perform, his own coming will be unmistakable, as the stars will fall from heaven, and trumpets be blown by angels. Further he declares that this will take place during the lifetime of persons then present,
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Dream of Distribution According to Merit

THE DREAM OF DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO MERIT.
Against this comes the protest of the Sunday School theorists "Why not distribute according to merit?" Here one imagines Jesus, whose smile has been broadening down the ages as attempt after attempt to escape from his teaching has led to deeper and deeper disaster, laughing outright. Was ever so idiotic a project mooted as the estimation of virtue in money? The London School of Economics is, we must suppose, to set examination papers with such questions as, "Taking the money value of the virtues of Jesus as 100, and of Judas Iscariot as zero, give the correct figures for, respectively, Pontius Pilate, the proprietor of the Gadarene swine, the widow who put her mite in the poor-box, Mr. Horatio Bottomley, Shakespear, Mr. Jack Johnson, Sir Isaac Newton, Palestrina, Offenbach, Sir Thomas Lipton, Mr. Paul Cinquevalli, your family doctor, Florence Nightingale, Mrs. Siddons, your charwoman, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the common hangman." Or "The late Mr. Barney Barnato received as his lawful income three thousand times as much money as an English agricultural laborer of good general character. Name the principal virtues in which Mr. Barnato exceeded the laborer three thousandfold; and give in figures the loss sustained by civilization when Mr. Barnato was driven to despair and suicide by the reduction of his multiple to one thousand." The Sunday School idea, with its principle "to each the income he deserves" is really too silly for discussion. Hamlet disposed of it three hundred years ago. "Use every man after his deserts, and who shall scape whipping?" Jesus remains unshaken as the practical man; and we stand exposed as the fools, the blunderers, the unpractical visionaries. The moment you try to reduce the Sunday School idea to figures you find that it brings you back to the hopeless plan of paying for a man's time; and your examination paper will read "The time of Jesus was worth nothing (he complained that the foxes had holes and the birds of the air nests whilst he had not a place to lay his head). Dr. Crippen's time was worth, say, three hundred and fifty pounds a year. Criticize this arrangement; and, if you dispute its justice, state in pounds, dollars, francs and marks, what their relative time wages ought to have been." Your answer may be that the question is in extremely bad taste and that you decline to answer it. But you cannot object to being asked how many minutes of a bookmaker's time is worth two hours of an astronomer's?
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Captain and the Cabin Boy

THE CAPTAIN AND THE CABIN BOY.
Nothing, therefore, is really in question, or ever has been, but the differences between class incomes. Already there is economic equality between captains, and economic equality between cabin boys. What is at issue still is whether there shall be economic equality between captains and cabin boys. What would Jesus have said? Presumably he would have said that if your only object is to produce a captain and a cabin boy for the purpose of transferring you from Liverpool to New York, or to manoeuvre a fleet and carry powder from the magazine to the gun, then you need give no more than a shilling to the cabin boy for every pound you give to the more expensively trained captain. But if in addition to this you desire to allow the two human souls which are inseparable from the captain and the cabin boy, and which alone differentiate them from the donkey-engine, to develop all their possibilities, then you may find the cabin boy costing rather more than the captain, because cabin boy's work does not do so much for the soul as captain's work. Consequently you will have to give him at least as much as the captain unless you definitely wish him to be a lower creature, in which case the sooner you are hanged as an abortionist the better. That is the fundamental argument.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Case for Marriage

THE CASE FOR MARRIAGE.
Thus, though it would be too much to say that everything that is obnoxious in marriage and family life will be cured by Communism, yet it can be said that it will cure what Jesus objected to in these institutions. He made no comprehensive study of them: he only expressed his own grievance with an overwhelming sense that it is a grievance so deep that all the considerations on the other side are as dust in the balance. Obviously there are such considerations, and very weighty ones too. When Talleyrand said that a married man with a family is capable of anything, he meant anything evil; but an optimist may declare, with equal half truth, that a married man is capable of anything good; that marriage turns vagabonds into steady citizens; and that men and women will, for love of their mates and children, practise virtues that unattached individuals are incapable of. It is true that too much of this domestic virtue is self-denial, which is not a virtue at all; but then the following of the inner light at all costs is largely self-indulgence, which is just as suicidal, just as weak, just as cowardly as self-denial. Ibsen, who takes us into the matter far more resolutely than Jesus, is unable to find any golden rule: both Brand and Peer Gynt come to a bad end; and though Brand does not do as much mischief as Peer, the mischief he does do is of extraordinary intensity.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Charm of Luke's Narrative

THE CHARM OF LUKE'S NARRATIVE.
Luke gives the charm of sentimental romance to every incident. The Annunciation, as described by Matthew, is made to Joseph, and is simply a warning to him not to divorce his wife for misconduct. In Luke's gospel it is made to Mary herself, at much greater length, with a sense of the ecstasy of the bride of the Holy Ghost. Jesus is refined and softened almost out of recognition: the stern peremptory disciple of John the Baptist, who never addresses a Pharisee or a Scribe without an insulting epithet, becomes a considerate, gentle, sociable, almost urbane person; and the Chauvinist Jew becomes a pro-Gentile who is thrown out of the synagogue in his own town for reminding the congregation that the prophets had sometimes preferred Gentiles to Jews. In fact they try to throw him down from a sort of Tarpeian rock which they use for executions; but he makes his way through them and escapes: the only suggestion of a feat of arms on his part in the gospels. There is not a word of the Syrophenician woman. At the end he is calmly superior to his sufferings; delivers an address on his way to execution with unruffled composure; does not despair on the cross; and dies with perfect dignity, commending his spirit to God, after praying for the forgiveness of his persecutors on the ground that "They know not what they do." According to Matthew, it is part of the bitterness of his death that even the thieves who are crucified with him revile him. According to Luke, only one of them does this; and he is rebuked by the other, who begs Jesus to remember him when he comes into his kingdom. To which Jesus replies, "This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise," implying that he will spend the three days of his death there. In short, every device is used to get rid of the ruthless horror of the Matthew chronicle, and to relieve the strain of the Passion by touching episodes, and by representing Christ as superior to human suffering. It is Luke's Jesus who has won our hearts.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Difference between Atonement and Punishment

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ATONEMENT AND PUNISHMENT
The primitive idea of justice is partly legalized revenge and partly expiation by sacrifice. It works out from both sides in the notion that two blacks make a white, and that when a wrong has been done, it should be paid for by an equivalent suffering. It seems to the Philistine majority a matter of course that this compensating suffering should be inflicted on the wrongdoer for the sake of its deterrent effect on other would-be wrongdoers; but a moment's reflection will show that this utilitarian application corrupts the whole transaction. For example, the shedding of innocent blood cannot be balanced by the shedding of guilty blood. Sacrificing a criminal to propitiate God for the murder of one of his righteous servants is like sacrificing a mangy sheep or an ox with the rinderpest: it calls down divine wrath instead of appeasing it. In doing it we offer God as a sacrifice the gratification of our own revenge and the protection of our own lives without cost to ourselves; and cost to ourselves is the essence of sacrifice and expiation. However much the Philistines have succeeded in confusing these things in practice, they are to the Salvationist sense distinct and even contrary. The Baronet's cousin in Dickens's novel, who, perplexed by the failure of the police to discover the murderer of the baronet's solicitor, said "Far better hang wrong fellow than no fellow," was not only expressing a very common sentiment, but trembling on the brink of the rarer Salvationist opinion that it is much better to hang the wrong fellow: that, in fact, the wrong fellow is the right fellow to hang.
The point is a cardinal one, because until we grasp it not only does historical Christianity remain unintelligible to us, but those who do not care a rap about historical Christianity may be led into the mistake of supposing that if we discard revenge, and treat murderers exactly as God treated Cain: that is, exempt them from punishment by putting a brand on them as unworthy to be sacrificed, and let them face the world as best they can with that brand on them, we should get rid both of punishment and sacrifice. It would not at all follow: on the contrary, the feeling that there must be an expiation of the murder might quite possibly lead to our putting some innocent person—the more innocent the better—to a cruel death to balance the account with divine justice.
# Androcles and the Lion (Shaw)/Preface to Androcles and the Lion/The Gospels now unintelligible to Novices

THE GOSPELS NOW UNINTELLIGIBLE TO NOVICES.
But it will not do to read the gospels with a mind furnished only for the reception of, say, a biography of Goethe. You will not make sense of them, nor even be able without impatient weariness to persevere in the task of going steadily through them, unless you know something of the history of the human imagination as applied to religion. Not long ago I asked a writer of distinguished intellectual competence whether he had made a study of the gospels since his childhood. His reply was that he had lately tried, but "found it all such nonsense that I could not stick it." As I do not want to send anyone to the gospels with this result, I had better here give a brief exposition of how much of the history of religion is needed to make the gospels and the conduct and ultimate fate of Jesus intelligible and interesting.