Discussion:
I AM THAT I AM and Shakespeare's Sonnet 121
(too old to reply)
Mad Hatter
2006-04-06 22:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Shakespeare, sonnet 121:

Tis better to be vile than vile esteem'd,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost which is so deem'd
Not by our feeling but by others' seeing:
For why should others false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I AM THAT I AM, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own:
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel;
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;
Unless this general evil they maintain,
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.

I serve her majesty, and I AM THAT I AM, and by alliance near to your
lordship, but free, and scorn to be offered that injury, to think I am
so weak of government as to be ruled by servants... (Oxenforde to
Queene, Oct. 30, 1584)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oxfordian Scripture on the use of "I AM THAT I AM":

""I am that I am" is peculiar to Shakespeare as an appropriation from
Scripture (Exodus 3: 14)-but it shows up, in the same form, in a
letter from Edward de Vere to Lord Burghley." -Mark Alexander and Prof.
Daniel Wright
(http://www.deverestudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm)

[This is not correct, the words are used by St Paul in Corinthians]

AND

"Finally, God's words from the Burning Bush ("I am that I am") have
been found only TWICE in Elizabethan writings where the author had the
audacity to speak of himself as if he were God --in a personal letter
by Edward de Vere which upbraids his nosy father-in-law for spying and
in Shakespeare's Sonnet 121 which rails at "frailer spies" who have
"adulterate eyes.""
(http://www.everreader.com/bible.htm)

AND

"I think "blasphemous" would be the proper term,

Some have tried to claim that Sh. is actually refering to 1 Corinthians
15.10, in which Paul writes "by the grace of God, I am that I am."
However, I would suggest that the tone, in both Sh. and de Vere,
suggests reference to Exodus -- in which case it is difficult to
absolve either writer of blasphemy."
Dr Stritmatter (Fellowship Discussion Boards)

(http://groups.google.com.au/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/post?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhumanities.lit.authors.shakespeare%3Fhl%3Den%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&&hl=en)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.

Yet in John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 1583, Bk 11 do we find the
following exchange in examination of Iohn Iackson, had before Doctor
Cooke (A Papist), the 11. day of March. An. 1556 (In the reign of Queen
Mary)

Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
Cooke: Who are they, quoth he?
Iackson: They, quoth I, that are ruled by the worde of God.
Cooke: You are a good fellow, quoth he.
Iackson: I AM THAT I AM quoth I.
Cooke: Then he sayd to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.

http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/foxe/single/book11/11_1583_1950.html

---------------------------------

So, here we have this bold, audacious blasphemous phrase being bandied
about in the course of a religous interrogation. Jackson dares to use
the phrase directly of himself (as God in Exodus) with no hint that his
being is somehow dependent on God (as does Paul in Corinthians) . And
when it is uttered, does the Papist fly off his nut, swell with a
seething, ungovernable rage? Nope. He meekly responds: "Have him to
prison again"

Again, if the words ''I am that I am'', spoken of oneself are
blasphemous and irreligous, why would Foxe put the words in the mouth
of a martyr of the Church? In fact, if it was blasphemous or
irreligous, how is it the book was even allowed publication and
circulation?

Finally, many of the ideas and themes expressed in Shakespeare's sonnet
121 (it is better to be vile than be judged vile; I am straight, though
others are crooked; I am that I am etc.) are directly relateable to
(and arguably directly derived from) the facts and circumstances of
Jackson's examination by Dr Cooke as described by Foxe in his ''Book of
Martyrs''. So Foxe's book is a far better source for shakespeare's
sonnet 121 than oxenforde's letter.
Nessus
2006-04-13 03:10:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered blasphemous.

The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100 and
Oxford's letter in an almost identical context, constitutes a direct
circumstantial connection.

As I understand your point, you are saying that since Iackson is using
the phrase in an apparent non-blasphemous context, this means the
phrase was not considered blasphemous and therefore does not constitute
a connection.

Let's examine this for a moment. Iackson is a Protestant, being
interrogated for heresy by Cooke, a Roman Catholic. Cooke is asking him
questions designed to elicit heretical answers.

That this is not some "meek" dismissal seems clear. Cooke is the
Inquisitor here, he knows that Iackson will most probably die
regardless, in fact he says so during the course of the conversation.
He has no reason or motive to be meek. Cooke clearly loses patience
with Iackson and sends him away angrily. In fact, he has already made
to send him away once earlier in the conversation, and then rescinded
his command in order to talk further.

Cooke. Thou art an hereticke, quod he.

Iackson. Yea, quod I? how can that be, seyng that I am of that Churche?
I am sure you will not saie that the Prophetes, and Apostles were
heretickes.

Cooke. No, quod he. The Sacrament of the altar. But what saiest thou to
the blessed Sacrament of the altar againe? Tell me.

Iackson. I aunswered hym and saied: I finde it not written.

Protestants, of course, denied the Sacraments, claiming that they were
not in the Bible.

Cooke. No, quod he? Keper, awaie with hym.

Iackson. Yet I taried there longe, and did talke with hym, and I saied:
Sir, I can bee contente to bee tractable, and obedient to the woorde of
God.

Of course there is a subtle knife hidden there in Iackson's
willingness to be obedient to "the word of God" i.e. the Bible
rather than the Pope.

The fact is that the entire conversation consists of veiled blasphemy.
Cooke continually asks leading questions designed to elicit a heresy.
Iackson continually skirts the edge of what Cooke could reasonably
label as heretical, but cloaks it in references to Scripture that Cooke
cannot break down.

Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.

Of course, Cooke wants to hear that the Pope is the head. Iackson's
answer is in fact blasphemous towards the Roman Church but subtle
enough that Cooke cannot complain of Iackson loving Christ before the
Pope.

Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.

Again, this is subtly evasive, and just slightly blasphemous in the
Papist's eyes. The interrogator wants the Pope again as an answer.
Iackson evades him with a nimble wit.

Cooke. Who are they, quod he?
Iackson. They, quod I, that are ruled by the word of God.

Again, subtly evasive. Iackson is saying that Christ's
representatives on earth are those that obey the Scriptures as written,
which he feels the Pope does not.

Cooke. You are a good fellowe, quod he.
Iackson. I am that I am quod I.

Cooke tries to regain the conversation by setting up the question of
whether Iackson is "a good fellowe." This is a subtle trap. If
Iackson replies that he is good, he violates the Catholic dictum of
Original Sin and is a heretic. If he replies that he is a sinner, Cooke
will use his sins to show how he is in error and gone astray. By
replying "I am that I am" Iackson walks between the horns of
Cooke's dilemma, evading the question of whether he is "good" by
saying that he is what God made him and only God can judge. This is a
direct slap in the face to the Inquisitor, who responds by sending him
away.

Cooke. Then he sayde to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.

But all this presupposes that the Oxfordian case for this connection
rests entirely on the idea that this usage is blasphemous. This in my
view is not precisely the case. The circumstantial connection between
the two usages of this phrase rests mainly on the observation that the
use of this phrase in any type of Elizabethan writing was extremely
rare. Whether it was this rare because it was considered blasphemous or
for some other reason is functionally irrelevant. I personally would
agree that it is unlikely that any of those who used this phrase
intended to place themselves above God, and so I would support the idea
that it is Paul's usage which is the context for all three, as in:

(By the grace of God) I am that I am, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own:

The dating and the matching context of the reference you have found
makes it likely to be the source for both subsequent usages, which only
tends to strengthen the circumstantial connection between them.

However, regardless of its bearing on the authorship argument, it is
certainly in my opinion an impressive piece of work to dig up what
looks very much like a major source for Sonnet 121. You truly have my
sincerest congratulations if that turns out to be the case.

-Nessus
Alan Jones
2006-04-13 05:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nessus
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious
phrase, the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered
blasphemous.
The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100 and
Oxford's letter in an almost identical context, constitutes a direct
circumstantial connection.
As I understand your point, you are saying that since Iackson is using
the phrase in an apparent non-blasphemous context, this means the
phrase was not considered blasphemous and therefore does not
constitute a connection.
Let's examine this for a moment. Iackson is a Protestant, being
interrogated for heresy by Cooke, a Roman Catholic. Cooke is asking
him questions designed to elicit heretical answers.
[snip a long extract from the interrogation and Nessus' helpful commentary
on it]
Post by Nessus
Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
[...].
Post by Nessus
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
[...]
Post by Nessus
Cooke. Who are they, quod he?
Iackson. They, quod I, that are ruled by the word of God.
[...]
Post by Nessus
Cooke. You are a good fellowe, quod he.
Iackson. I am that I am quod I.
[...]
Post by Nessus
Cooke. Then he sayde to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.
[...]

Since, as Nessus shows us, Cooke was certainly attempting to trap Jackson
into saying something heretical or even blasphemous, and if "I am that I am"
could be seen as a blasphemous expression, would he simply send him back to
prison? But perhaps Cooke ends the interrogation at that point precisely
because he has now heard what he needs. What happened next?

Since "I am that I am" is evidently so rare, I wonder whether the modern
form of the expression, "I am what I am", is found in Elizabethan/Jacobean
literature. But perhaps "what " wasn't used in that way.

Alan Jones
bookburn
2006-04-13 07:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nessus
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered blasphemous.
The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100
I think you mean Sonnet 121 instead of 100?

See also the following commentary from:
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20040218.shtml,
on Hebrew etymology connecting YHWH with "I am that I am" meaning, English
Bible as source resulting in "Jehova" translation, and a note on Shakespeare's
use of "I am not what I am" (Iago: Othello, Act 1, scene 1). bookburn

(quote)
Jehovah (I Am that I Am)
And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God
Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.

-- Exodus 6: 2-3 (KJV)
You may wonder, as you read along in the Hebrew Bible, why God has so many
names. To the polite plural Elohim ("gods") of Genesis 1, Genesis 2 adds the
"tetragrammaton" (four-letter name) YHWH or YHVH, rendered as "the Lord" in
the Authorized Version. Later we find other designations, such as Eloah
("God"), El Shaddai ("God of the Mountains"), El Elyon ("God Most High"), and
so on.

The reason for this confusing plenitude is that some of the Bible's authors
have a problem with the proper name YHWH, pronounced as "Yahweh." J (the
"Yahwist") is not one of them, as he uses it consistently from the start, and
he tells us in Genesis (4: 26) that men first called God YHWH in the days of
Seth, the third son of Adam and Eve.

J is contradicted, however, in Exodus, where God tells Moses that he "appeared
unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty [El
Shaddai], but by my name Jehovah [YHWH] was I not known to them" (Exodus 6:
3). Perhaps God forgets that Abraham "called upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]"
at Genesis 12: 8; that Isaac "called upon the name of the Lord [YHWH]" at
Genesis 26: 25; and that he himself (Genesis 28: 13) announced to Jacob that
"I am the Lord [YHWH] God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac." If so,
God has a mighty short memory.

The truth, however, is that P (the "Priestly Author") wrote chapter 6 of
Exodus, and P (like the "Elohist," E) had different ideas than J about the use
of God's proper name. So in Genesis he and E use Elohim and El Shaddai and so
forth, since according to them God's name was unknown to men until he revealed
it to Moses.

I'm sure all that's now crystal clear, but there remain the questions of what
"Yahweh" means and how it came to be Anglicized as "Jehovah." Yahweh has
already explained to Moses, in a passage by E (Exodus 3: 14), that his name
means "I am that I am" -- ehyeh asher ehyeh, an obscure statement that might
also be rendered "I will be what I will be" or "I cause that which is to be."
(Yahweh probably means both that he is a completely self-sufficient being, and
that he is the ultimate source of all other beings.) Transposed into the third
person -- "he is who is" or "he who causes what is to be" -- God's statement
would read Yahweh asher yihweh, Q.E.D. The form YHWH itself is the standard
Hebrew spelling, which only renders consonants.

As for the English spelling, we owe that to William Tyndale's 1530 translation
of this passage, where "Jehovah" (old spelling "Iehoua") replaces the term
"Adonai" ("My Great Lord"), which is found in Wyclif's translation. Yet does
not entirely replace it: in fact, "Jehovah" is compounded from the sacred
consonants YHVH and the vowels of Adonai.

This is where the plot really thickens. It turns out that the "false" vowels
of Adonai had already been added to YHWH in "pointed" versions of the original
Hebrew text, which, for purposes of reading aloud, subscribed vowels to the
consonants as found in the original. But YHWH was marked with the vowels of
Adonai precisely in order to remind readers to say "Adonai" rather than utter
the sacred name itself, which was the subject of increasing awe and
superstition. (After about 300 B.C., Jews almost entirely ceased pronouncing
the name "Yahweh.")

Tyndale was not the first to blunder in adding false vowels to Yahweh's name,
but he was the first to do so in English. Not only did he obscure the true
pronunciation of the divine name, his version is furthermore apt to recall the
pagan deity Jove, whose name is not at all related to God's, but which would
occasionally serve as a euphemism among reverential Englishmen. And because
"Jehovah" was mistaken as authentic, Tyndale and later translators wished to
avoid using it except when absolutely necessary -- which is why it is
represented as "Lord" in the King James text. It turns out, of course, that
they could have gone right ahead and used "Jehovah."

As for "I am that I am" or whatever the name means, Yahweh probably wouldn't
sanction most of the quotations in his honor, since presumably human beings
aren't "that they are" -- that is, not the source of their own being. But the
narrator of Aldous Huxley's story "After the Fireworks" (in Brief Candles,
1930) mistakes Yahweh to mean "I am what I am," which is of course always
literally true as it is spoken. "They behave as they do," he opines, "because
they can't help it; that's what they happen to be like. 'I am that I am';
Jehovah's is the last word in realistic psychology."

On the other hand, if we take "I am what I am" figuratively, it needn't be
true, as Iago realizes in Shakespeare's Othello (1604). At one point he
announces to Roderigo that "I am not what I am" (Act 1, scene 1), which means
"I am not as I appear" but also much more. Iago is the closest we come in
Shakespeare to the devil.

(unquote)
Ignoto
2006-04-13 14:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nessus
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered blasphemous.
Well, you Oxfordians say it is rare, but it keeps on turning up- it's
also included in Lyly's 1578 pulp novel Euphues.

There are also plenty of examples that express the same sentiment,
although not in the exact words (eg Wyatt)

[in any case, see below for why it could not have been considered
blasphemous]
Post by Nessus
The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100 and
Oxford's letter in an almost identical context, constitutes a direct
circumstantial connection.
As I understand your point, you are saying that since Iackson is using
the phrase in an apparent non-blasphemous context, this means the
phrase was not considered blasphemous and therefore does not constitute
a connection.
Let's examine this for a moment. Iackson is a Protestant, being
interrogated for heresy by Cooke, a Roman Catholic. Cooke is asking him
questions designed to elicit heretical answers.
That this is not some "meek" dismissal seems clear. Cooke is the
Inquisitor here, he knows that Iackson will most probably die
regardless, in fact he says so during the course of the conversation.
He has no reason or motive to be meek. Cooke clearly loses patience
with Iackson and sends him away angrily. In fact, he has already made
to send him away once earlier in the conversation, and then rescinded
his command in order to talk further.
Cooke. Thou art an hereticke, quod he.
Iackson. Yea, quod I? how can that be, seyng that I am of that Churche?
I am sure you will not saie that the Prophetes, and Apostles were
heretickes.
Cooke. No, quod he. The Sacrament of the altar. But what saiest thou to
the blessed Sacrament of the altar againe? Tell me.
Iackson. I aunswered hym and saied: I finde it not written.
Protestants, of course, denied the Sacraments, claiming that they were
not in the Bible.
Cooke. No, quod he? Keper, awaie with hym.
Sir, I can bee contente to bee tractable, and obedient to the woorde of
God.
Of course there is a subtle knife hidden there in Iackson's
willingness to be obedient to "the word of God" i.e. the Bible
rather than the Pope.
The fact is that the entire conversation consists of veiled blasphemy.
Cooke continually asks leading questions designed to elicit a heresy.
Iackson continually skirts the edge of what Cooke could reasonably
label as heretical, but cloaks it in references to Scripture that Cooke
cannot break down.
Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
Of course, Cooke wants to hear that the Pope is the head. Iackson's
answer is in fact blasphemous towards the Roman Church but subtle
enough that Cooke cannot complain of Iackson loving Christ before the
Pope.
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
Again, this is subtly evasive, and just slightly blasphemous in the
Papist's eyes. The interrogator wants the Pope again as an answer.
Iackson evades him with a nimble wit.
Cooke. Who are they, quod he?
Iackson. They, quod I, that are ruled by the word of God.
Again, subtly evasive. Iackson is saying that Christ's
representatives on earth are those that obey the Scriptures as written,
which he feels the Pope does not.
Cooke. You are a good fellowe, quod he.
Iackson. I am that I am quod I.
Cooke tries to regain the conversation by setting up the question of
whether Iackson is "a good fellowe." This is a subtle trap. If
Iackson replies that he is good, he violates the Catholic dictum of
Original Sin and is a heretic. If he replies that he is a sinner, Cooke
will use his sins to show how he is in error and gone astray. By
replying "I am that I am" Iackson walks between the horns of
Cooke's dilemma, evading the question of whether he is "good" by
saying that he is what God made him and only God can judge. This is a
direct slap in the face to the Inquisitor, who responds by sending him
away.
Cooke. Then he sayde to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.
But all this presupposes that the Oxfordian case for this connection
rests entirely on the idea that this usage is blasphemous. This in my
view is not precisely the case.
In fact Foxe's quoting of Jackson quite plainly shows that the phrase
was not considered blasphemous. Recall that Foxe's booke is called
"John Foxe's Booke of Martyrs", Jackson being one of said martyrs. Now,
it is so unlikely as to be impossible that Foxe would have put
blasphemous words in the mouth of a martyr- when one starts bandying
about blasphemous phrases one ceases to be a martyr and *becomes* a
heretic, ie one deserviing of punishment, not one deserving of
immortality as a martyr of the church.
Post by Nessus
The circumstantial connection between
the two usages of this phrase rests mainly on the observation that the
use of this phrase in any type of Elizabethan writing was extremely
rare. Whether it was this rare because it was considered blasphemous or
for some other reason is functionally irrelevant. I personally would
agree that it is unlikely that any of those who used this phrase
intended to place themselves above God, and so I would support the idea
(By the grace of God) I am that I am, and they that level
The dating and the matching context of the reference you have found
makes it likely to be the source for both subsequent usages, which only
tends to strengthen the circumstantial connection between them.
I don't have time to argue this in detail, but i think the connection
between foxe and shakespeare is much stronger than the connection
between fox and oxenforde (the paralells between shakespeare and Foxe
can be seen throughout the sonnet, the paralells between foxe and
oxenforde are essentially confined to the phrase itself).
Post by Nessus
However, regardless of its bearing on the authorship argument, it is
certainly in my opinion an impressive piece of work to dig up what
looks very much like a major source for Sonnet 121.
Thankyou.
Post by Nessus
You truly have my
sincerest congratulations if that turns out to be the case.
-Nessus
Tom Veal
2006-04-13 15:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoto
Well, you Oxfordians say it is rare, but it keeps on turning up- it's
also included in Lyly's 1578 pulp novel Euphues.
The Euphues reference is a quotation from Exodus, so I don't think that
we can count it, but the phrase does appear, in a very nonblasphemous,
non-masterful context in John Donne's 1622 sermon before the King and
the Queen on the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot: ". . . In the
presence of the whole Triumphant Church, of which, by him, by whom I am
that I am, I hope to bee. . . ." (Sermons 4:253-4, quoted in James
Biester, Lyric Wonder: Rhetoric and Wit in Renaissance English Poetry
(1997), p. 169).
Nessus
2006-04-26 16:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by bookburn
I think you mean Sonnet 121 instead of 100?
Of course I do. Thanks. :)
Post by bookburn
In fact Foxe's quoting of Jackson quite plainly shows that the phrase
was not considered blasphemous. Recall that Foxe's booke is called
"John Foxe's Booke of Martyrs", Jackson being one of said martyrs. Now,
it is so unlikely as to be impossible that Foxe would have put
blasphemous words in the mouth of a martyr- when one starts bandying
about blasphemous phrases one ceases to be a martyr and *becomes* a
heretic, ie one deserviing of punishment, not one deserving of
immortality as a martyr of the church.
I don't have time to argue this in detail, but i think the connection
between foxe and shakespeare is much stronger than the connection
between fox and oxenforde (the paralells between shakespeare and Foxe
can be seen throughout the sonnet, the paralells between foxe and
oxenforde are essentially confined to the phrase itself).
Sorry. What I was trying to say was that is was considered slightly
blasphemous by the Catholic Inquisitor, as it was being used as a
contradiction of Church teachings on Original Sin, not because it was
placing the speaker on a level with God. Blasphemy is in the eye of the
beholder. Saying, in essence; "I am as God has made me" is in line
with Protestant teachings, and is a bold and masterful debating tactic
to Protestants under attack by Catholicism. But note the context. In
all of the three instances we are discussing, the phrase is used
defensively, against a perceived attacker. All other instances that
have been raised are used in a strictly Biblical context. I agree in
essence that the sonnet is closer in phrasing to Foxe, but all three
usages are parallel in context.

-Nessus

Tom Veal
2006-04-13 14:52:29 UTC
Permalink
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Post by Nessus
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered blasphemous.
The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100 and
Oxford's letter in an almost identical context, constitutes a direct
circumstantial connection.
As I understand your point, you are saying that since Iackson is using
the phrase in an apparent non-blasphemous context, this means the
phrase was not considered blasphemous and therefore does not constitute
a connection.
Let's examine this for a moment. Iackson is a Protestant, being
interrogated for heresy by Cooke, a Roman Catholic. Cooke is asking him
questions designed to elicit heretical answers.
That this is not some "meek" dismissal seems clear. Cooke is the
Inquisitor here, he knows that Iackson will most probably die
regardless, in fact he says so during the course of the conversation.
He has no reason or motive to be meek. Cooke clearly loses patience
with Iackson and sends him away angrily. In fact, he has already made
to send him away once earlier in the conversation, and then rescinded
his command in order to talk further.
Cooke. Thou art an hereticke, quod he.
Iackson. Yea, quod I? how can that be, seyng that I am of that Churche?
I am sure you will not saie that the Prophetes, and Apostles were
heretickes.
Cooke. No, quod he. The Sacrament of the altar. But what saiest thou to
the blessed Sacrament of the altar againe? Tell me.
Iackson. I aunswered hym and saied: I finde it not written.
Protestants, of course, denied the Sacraments, claiming that they were
not in the Bible.
Cooke. No, quod he? Keper, awaie with hym.
Sir, I can bee contente to bee tractable, and obedient to the woorde of
God.
Of course there is a subtle knife hidden there in Iackson's
willingness to be obedient to "the word of God" i.e. the Bible
rather than the Pope.
The fact is that the entire conversation consists of veiled blasphemy.
Cooke continually asks leading questions designed to elicit a heresy.
Iackson continually skirts the edge of what Cooke could reasonably
label as heretical, but cloaks it in references to Scripture that Cooke
cannot break down.
Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
Of course, Cooke wants to hear that the Pope is the head. Iackson's
answer is in fact blasphemous towards the Roman Church but subtle
enough that Cooke cannot complain of Iackson loving Christ before the
Pope.
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
Again, this is subtly evasive, and just slightly blasphemous in the
Papist's eyes. The interrogator wants the Pope again as an answer.
Iackson evades him with a nimble wit.
Cooke. Who are they, quod he?
Iackson. They, quod I, that are ruled by the word of God.
Again, subtly evasive. Iackson is saying that Christ's
representatives on earth are those that obey the Scriptures as written,
which he feels the Pope does not.
Cooke. You are a good fellowe, quod he.
Iackson. I am that I am quod I.
Cooke tries to regain the conversation by setting up the question of
whether Iackson is "a good fellowe." This is a subtle trap. If
Iackson replies that he is good, he violates the Catholic dictum of
Original Sin and is a heretic. If he replies that he is a sinner, Cooke
will use his sins to show how he is in error and gone astray. By
replying "I am that I am" Iackson walks between the horns of
Cooke's dilemma, evading the question of whether he is "good" by
saying that he is what God made him and only God can judge. This is a
direct slap in the face to the Inquisitor, who responds by sending him
away.
Cooke. Then he sayde to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.
But all this presupposes that the Oxfordian case for this connection
rests entirely on the idea that this usage is blasphemous. This in my
view is not precisely the case. The circumstantial connection between
the two usages of this phrase rests mainly on the observation that the
use of this phrase in any type of Elizabethan writing was extremely
rare. Whether it was this rare because it was considered blasphemous or
for some other reason is functionally irrelevant. I personally would
agree that it is unlikely that any of those who used this phrase
intended to place themselves above God, and so I would support the idea
(By the grace of God) I am that I am, and they that level
The dating and the matching context of the reference you have found
makes it likely to be the source for both subsequent usages, which only
tends to strengthen the circumstantial connection between them.
However, regardless of its bearing on the authorship argument, it is
certainly in my opinion an impressive piece of work to dig up what
looks very much like a major source for Sonnet 121. You truly have my
sincerest congratulations if that turns out to be the case.
-Nessus
lackpurity
2006-04-14 02:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
MM:
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.

Shakespeare was also, and he might have used that phrase to imply his
office, or his title, THE MESSIAH, Son of God. This is what I've been
repeatedly mentioning here. Christopher Marlowe was Shakespeare's
Predecessor, and was also a Son of God.

Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
Post by Tom Veal
Post by Nessus
Post by Mad Hatter
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
This is not necessarily a uniquely Oxfordian view, but a simple
analysis of the fact that the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature because it is supposedly considered blasphemous.
The Oxfordian case is also not simply that only an audacious man would
use such a phrase, but that since the phrase is almost never used in
Elizabethan literature, its appearance in both Sonnet 100 and
Oxford's letter in an almost identical context, constitutes a direct
circumstantial connection.
As I understand your point, you are saying that since Iackson is using
the phrase in an apparent non-blasphemous context, this means the
phrase was not considered blasphemous and therefore does not constitute
a connection.
Let's examine this for a moment. Iackson is a Protestant, being
interrogated for heresy by Cooke, a Roman Catholic. Cooke is asking him
questions designed to elicit heretical answers.
That this is not some "meek" dismissal seems clear. Cooke is the
Inquisitor here, he knows that Iackson will most probably die
regardless, in fact he says so during the course of the conversation.
He has no reason or motive to be meek. Cooke clearly loses patience
with Iackson and sends him away angrily. In fact, he has already made
to send him away once earlier in the conversation, and then rescinded
his command in order to talk further.
Cooke. Thou art an hereticke, quod he.
Iackson. Yea, quod I? how can that be, seyng that I am of that Churche?
I am sure you will not saie that the Prophetes, and Apostles were
heretickes.
Cooke. No, quod he. The Sacrament of the altar. But what saiest thou to
the blessed Sacrament of the altar againe? Tell me.
Iackson. I aunswered hym and saied: I finde it not written.
Protestants, of course, denied the Sacraments, claiming that they were
not in the Bible.
Cooke. No, quod he? Keper, awaie with hym.
Sir, I can bee contente to bee tractable, and obedient to the woorde of
God.
Of course there is a subtle knife hidden there in Iackson's
willingness to be obedient to "the word of God" i.e. the Bible
rather than the Pope.
The fact is that the entire conversation consists of veiled blasphemy.
Cooke continually asks leading questions designed to elicit a heresy.
Iackson continually skirts the edge of what Cooke could reasonably
label as heretical, but cloaks it in references to Scripture that Cooke
cannot break down.
Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
Of course, Cooke wants to hear that the Pope is the head. Iackson's
answer is in fact blasphemous towards the Roman Church but subtle
enough that Cooke cannot complain of Iackson loving Christ before the
Pope.
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
Again, this is subtly evasive, and just slightly blasphemous in the
Papist's eyes. The interrogator wants the Pope again as an answer.
Iackson evades him with a nimble wit.
Cooke. Who are they, quod he?
Iackson. They, quod I, that are ruled by the word of God.
Again, subtly evasive. Iackson is saying that Christ's
representatives on earth are those that obey the Scriptures as written,
which he feels the Pope does not.
Cooke. You are a good fellowe, quod he.
Iackson. I am that I am quod I.
Cooke tries to regain the conversation by setting up the question of
whether Iackson is "a good fellowe." This is a subtle trap. If
Iackson replies that he is good, he violates the Catholic dictum of
Original Sin and is a heretic. If he replies that he is a sinner, Cooke
will use his sins to show how he is in error and gone astray. By
replying "I am that I am" Iackson walks between the horns of
Cooke's dilemma, evading the question of whether he is "good" by
saying that he is what God made him and only God can judge. This is a
direct slap in the face to the Inquisitor, who responds by sending him
away.
Cooke. Then he sayde to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.
But all this presupposes that the Oxfordian case for this connection
rests entirely on the idea that this usage is blasphemous. This in my
view is not precisely the case. The circumstantial connection between
the two usages of this phrase rests mainly on the observation that the
use of this phrase in any type of Elizabethan writing was extremely
rare. Whether it was this rare because it was considered blasphemous or
for some other reason is functionally irrelevant. I personally would
agree that it is unlikely that any of those who used this phrase
intended to place themselves above God, and so I would support the idea
(By the grace of God) I am that I am, and they that level
The dating and the matching context of the reference you have found
makes it likely to be the source for both subsequent usages, which only
tends to strengthen the circumstantial connection between them.
However, regardless of its bearing on the authorship argument, it is
certainly in my opinion an impressive piece of work to dig up what
looks very much like a major source for Sonnet 121. You truly have my
sincerest congratulations if that turns out to be the case.
-Nessus
Tom Veal
2006-04-14 02:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew. They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
lackpurity
2006-04-14 04:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew.
MM:
He said that he was "nothing," but simultaneously said that he was not
less than any of the apostles. St. Peter was Jesus Christ's successor,
according to the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,
to him, telling him to bind people on earth, so that they could be
bound in heaven. Obviously, St. Peter did exactly the same work as
Christ. Paul was equal to him and Christ, by his own testimony.

Read about the instructions he got from God, telling him to go to
Damascus for "further orders." Those who have such access to God, are
like God in human form to us.
Post by Tom Veal
They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
MM:
I'm sure Paul must have done a lot of meditation, if not for 41 years.
As I just mentioned, he had access to God, so he must have been
meditating everyday. Actually, he even wrote that, "I die daily."
That meant he left his body to be with God, daily. That was
meditation, or muses, as Shakespeare and Marlowe called them.

Of course, if you want to argue the translation, then this argument
could go on indefinitely.

Michael Martin
lackpurity
2006-04-14 05:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew.
MM:
He said that he was "nothing," but simultaneously said that he was not
less than any of the apostles. St. Peter was Jesus Christ's successor,
according to the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,
to him, telling him to bind people on earth, so that they could be
bound in heaven. Obviously, St. Peter did exactly the same work as
Christ. Paul was equal to him and Christ, by his own testimony.

Read about the instructions he got from God, telling him to go to
Damascus for "further orders." Those who have such access to God, are
like God in human form to us.
Post by Tom Veal
They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
MM:
I'm sure Paul must have done a lot of meditation, if not for 41 years.
As I just mentioned, he had access to God, so he must have been
meditating everyday. Actually, he even wrote that, "I die daily."
That meant he left his body to be with God, daily. That was
meditation, or muses, as Shakespeare and Marlowe called them.

Of course, if you want to argue the translation, then this argument
could go on indefinitely.

Michael Martin
lackpurity
2006-04-14 06:20:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew.
MM:
He said that he was "nothing," but simultaneously said that he was not
less than any of the apostles. St. Peter was Jesus Christ's successor,
according to the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,
to him, telling him to bind people on earth, so that they could be
bound in heaven. Obviously, St. Peter did exactly the same work as
Christ. Paul was equal to him and Christ, by his own testimony.

Read about the instructions he got from God, telling him to go to
Damascus for "further orders." Those who have such access to God, are
like God in human form to us.
Post by Tom Veal
They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
MM:
I'm sure Paul must have done a lot of meditation, if not for 41 years.
As I just mentioned, he had access to God, so he must have been
meditating everyday. Actually, he even wrote that, "I die daily."
That meant he left his body to be with God, daily. That was
meditation, or muses, as Shakespeare and Marlowe called them.

Of course, if you want to argue the translation, then this argument
could go on indefinitely.

Michael Martin
Tom Veal
2006-04-14 15:04:51 UTC
Permalink
Your opinions about St. Paul bear only an occasional random resemblance
to what Christians believe about him and therefore have no bearing on
the question of whether the translators of the Bishops' Bible, all of
them adherents of historical Christianity, deliberately placed
blasphemous words in the apostle's mouth when they rendered "eimi ho
eimi" as "I am that I am".
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew.
He said that he was "nothing," but simultaneously said that he was not
less than any of the apostles. St. Peter was Jesus Christ's successor,
according to the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,
to him, telling him to bind people on earth, so that they could be
bound in heaven. Obviously, St. Peter did exactly the same work as
Christ. Paul was equal to him and Christ, by his own testimony.
Read about the instructions he got from God, telling him to go to
Damascus for "further orders." Those who have such access to God, are
like God in human form to us.
Post by Tom Veal
They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
I'm sure Paul must have done a lot of meditation, if not for 41 years.
As I just mentioned, he had access to God, so he must have been
meditating everyday. Actually, he even wrote that, "I die daily."
That meant he left his body to be with God, daily. That was
meditation, or muses, as Shakespeare and Marlowe called them.
Of course, if you want to argue the translation, then this argument
could go on indefinitely.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
2006-04-14 17:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Veal
Your opinions about St. Paul bear only an occasional random resemblance
to what Christians believe about him and therefore have no bearing on
the question of whether the translators of the Bishops' Bible, all of
them adherents of historical Christianity, deliberately placed
blasphemous words in the apostle's mouth when they rendered "eimi ho
eimi" as "I am that I am".
MM:
To me it is not blashphemous, whether St. Paul said it, or Shakespeare
said it. Occasionally, the Saints call a spade a spade, and that is
not blasphemy in my book.

Michael Martin
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Aside from the other instances that have turned up now that people have
begun looking for them, what puts paid to the notion that "I am that I
am" had blasphemous overtones is the fact that the translators of the
Bishop's Bible used those words to English both Exodus 3:14 ("ego eimi
ho on") and I Corinthians 15:10 ("eimi ho eimi"). Since St. Paul was
not quoting Exodus, it is absurd to think that the translators would
have inserted a resemblance that made him (of all people!) sound like
he was claiming Godhead. Their casual usage suggests that, far from
being extraordinary, "I am that I am" was an ordinary phrase that was
not taken as an allusion to Exodus unless one made a point about the
Divine Name.
Him of all people? St . Paul was God in human form. He was a Param
Sant Sat Guru.
The Paul whose letters are extant was not boastful and certainly did
not claim to be "God in human form". That is the Paul whom the
translators of the Bishops' Bible knew.
He said that he was "nothing," but simultaneously said that he was not
less than any of the apostles. St. Peter was Jesus Christ's successor,
according to the Bible. Jesus gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,
to him, telling him to bind people on earth, so that they could be
bound in heaven. Obviously, St. Peter did exactly the same work as
Christ. Paul was equal to him and Christ, by his own testimony.
Read about the instructions he got from God, telling him to go to
Damascus for "further orders." Those who have such access to God, are
like God in human form to us.
Post by Tom Veal
They did not have the benefit
of your 41 years of medication to give them fanciful insights.
I'm sure Paul must have done a lot of meditation, if not for 41 years.
As I just mentioned, he had access to God, so he must have been
meditating everyday. Actually, he even wrote that, "I die daily."
That meant he left his body to be with God, daily. That was
meditation, or muses, as Shakespeare and Marlowe called them.
Of course, if you want to argue the translation, then this argument
could go on indefinitely.
Michael Martin
Tom Veal
2006-04-14 17:15:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Post by Tom Veal
Your opinions about St. Paul bear only an occasional random resemblance
to what Christians believe about him and therefore have no bearing on
the question of whether the translators of the Bishops' Bible, all of
them adherents of historical Christianity, deliberately placed
blasphemous words in the apostle's mouth when they rendered "eimi ho
eimi" as "I am that I am".
To me it is not blashphemous, whether St. Paul said it, or Shakespeare
said it. Occasionally, the Saints call a spade a spade, and that is
not blasphemy in my book.
Unless you translated the Bishops' Bible, your opinions about what is
or isn't blasphemy have nothing to do with the subject under
discussion, nor am I - or, I strongly suspect, anyone else - interested
in knowing them.
lackpurity
2006-04-14 18:33:43 UTC
Permalink
MM:
Okay, then. You create a problem, then look for a solution. Good
luck.

Michael
lackpurity
2006-04-13 04:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mad Hatter
Tis better to be vile than vile esteem'd,
MM:
If we are vile, then it involves one person. If others consider us
vile, then it is affecting the mind's of many.
Post by Mad Hatter
When not to be receives reproach of being,
MM:
The world has never treated the Param Sant Sat Gurus properly. It has
often tortured and killed them.
Post by Mad Hatter
And the just pleasure lost which is so deem'd
MM:
If we have trained the mind, puged it of sins, then it gives us
pleasure. If others consider us, as vile, then it is perplexing. No
really pious person wants others to think of him, as vile. It would be
difficult, to say the least, to be pleasurable or happy, if we think we
are considered vile by others.
Post by Mad Hatter
For why should others false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
MM:
He says why should he have any interaction with such people? It is
nonsensical. Jesus said, more or less, when he whistles, his sheep
come running. Saints come for their allotted sheep, not to save the
whole world.
Post by Mad Hatter
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
MM:
Shakespeare notes the hypocrisy of them. They are not as pure, nor as
spiritual as he, yet they criticize his perceived frailties. They are
sinners, so much in the habit of sinning, that they don't know the
difference between bad and good.
Post by Mad Hatter
No, I AM THAT I AM, and they that level
MM:
Bible says, judge not, lest ye be judged, and we will receive the same
type of judgment that we mete out to others.
Post by Mad Hatter
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel;
MM:
Emphasis that Shakespeare is pure, but they are dirty.
Post by Mad Hatter
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;
MM:
We don't get to know the Messiah by our "rank thoughts." We get to
know him by pure thoughts, spiritual thoughts.
Post by Mad Hatter
Unless this general evil they maintain,
MM:
Master can wash us. If we are very dirty, it will take more washing.
Some might be relatively clean, and need little washing. In other
words, if all we are is "rank thoughts," then Master will have to deal
with it.
Post by Mad Hatter
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.
MM:
This is similar to what Christ implied, that we are all sinners.
Saints come to wash off our sins, however, if we will follow them with
love and faith.

Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
Post by Mad Hatter
I serve her majesty, and I AM THAT I AM, and by alliance near to your
lordship, but free, and scorn to be offered that injury, to think I am
so weak of government as to be ruled by servants... (Oxenforde to
Queene, Oct. 30, 1584)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
""I am that I am" is peculiar to Shakespeare as an appropriation from
Scripture (Exodus 3: 14)-but it shows up, in the same form, in a
letter from Edward de Vere to Lord Burghley." -Mark Alexander and Prof.
Daniel Wright
(http://www.deverestudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm)
[This is not correct, the words are used by St Paul in Corinthians]
AND
"Finally, God's words from the Burning Bush ("I am that I am") have
been found only TWICE in Elizabethan writings where the author had the
audacity to speak of himself as if he were God --in a personal letter
by Edward de Vere which upbraids his nosy father-in-law for spying and
in Shakespeare's Sonnet 121 which rails at "frailer spies" who have
"adulterate eyes.""
(http://www.everreader.com/bible.htm)
AND
"I think "blasphemous" would be the proper term,
Some have tried to claim that Sh. is actually refering to 1 Corinthians
15.10, in which Paul writes "by the grace of God, I am that I am."
However, I would suggest that the tone, in both Sh. and de Vere,
suggests reference to Exodus -- in which case it is difficult to
absolve either writer of blasphemy."
Dr Stritmatter (Fellowship Discussion Boards)
(http://groups.google.com.au/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/post?_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhumanities.lit.authors.shakespeare%3Fhl%3Den%26&_doneTitle=Back+to+topics&&hl=en)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious phrase,
the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and masterful
blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.
Yet in John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 1583, Bk 11 do we find the
following exchange in examination of Iohn Iackson, had before Doctor
Cooke (A Papist), the 11. day of March. An. 1556 (In the reign of Queen
Mary)
Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?
Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.
Cooke: But who is the head in earth?
Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.
Cooke: Who are they, quoth he?
Iackson: They, quoth I, that are ruled by the worde of God.
Cooke: You are a good fellow, quoth he.
Iackson: I AM THAT I AM quoth I.
Cooke: Then he sayd to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.
http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/foxe/single/book11/11_1583_1950.html
---------------------------------
So, here we have this bold, audacious blasphemous phrase being bandied
about in the course of a religous interrogation. Jackson dares to use
the phrase directly of himself (as God in Exodus) with no hint that his
being is somehow dependent on God (as does Paul in Corinthians) . And
when it is uttered, does the Papist fly off his nut, swell with a
seething, ungovernable rage? Nope. He meekly responds: "Have him to
prison again"
Again, if the words ''I am that I am'', spoken of oneself are
blasphemous and irreligous, why would Foxe put the words in the mouth
of a martyr of the Church? In fact, if it was blasphemous or
irreligous, how is it the book was even allowed publication and
circulation?
Finally, many of the ideas and themes expressed in Shakespeare's sonnet
121 (it is better to be vile than be judged vile; I am straight, though
others are crooked; I am that I am etc.) are directly relateable to
(and arguably directly derived from) the facts and circumstances of
Jackson's examination by Dr Cooke as described by Foxe in his ''Book of
Martyrs''. So Foxe's book is a far better source for shakespeare's
sonnet 121 than oxenforde's letter.
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-14 20:43:14 UTC
Permalink
Mad Hatter wrote:

<<Shakespeare, sonnet 121:

Tis better to be vile than vile esteem'd,
When not to be receives reproach of being,
And the just pleasure lost which is so deem'd
Not by our feeling but by others' seeing:
For why should others false adulterate eyes
Give salutation to my sportive blood?
Or on my frailties why are frailer spies,
Which in their wills count bad what I think good?
No, I AM THAT I AM, and they that level
At my abuses reckon up their own:
I may be straight, though they themselves be bevel;
By their rank thoughts my deeds must not be shown;
Unless this general evil they maintain,
All men are bad, and in their badness reign.

I serve her majesty, and I AM THAT I AM, and by alliance near
to your lordship, but free, and scorn to be offered that injury,
to think I am so weak of government as to be ruled by servants...
(Oxenforde to Queene, Oct. 30, 1584)>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Oxford to Burghley, [30 October 1584].
-----------------------------------------------------------
[=15] BL Lansdowne 42[/39], ff. 97-8 (bifolium, 305mm x 200mm),
Oxford to Burghley; [30 October 1584] (W247-8;F320-1,332).

(In hand of amanuensis)
It is not vnknowne to your Lordship that I haue entred into a greate
nomber of bondes to suche, as haue purchasyd landes of me, to discharge
them of all Incombraunces: And bycause I stande indebtid vnto her
Maiestie (as your Lordship knowythe) many of ye said purchasers do
greatly feare somme troble likely to fall vppon them, by reason of her
Maiestyes said debt, & espesially if the Bondes of ye Lord Darcy and Sir
William Walgraue should be extendyd for the same, who haue two seuerall
statutes of great sommes for their discharge Wheruppon [diu] many of ye
said purchasers haue ben suters vnto me to procuer the discharginge of
her Maiestyes said Debt, and do seme very willinge to beare the burden
therof, yf by my meanes the same might be stalled paiable at some
convenyent dayes / I haue therfore thought good to acquaynte your
Lordship with this their suyte, requierynge moste earnestly your
Lordships furtheraunce in this behalfe, wherby I shalbe vnburdened of a
greate care, which I haue for the savynge of my honor, And shall by this
meanes also vnburden my wyves Ioincture of yat charge which might happen
herafter to be ymposyd vppon ye same, yf god should call your Lordship
and me away before her. /

(Oxford's hand takes over)
Yowre Lordships

(signed) Edward Oxenford (sec. f; 4+7)

My lord, this other day yowre man stainner towld me that yow sent for
Amis my man, and yf he wear absent that Lylle showld come vnto yow. I
sent Amis for he was in ye way. And I thinke very strange yat yowre
Lordship showld enter into that course towards me, wherby I must lerne
yat I knev [=knew] not before, bothe of yowre opinion and good will
towards me. but I pray, my lord, leaue yat course, for I mean not to be
yowre ward nor yowre chyld, I serve her magestie, and I am that I am,
and by allyance neare to yowre lordship, but fre, and scorne to be
offred that iniurie, to thinke I am so weake of gouernment as to be
ruled by servants, or not able to gouerne my self. Yf yowre Lordship
take and follow this courcse, yow | deceyve yowre self, and make me take
an other course then yet I have not thought of. whearfore thes shalbe to
desyre yowre Lordship yf yat I may make account of yowre friendship,
that yow will leave that cours as hurtfull to vs bothe.

Addressed (O): To the right honorable my very good Lorde the Lord
Theausorer of England [seal]

Endorsed (B): The Erle of Oxford by Amyce his man [Amyce] [lylly]

Second endorsement: xxx october 1584; For securing those yat
had purchased landes of him, his desire to take a course
to pay his debt to e Queen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mad Hatter wrote:

<<Oxfordian Scripture on the use of "I AM THAT I AM":

""I am that I am" is peculiar to Shakespeare as an appropriation
from Scripture (Exodus 3: 14)-but it shows up, in the same form,
in a letter from Edward de Vere to Lord Burghley."
-Mark Alexander and Prof. Daniel Wright
(http://www.deverestudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm)

AND

"Finally, God's words from the Burning Bush ("I am that I am") have
been found only TWICE in Elizabethan writings where the author had the
audacity to speak of himself as if he were God --in a personal letter
by Edward de Vere which upbraids his nosy father-in-law for spying and
in Shakespeare's Sonnet 121 which rails at "frailer spies" who have
"adulterate eyes."" (http://www.everreader.com/bible.htm)

AND

"I think "blasphemous" would be the proper term,

Some have tried to claim that Sh. is actually refering to 1
Corinthians 15.10, in which Paul writes "by the grace of God, I am
that I am." However, I would suggest that the tone, in both Sh. and de
Vere, suggests reference to Exodus -- in which case it is difficult to
absolve either writer of blasphemy."
Dr Stritmatter (Fellowship Discussion Boards)

http://groups.google.com.au/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/
---------------------------------------­------------------------
So, on the Oxfordian view, I AM THAT I AM, is a bold, audacious
phrase, the words of God himself, that only an arrogant and
masterful blasphemer would dare use to speak of himself.

Yet in John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, 1583, Bk 11 do we find the
following exchange in examination of Iohn Iackson, had before
Doctor Cooke (A Papist), the 11. day of March. An. 1556
(In the reign of Queen Mary)

Cooke: I pray thee tell me, who is the head of the congregation?

Iackson: I aunswered, and sayd: Christ is the head.

Cooke: But who is the head in earth?

Iackson: I sayd: Christ had members here in yearth.

Cooke: Who are they, quoth he?

Iackson: They, quoth I, that are ruled by the worde of God.

Cooke: You are a good fellow, quoth he.

Iackson: I AM THAT I AM quoth I.

Cooke: Then he sayd to my keeper, haue him to prison agayne.>>

http://www.hrionline.ac.uk/foxe/single/book11/11_1583_1950.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Fourth, Part Two (Quarto) 5.1]

Shal. Dauy, Dauy, Dauy, Dauy, let me see Dauy, let me see
Dauy, let me see, yea mary VVilliam Cooke, bid him come
hither, sir Iohn, you shal not be excused.

Dauy Mary sir thus, those precepts can not be serued,
and againe sir, shal we sow the hade land with wheate?

Shal. VVith red wheat Dauy, but for VVilliam Cooke
are there no yong pigeons?
-----------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Fourth, Part Two (Folio) 5.1]

Shal. Dauy, Dauy, Dauy, let me see ( Dauy) let me see:
William Cooke, bid him come hither. Sir Iohn, you shal
not be excus'd.

Dauy. Marry sir, thus: those Precepts cannot bee
seru'd: and againe sir, shall we sowe
the head-land with Wheate?

Shal. With red Wheate Dauy. But for William Cook:
are there no yong Pigeons?
--------------------------------------------------------
[Henry the Fourth, Part Two] has lots of strange and
apparently pointless disparaging references to
various 'Williams' (William Cooke, William Visor of
Woncot ("an arrant knave"). It also brings in all
manner of detailed day-to-day arrangements in a
rural farm.
At a minimum, the poet had done his homework on
rural farming terms. (The OED suggests that 'hade
land' is a fairly common term for the gaps between
ploughed sections of land. It disputes the existence
of the sense given by Wood / Bate.) But since 'Wilmcot'
is a local village to Stratford-upon-Avon and since
'William Cooke' attended 'Hinckley Fayre' (on an edge
of Warwickshire furthest from Gloucester) it is quite
likely that he was casting aspersions on a specific
rural uneducated William from Warwickshire -- as he
so often does in other plays.
There may, in addition, be glances at the 'Cooke'
family of the poet's mother-in-law. She was Mildred
Cooke, one of the four highly learned daughters of
Sir Anthony Cooke. All married well (Lord Keeper
Nicholas Bacon, Sir Thomas Hoby, and Henry
Killigrew) and helped to make Burghley's house a
centre of sophisticated learning (no better house
could be imagined for the education of the young
Shakespeare). Sir Anthony Cooke was strongly
Protestant -- a Marian refugee to Strasbourg. He
was a Cambridge man, tutor to Edward VI, and close
friend of Thomas Smith, Oxford's tutor. However, it
must have hurt the 17th Earl to be married into mere
'cooks'. The 'William Cooke' may well point at his
father-in-law, Burghley.
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
b***@nut-n-but.net
2006-04-15 12:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Has anyone presented an instance of the phrase's being described by
some Elizabethan as a blasphemous one? Oxfordians allege that it was
considered blasphemous but I've not seen any evidence that it was.

--Bob G.
Ignoto
2006-04-17 21:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@nut-n-but.net
Has anyone presented an instance of the phrase's being described by
some Elizabethan as a blasphemous one? Oxfordians allege that it was
considered blasphemous but I've not seen any evidence that it was.
--Bob G.
The only 'evidence' that it is blasphemous is the ahistorical claim
that because God mouthed the words in Exodus it would have been
blasphemous for an elizabethan to mouth the same.

As has already been pointed out, this claim is not consistent with
actual elizabethan usage.
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-17 21:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ignoto
Post by b***@nut-n-but.net
Has anyone presented an instance of the phrase's being
described by some Elizabethan as a blasphemous one?
The only 'evidence' that it is blasphemous is the ahistorical claim
that because God mouthed the words in Exodus it would have been
blasphemous for an elizabethan to mouth the same.
As has already been pointed out, this claim is not consistent with
actual elizabethan usage.
------------------------­------------------------------­----
<<Existence, or pure Being, is the divine Word. It simply is­. The
cabalistic formula for this is the expression, *I AM* . Just ­as
the image of sound is its *ECHO*, so the image of existence is the
knowl­edge of that existence-self-consciousness, in other words.

There are two ­basic types of consciousness: INNOCENT or pure
consciousness that contai­ns the wisdom but doesn't yet know it,
and self-consciousness or se­lf-knowledge that does know.

Pure consciousness is associated with the pu­re but INNOCENT
intelligence-the intelligence of the HEART-which ha­s the capacity
to know the wisdom that exists within it as its lif­e or being,
but as yet is ignorant of it and what it means. .­ .

We might say, 'Oh, but I knew that already!' HowEVER, the re­ality
is that we did not know it before, as such, and yet we had ­the
*TRUTH* of it already in our HEARTs. We needed something, how­EVER,
to wake it up and bring it to our mind as knowledge of that ­*TRUTH*

The cabalistic NAME for this knowledge, image or *ECHO* is *THAT*
: hence the complete formula or god-NAME for both the
Holy Trinity and the SON of God is 'I AM *THAT* I AM'
In *HEBREW* this is rendered by 'AHIH Asher AHIH'.

AHIH refers to 'the Living God' ( *I AM* ), the parent of *THAT*

When the possibility of time and change, or gradual unfoldin­g, is
brought into the equation, the formula bECOmes 'I AM all tha­t hath
been, and that is, and that shall be'. The god-NAME signifying thi­s
unfolding state of divinity is JHVH, meaning 'He who was, is, and is
to come'. This is essentially the NAME of the 'Image' or 'SON' of God,­
known as the 'great NAME' or 'revealing NAME', from which is derived
­the more personal NAME of Jehoshua or Jesus, the Messiah or Christ.
T­he idea of the unfolding nature of this revelation or knowledge
of God ­is embodied in the story of the two main appearances of the
Christ: firs­t as the shepherd, then sECOndly as the king. Messiah
means 'king'. The shepherd is not a king, but one day he will be.>>

- Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, Bk I, Aph.120.
------------------------­------------------------------­----
Shakespeare! -- To such NAME's SOUNDING, what succeeds
Fitly as silence? Falter forth the spell,
Act follows word, the speaker knows full well,
Nor tampers with its magic more than needs.
Two NAMEs there are: That which the *HEBREW* reads
With his soul only: if from lips it fell,
*ECHO* , back thundered by earth, heaven and hell,
Would own "Thou didst create us!" Naught impedes
We voice the other NAME, man's most of might,
Awesomely, lovingly: let awe and love
Mutely await their working, leave to sight
All of the issue as -- below -- above --
Shakespeare's creation rises: one remove,
Though dread this finite from that infinite.

- BROWNING, ROBERT, 1884, The NAMES.
--------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
2006-04-18 03:06:48 UTC
Permalink
MM:
Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.

In India, Sant Mat teaches that when the soul reaches the fourth stage,
it realizes that it is the same essence as the Lord. Then it cries out
"Sohang," meaning "I am that." Our True Home is in the fifth stage of
consciousness, known as Sach Khand (True Home). In these lower regions
of mind and maya, we don't know where our essence is, or how to find
it. Hence, the necessity of a Sat Guru, who can take us HOME.
Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare were Sat Gurus. This is
why you see that quote in Shakespeare's Sonnet. Shakespeare knew his
identity, which was the same as the Creator.

You could compare it to bringing a drop of water before an ocean.
Another comparison, would be to bring a lit candle before a fire. The
essence is the same. So, when the soul is brought before the spiritual
ocean, by the grace of a Master, then it feels, it knows, I am that. A
Master is God, and also human, so perhaps the phrase got reflected back
on itself. I am that, and I am human. Nobody can describe the
omnipresent Creator. All Great Mystics have become tongue-tied, so to
say, regarding attempts to describe that Creative Power and Ruling
Power.

Robert Browning was a Sat Guru. Obviously, he holds Shakespeare in
very high esteem, and discusses Shakespeare's creation, as synonymous
with God's creation. "Dread this finite," means that Saints, such as
Shakespeare, Marlowe, both Brownings, do not really enjoy being at this
low level. They carry out their duties, as Sat Gurus, however, and
when they've collected all their sheep, then they return to the highest
level.

Francis Bacon was a Great Mystic, also, as is apparent in his writings.

Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
b***@nut-n-but.net
2006-04-18 10:12:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.
Yes, I also thought it insane. But I gave it a minus five-start
rating, not valuing insanity. So, Art, you have a clear example of the
kind of person who is on your side and the kind who is not.

--Bob G.
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-18 15:14:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.
ackpurity wrote:

Bob G. :

<<Yes, I also thought it insane. But I gave it a minus five-start
rating, not valuing insanity. So, Art, you have a clear example
of the kind of person who is on your side and the kind who is not.>>

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "It is not so important
who is on my side but rather on whose side I am."

Art (I am that I am) Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-18 15:28:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.
Bob G. :

<<Yes, I also thought it insane. But I gave it a minus five-start
rating, not valuing insanity. So, Art, you have a clear example
of the kind of person who is on your side and the kind who is not.>>

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: "It is not so important
who is on my side but rather on whose side I am."

Art (I am that I am) Neuendorffer
lackpurity
2006-04-18 20:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Reply to Art Neuendorffer:
Who is on your side is important, also. Christopher Marlowe wrote,
"make an account of me." Walt Whitman wrote, "there is a precise
account of all."

Michael Martin
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-18 21:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Who is on your side is important, also.
Zeppo: "Message from the Front, Sir!"

Groucho: "Oh, I'm sick of messages from the front!
Don't we EVER get any messages from the side?"
Post by lackpurity
Christopher Marlowe wrote, "make an account of me."
Then he argued of the account and got stabbed in the eye.
Post by lackpurity
Walt Whitman wrote, "there is a precise account of all."
That doesn't take into account Marlowe.

There's no accounting for that no account Marlowe.

And there's no account of Marlowe after May 20, 1593.

Art Neuendorffer

<<Walt Whitman's old-fashioned American accent and
slightly hammy manner are oddly reminiscent of OliVER harDY,
while his stirring words from "America," are set against
the chug of what sounds like a mighty steam engine:>>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100716.html
lackpurity
2006-04-18 20:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Reply to Bobgrum:
Yes, he has a clear example. Let him separate the wheat from the
chaff, if he is able.

His comment that Shakespeare was a country-bumpkin, was not too
encouraging. It's like he missed the climax of Shakespeare's life.
When he met Christopher Marlowe, is when his metamorphosis started, and
he went from a possible country-bumpkin to a Godman.

Similarly, Christ went from the son of a carpenter to the King of the
Jews, after his baptism by John the Baptist.

Michael Martin
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-18 20:47:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by lackpurity
Yes, he has a clear example. Let him separate
the wheat from the chaff, if he is able.
-----------------------------------------------------------
*SHACK* , n. [Cf. Scot. shag refuse of barley or oats.]

_ A shiftless fellow; a low, itinerant beggar;
______ a VAGABOND; a tramp. [Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U.S.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Post by lackpurity
His comment that Shakespeare was a country-bumpkin, was not too
encouraging. It's like he missed the climax of Shakespeare's life.
I was born a little too late.
Post by lackpurity
When he met Christopher Marlowe, is when his metamorphosis started,
and he went from a possible country-bumpkin to a Godman.
Loading Image...
Post by lackpurity
Similarly, Christ went from the son of a carpenter
to the King of the Jews, after his baptism by John the Baptist.
Only because he didn't have to join a union that way.

Art N.
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-18 15:17:56 UTC
Permalink
MM: <<Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.>>

So you're the one rating me.

MM: <<In India, Sant Mat teaches that when the soul reaches the
fourth stage, it realizes that it is the same essence as the Lord.
Then it cries out "Sohang," meaning "I am that.">>

FW 1:1 4.28: during mighty odd years this man of hod, cement
_ and edifices in *Toper's Thorp* piled buildung supra buildung
_ pon the banks for the liVERs by the *Soangso* .

MM: <<Our True Home is in the fifth stage of consciousness, known
as Sach Khand (True Home). In these lower regions of mind and maya,
we don't know where our essence is, or how to find it.

I normally start with an HLAS Google Groups search on "NEUENDORFFER"

MM: <<Hence, the necessity of a Sat Guru, who can take us HOME.

Sat Guru = Country Roads.

MM: <<Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare were Sat Gurus.

William Shakspere was a country bumpkin.

MM: <<This is why you see that quote in Shakespeare's Sonnet.

So why do we see that quote in Oxford's letter to Burghley?

MM: <<Shakespeare knew his identity,
which was the same as the Creator.

So God is the author of the canon?

MM: <<You could compare it to bringing a drop of water before an
ocean. Another comparison, would be to bring a lit candle before a
fire. The essence is the same. So, when the soul is brought before
the spiritual ocean, by the grace of a Master, then it feels, it
knows, I am that.

Surf's up! :

Loading Image...

MM: <<A Master is God, and also human, so perhaps the phrase got
reflected back on itself. I am that, and I am human. Nobody can
describe the omnipresent Creator. All Great Mystics have become
tongue-tied, so to say, regarding attempts to describe that
Creative Power and Ruling Power.

___ Five foot two, eyes of blue,
___ oh, what those five feet could do:
___ has anybody seen my God?

___ Turned-up nose, turned-down prose
___ Flapper? Yes sir, one of those
___ Has anybody seen my God?

___ Well, if you run into a five-foot-two
___ coVERED with pearls,
___ Diamond rings, all those things,
___ Bet your life it isn't her

___ But could she love, could she coo!
___ Cootchie-cootchie-cootchie coo!
___ Has anybody seen my God?

MM: <<Robert Browning was a Sat Guru. Obviously, he holds Shakespeare in
very high esteem, and discusses Shakespeare's creation, as synonymous
with God's creation. "Dread this finite," means that Saints, such as
Shakespeare, Marlowe, both Brownings, do not really enjoy being at
this low level. They carry out their duties, as Sat Gurus, however,
and when they've collected all their sheep, then they return to the
highest level.

___ Little Bob Browning, come blow your horn.
___ The sheep's in the meadow, the cow's in the corn.
___ Where's the Sat Guru that looks after the sheep?
___ "He's in his flivVER, fast asleep."

<<The last two lines of the famous "Song" from Pippa Passes -
"God's in his heaven, All's right in the world!" - are parodied
in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World with the hypnopaedic slogan:
"Ford's in his flivver, all's right with the world!"

Robert Browning was the first person to ever have his voice heard
after his death. On a recording made by Thomas Edison in 1889,
Browning reads "How They Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix"
(including apologizing when he forgets the words).
It was first played in Venice in 1890.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100711.html

I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;
I galloped, Dirck galloped, we galloped all three;
"Good speed!" cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;
"Speed!" echoed the wall to us galloping through;

MM: <<Francis Bacon was a Great Mystic, also,
as is apparent in his writings.

FW 1:1 4.28: He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur.

-- little craythur Neuendorffer
-------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: Poetry On Audio -- Listening to
"the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge."
By Katherine A. Powers Sunday, April 16, 2006; WP Page BW10

<<This issue of Book World marks the 10th anniversary not only of the
"Poet's Choice" column but also of National Poetry Month itself. It
was inaugurated by the American Academy of Poets, which hoped to
lessen the effect of T.S. Eliot's having dubbed April "the cruelest
month." The Academy is generous with offerings for those of us who
would like to listen to poets giving voice to their own creations.
The Academy's excellent Web site (www.poets.org) incorporates
audio clips drawn from its archives, while full readings by more
than 60 poets are available on CD at $12 each from the Poetry Store

(www.poets.org/store). This month's audio events include the launching
of poetry podcasts, as well as the publication of the Academy's
"Audio Archive Anthology, Volume III" ($12), which includes more than
20 poets reading from their own works in recordings made over the
last 50 years. The anthology's selection is diverse, to say the
least, encompassing Gwendolyn Brooks, Allen Ginsberg,
Anthony Hecht and Robert Pinsky, to mention only a few.

Voices of the Past
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poetry on Record: 98 Poets Read Their Work, 1888-2006 (Shout! Factory,
5 hours, 4 CDs, $48.98, www.shoutfactory.com) begins with Alfred, Lord
Tennyson whaling away at "The Charge of the Light Brigade" on one of
Edison's wax cylinders. It tumbles along sounding like hoofbeats,
firing off volleys of static, while in the midst of the fray we hear
Tennyson chanting something like, "Half a leg, Half a leg,/Half a leg
onward,/All with the bully of death. . . ." The bellicose stylus of
circa 1890 seems to have intruded its own formulations, but you can
still hear and marvel at the pompous cadence with which the great man
delivers the goods.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100706.html

Robert Browning, up next, pits himself against an even more alarming
racket and is "tebbly sorry" that he "cawn't remembah" something or
other. Then comes Walt Whitman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100711.html

I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;
I galloped, Dirck galloped, we galloped all three;
"Good speed!" cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;
"Speed!" echoed the wall to us galloping through;

His old-fashioned American accent and slightly hammy manner are oddly
reminiscent of Oliver Hardy, while his stirring words from "America,"
are set against the chug of what sounds like a mighty steam engine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100716.html

With William Butler Yeats, recording quality achieves the relative
clarity of the 1930s. Known for his incantatory delivery and
criticized for it, Yeats seems a little put out, saying that the poems
he will read gave him "a devil of a lot of trouble to get into verse .
. . and that is why I will not read them as if they were prose."
That's for sure: He spares no tremolo or Celtic sonority in bringing
forth from the inner oracle "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" and "The Song
of the Old Mother."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100718.html

With the passage of years, the poets begin to climb down off their
high bardic horses, and a conversational mode of uttering poetry
begins to prevail -- well, not with Dylan Thomas, perhaps, or Allen
Ginsberg, or Lawrence Ferlinghetti on "Underwear," or Theodore
Roethke, who sounds as if he'd like to pop someone in the kisser, or
John Berryman, who is scary and might be on the outside of a couple of
shots. Some of the modern poets are quietly conversational. A good
deal of noise enters the picture as we enter the 1980s and people
start carrying on with musical accompaniment. Anne Waldman, who sings,
makes a big rumpus; Carl Hancock Rux has a whole band and chorus. Juan
Felipe Herrera, though accompanied by a guitar, is quiet and eloquent.

Listening to the voices of these characters is endlessly absorbing.
Ezra Pound actually does sound a bit crazy and H.D. (Hilda Doolittle)
a little upset. Gertrude Stein's voice is determined and genteel -- in
that order -- delivering no-nonsense nonsense that you wouldn't want
to question to her face. Edna St. Vincent Millay sounds happy and
high-stepping when she announces that "We were very tired./We were
very merry." Elizabeth Bishop has a fragile voice, while her friend
Robert Lowell's is a little querulous.

There are innumerable small revelations in the manner in which the
poets speak their own words, sometimes in an intensifying of
sensation, as when Seamus Heaney says "warm thick slobber of
frogspawn" in "The Death of a Naturalist" or, in an unexpected stress
or lack of it, as when James Weldon Johnson reads "The Creation."
The passages that tell of God's astonishing deeds come out in a great
voice, but when God says to himself, "That's good!," it is with
an air of quiet satisfaction rather than triumph -- as one would
expect from a being who, "toiling over a lump of clay" to
create man, is "like a mammy bending over her baby.">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brave_New_World/questions-brave_new_world.html

<<In Brave New World:

1) instead of A.D., in the year of our Lord, we have A.F., After Ford;
2) instead of the cross, the symbol is a T taken from Henry Ford's
Model T car; instead of God is in His Heaven, it is Ford is in his
Flivver (a flivver is a cheap automobile);

3) instead of Charing Cross, we have Charing T (a Fordian T replacing
the Christian Cross);

4) instead of St. Paul's Cathedral, we have
Fordson Community Singery; Big Ben is now Big Henry.
.................................................................
The title Brave New World is taken from Miranda's speech in The
Tempest 'O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How
beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in it!'
John quotes this three times in the novel, initially when he sees
Lenina, but later when he sees what Utopia is really like he puts
a different connotation on the words. When referring to Lenina,
John usually quotes from Romeo and Juliet and Troilus and Cressida.
Just as John goes completely over the top about Lenina's beauty,
so has Troilus an exaggerated feeling for Cressida, and John says
quoting from the play, Lenina 'her gait' (her manner of walking)
'handlest in their discourse' and further quoting from Romeo and
Juliet, 'on the white wonder vestal, chaste, virginal'
' Lenina was anything but virginal.

John uses quotes from Shakespeare to articulate his own feelings and
views on a wide variety of subjects. Most are tragic statements taken
from the tragedies of Shakespeare. When we first meet John, he is
frustrated at not being able to take part in the Indian fertility
rite and participating in the flagellation. When he sees the
bloodstain on the ground, he quotes from Macbeth
when Lady Macbeth says, 'damned spot'.

When he goes to the Feelies with Lenina, he quotes from Othello
when one of the characters reminds him of the 'Blackamoor'.

Later when Lenina tries to force the pace of the relationship and
she strips off revealing her breasts, John quotes from Timon of
Athens, 'for those milk paps', and also quotes from Othello.

When John loses his temper and becomes violent, he rants quoting from
King Lear commenting on the sexual nature of women, 'down from the
waist they are centaurs' (beasts), 'but to the girdle do the gods
inherit' (women resemble the gods only in that portion of their
bodies above the sexual organs).

Finally, in his conversation with Mond, he is able to show the
extent of his repertoire, as Mond too is familiar with the works
of Shakespeare. John is so disillusioned with what he has seen that
he confines his quotes to the tragedies King Lear and Hamlet -
'to sleep, perchance to dream', Hamlet's famous soliloquy on death,
and then 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy', a direct snipe at Mond.

John's dialogue is littered with quotations from Shakespeare.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
2006-04-18 20:42:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<Great post, Art. I gave it the five-star rating.>>
So you're the one rating me.
MM:
I did that one. :-)
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<In India, Sant Mat teaches that when the soul reaches the
fourth stage, it realizes that it is the same essence as the Lord.
Then it cries out "Sohang," meaning "I am that.">>
FW 1:1 4.28: during mighty odd years this man of hod, cement
_ and edifices in *Toper's Thorp* piled buildung supra buildung
_ pon the banks for the liVERs by the *Soangso* .
MM: <<Our True Home is in the fifth stage of consciousness, known
as Sach Khand (True Home). In these lower regions of mind and maya,
we don't know where our essence is, or how to find it.
I normally start with an HLAS Google Groups search on "NEUENDORFFER"
MM:
Your disparaging comments regarding William Shakespeare are not too
encouraging. I would search elsewhere, if I were you. LOL
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<Hence, the necessity of a Sat Guru, who can take us HOME.
Sat Guru = Country Roads.
MM: <<Christopher Marlowe and William Shakespeare were Sat Gurus.
William Shakspere was a country bumpkin.
MM:
That's your prerogative, but you missed the rest of his life,
especially after he met God in human form, Christopher Marlowe. That
transformed William Shakespeare.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<This is why you see that quote in Shakespeare's Sonnet.
So why do we see that quote in Oxford's letter to Burghley?
MM:
I'll check on that.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<Shakespeare knew his identity,
which was the same as the Creator.
So God is the author of the canon?
MM:
Yes, if you consider he used Shakespeare as his instrument.

Michael Martin
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<You could compare it to bringing a drop of water before an
ocean. Another comparison, would be to bring a lit candle before a
fire. The essence is the same. So, when the soul is brought before
the spiritual ocean, by the grace of a Master, then it feels, it
knows, I am that.
http://www.vt-2004.org/Background/Infol2/vt2004-if14-fig2.jpg
MM: <<A Master is God, and also human, so perhaps the phrase got
reflected back on itself. I am that, and I am human. Nobody can
describe the omnipresent Creator. All Great Mystics have become
tongue-tied, so to say, regarding attempts to describe that
Creative Power and Ruling Power.
___ Five foot two, eyes of blue,
___ has anybody seen my God?
___ Turned-up nose, turned-down prose
___ Flapper? Yes sir, one of those
___ Has anybody seen my God?
___ Well, if you run into a five-foot-two
___ coVERED with pearls,
___ Diamond rings, all those things,
___ Bet your life it isn't her
___ But could she love, could she coo!
___ Cootchie-cootchie-cootchie coo!
___ Has anybody seen my God?
MM: <<Robert Browning was a Sat Guru. Obviously, he holds Shakespeare in
very high esteem, and discusses Shakespeare's creation, as synonymous
with God's creation. "Dread this finite," means that Saints, such as
Shakespeare, Marlowe, both Brownings, do not really enjoy being at
this low level. They carry out their duties, as Sat Gurus, however,
and when they've collected all their sheep, then they return to the
highest level.
___ Little Bob Browning, come blow your horn.
___ The sheep's in the meadow, the cow's in the corn.
___ Where's the Sat Guru that looks after the sheep?
___ "He's in his flivVER, fast asleep."
<<The last two lines of the famous "Song" from Pippa Passes -
"God's in his heaven, All's right in the world!" - are parodied
"Ford's in his flivver, all's right with the world!"
Robert Browning was the first person to ever have his voice heard
after his death. On a recording made by Thomas Edison in 1889,
Browning reads "How They Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix"
(including apologizing when he forgets the words).
It was first played in Venice in 1890.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100711.html
I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;
I galloped, Dirck galloped, we galloped all three;
"Good speed!" cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;
"Speed!" echoed the wall to us galloping through;
MM: <<Francis Bacon was a Great Mystic, also,
as is apparent in his writings.
FW 1:1 4.28: He addle liddle phifie Annie ugged the little craythur.
-- little craythur Neuendorffer
-------------------------------------------------------
P.S.: Poetry On Audio -- Listening to
"the breath and finer spirit of all knowledge."
By Katherine A. Powers Sunday, April 16, 2006; WP Page BW10
<<This issue of Book World marks the 10th anniversary not only of the
"Poet's Choice" column but also of National Poetry Month itself. It
was inaugurated by the American Academy of Poets, which hoped to
lessen the effect of T.S. Eliot's having dubbed April "the cruelest
month." The Academy is generous with offerings for those of us who
would like to listen to poets giving voice to their own creations.
The Academy's excellent Web site (www.poets.org) incorporates
audio clips drawn from its archives, while full readings by more
than 60 poets are available on CD at $12 each from the Poetry Store
(www.poets.org/store). This month's audio events include the launching
of poetry podcasts, as well as the publication of the Academy's
"Audio Archive Anthology, Volume III" ($12), which includes more than
20 poets reading from their own works in recordings made over the
last 50 years. The anthology's selection is diverse, to say the
least, encompassing Gwendolyn Brooks, Allen Ginsberg,
Anthony Hecht and Robert Pinsky, to mention only a few.
Voices of the Past
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Poetry on Record: 98 Poets Read Their Work, 1888-2006 (Shout! Factory,
5 hours, 4 CDs, $48.98, www.shoutfactory.com) begins with Alfred, Lord
Tennyson whaling away at "The Charge of the Light Brigade" on one of
Edison's wax cylinders. It tumbles along sounding like hoofbeats,
firing off volleys of static, while in the midst of the fray we hear
Tennyson chanting something like, "Half a leg, Half a leg,/Half a leg
onward,/All with the bully of death. . . ." The bellicose stylus of
circa 1890 seems to have intruded its own formulations, but you can
still hear and marvel at the pompous cadence with which the great man
delivers the goods.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100706.html
Robert Browning, up next, pits himself against an even more alarming
racket and is "tebbly sorry" that he "cawn't remembah" something or
other. Then comes Walt Whitman.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100711.html
I sprang to the stirrup, and Joris, and he;
I galloped, Dirck galloped, we galloped all three;
"Good speed!" cried the watch, as the gate-bolts undrew;
"Speed!" echoed the wall to us galloping through;
His old-fashioned American accent and slightly hammy manner are oddly
reminiscent of Oliver Hardy, while his stirring words from "America,"
are set against the chug of what sounds like a mighty steam engine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100716.html
With William Butler Yeats, recording quality achieves the relative
clarity of the 1930s. Known for his incantatory delivery and
criticized for it, Yeats seems a little put out, saying that the poems
he will read gave him "a devil of a lot of trouble to get into verse .
. . and that is why I will not read them as if they were prose."
That's for sure: He spares no tremolo or Celtic sonority in bringing
forth from the inner oracle "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" and "The Song
of the Old Mother."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2006/04/11/AU2006041100718.html
With the passage of years, the poets begin to climb down off their
high bardic horses, and a conversational mode of uttering poetry
begins to prevail -- well, not with Dylan Thomas, perhaps, or Allen
Ginsberg, or Lawrence Ferlinghetti on "Underwear," or Theodore
Roethke, who sounds as if he'd like to pop someone in the kisser, or
John Berryman, who is scary and might be on the outside of a couple of
shots. Some of the modern poets are quietly conversational. A good
deal of noise enters the picture as we enter the 1980s and people
start carrying on with musical accompaniment. Anne Waldman, who sings,
makes a big rumpus; Carl Hancock Rux has a whole band and chorus. Juan
Felipe Herrera, though accompanied by a guitar, is quiet and eloquent.
Listening to the voices of these characters is endlessly absorbing.
Ezra Pound actually does sound a bit crazy and H.D. (Hilda Doolittle)
a little upset. Gertrude Stein's voice is determined and genteel -- in
that order -- delivering no-nonsense nonsense that you wouldn't want
to question to her face. Edna St. Vincent Millay sounds happy and
high-stepping when she announces that "We were very tired./We were
very merry." Elizabeth Bishop has a fragile voice, while her friend
Robert Lowell's is a little querulous.
There are innumerable small revelations in the manner in which the
poets speak their own words, sometimes in an intensifying of
sensation, as when Seamus Heaney says "warm thick slobber of
frogspawn" in "The Death of a Naturalist" or, in an unexpected stress
or lack of it, as when James Weldon Johnson reads "The Creation."
The passages that tell of God's astonishing deeds come out in a great
voice, but when God says to himself, "That's good!," it is with
an air of quiet satisfaction rather than triumph -- as one would
expect from a being who, "toiling over a lump of clay" to
create man, is "like a mammy bending over her baby.">>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brave_New_World/questions-brave_new_world.html
1) instead of A.D., in the year of our Lord, we have A.F., After Ford;
2) instead of the cross, the symbol is a T taken from Henry Ford's
Model T car; instead of God is in His Heaven, it is Ford is in his
Flivver (a flivver is a cheap automobile);
3) instead of Charing Cross, we have Charing T (a Fordian T replacing
the Christian Cross);
4) instead of St. Paul's Cathedral, we have
Fordson Community Singery; Big Ben is now Big Henry.
.................................................................
The title Brave New World is taken from Miranda's speech in The
Tempest 'O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How
beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in it!'
John quotes this three times in the novel, initially when he sees
Lenina, but later when he sees what Utopia is really like he puts
a different connotation on the words. When referring to Lenina,
John usually quotes from Romeo and Juliet and Troilus and Cressida.
Just as John goes completely over the top about Lenina's beauty,
so has Troilus an exaggerated feeling for Cressida, and John says
quoting from the play, Lenina 'her gait' (her manner of walking)
'handlest in their discourse' and further quoting from Romeo and
Juliet, 'on the white wonder vestal, chaste, virginal'
' Lenina was anything but virginal.
John uses quotes from Shakespeare to articulate his own feelings and
views on a wide variety of subjects. Most are tragic statements taken
from the tragedies of Shakespeare. When we first meet John, he is
frustrated at not being able to take part in the Indian fertility
rite and participating in the flagellation. When he sees the
bloodstain on the ground, he quotes from Macbeth
when Lady Macbeth says, 'damned spot'.
When he goes to the Feelies with Lenina, he quotes from Othello
when one of the characters reminds him of the 'Blackamoor'.
Later when Lenina tries to force the pace of the relationship and
she strips off revealing her breasts, John quotes from Timon of
Athens, 'for those milk paps', and also quotes from Othello.
When John loses his temper and becomes violent, he rants quoting from
King Lear commenting on the sexual nature of women, 'down from the
waist they are centaurs' (beasts), 'but to the girdle do the gods
inherit' (women resemble the gods only in that portion of their
bodies above the sexual organs).
Finally, in his conversation with Mond, he is able to show the
extent of his repertoire, as Mond too is familiar with the works
of Shakespeare. John is so disillusioned with what he has seen that
he confines his quotes to the tragedies King Lear and Hamlet -
'to sleep, perchance to dream', Hamlet's famous soliloquy on death,
and then 'there are more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy', a direct snipe at Mond.
John's dialogue is littered with quotations from Shakespeare.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
2006-04-18 21:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Reply to Art Neuendorffer:

MM: <<This is why you see that quote in Shakespeare's Sonnet.


So why do we see that quote in Oxford's letter to Burghley?

MM:
Saints are relatively rare. Satan always sends impostors, however. I
can't say why Oxford included that quote in his letter to Burghley.
It's another case of separating the wheat from the chaff. There is
abundant evidence that the Strat Man was a Saint. Do you see
comparable evidence for Oxford, Art? St. Paul used the quote, also,
and like Shakespeare, there is abundant evidence that he was a Saint.
So, we have to use our intellects to the best of our ability on this.

Michael Martin
Art Neuendorffer
2006-04-19 15:48:28 UTC
Permalink
MM: <<This is why you see that quote in Shakespeare's Sonnet.>>
Post by Art Neuendorffer
So why do we see that quote in Oxford's letter to Burghley?
MM: <<Saints are relatively rare.

Not all of them:
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<Saint Lawrence was stripped & tied face down *on a GRIDIRON*
suspended oVER a bed of coals, and slowly burned to death.
Lawrence maintained a cheerful appearance through out the
ordeal and, when asked if he had any last request, responded
with his last words: *TURN ME. I am roasted on one side* >>
------------------------------------------------------------

MM: <<Satan always sends impostors, howEVER. >>

So who sends HLAS posters?

MM: <<I can't say why Oxford included that quote in his letter to
Burghley. It's another case of separating the wheat from the chaff.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
*SHACK* , n. [Cf. Scot. shag refuse of barley or oats.]

_ A shiftless fellow; a low, itinerant beggar;
______ a VAGABOND; a tramp. [Prov. Eng. & Colloq. U.S.]
-----------------------------------------------------------

MM: <<There is abundant evidence that the Strat Man was a Saint. >>

He abandoned his wife & children and then refused to pay back
the money they had borrowed from others in order to survive.

1) Grain horder during a faimine
2) tax evader
3) deer stealer
4) plagarist.

MM: <<Do you see comparable evidence for Oxford, Art? >>

I wasn't nominating him for sainthood.

MM: <<St. Paul used the quote, also, and like Shakespeare,
there is abundant evidence that he was a Saint. >>

Webb reminds us that Albert Gore & Popeye also used the quote.

MM: <<So, we have to use our intellects
___ to the best of our ability on this. >>
---------------------------------------------------------
Love's Labour's Lost Act 1, Scene 1

FERDINAND: These be the stops that hinder study quite
And train our intellects to vain delight.
---------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
lackpurity
2006-04-19 17:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<Saints are relatively rare.
MM:
I guess you missed the point. For every True Saint, there could be
thousands of Impostors.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<There is abundant evidence that the Strat Man was a Saint. >>
He abandoned his wife & children and then refused to pay back
the money they had borrowed from others in order to survive.
MM:
This is an allegation, I'd say.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
1) Grain horder during a faimine
2) tax evader
3) deer stealer
4) plagarist.
MM:
Do you have any evidence that these pigeonhole attempts are true?
Also, chronology is important here, as I tried to explain yesterday.
Was this before his spiritual tranformation, or after? Was it before
he met the Master, Christopher Marlowe, or after? As far as plagiarism
is concerned, Master Marlowe taught to imitate those you succeed.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<Do you see comparable evidence for Oxford, Art? >>
I wasn't nominating him for sainthood.
MM:
If you want to give him credit for the canon, then I think you are,
because IMO, only a Saint could have written it.
Post by Art Neuendorffer
MM: <<St. Paul used the quote, also, and like Shakespeare,
there is abundant evidence that he was a Saint. >>
Webb reminds us that Albert Gore & Popeye also used the quote.
MM:
Saints are rare, almost as rare as hen's teeth. Impostors are
plentiful, however.

Michael Martin
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...