
“I saw him, I say, saw him with my own eyes.”
Je l'ai vu, dis-je, de mes propres yeux vu.
Act V, sc. iii
Tartuffe (1664)
The Never-Ending Wrong (1977)
“I saw him, I say, saw him with my own eyes.”
Je l'ai vu, dis-je, de mes propres yeux vu.
Act V, sc. iii
Tartuffe (1664)
Source: Lionel Richie and Daughter Nicole on Fame, Drugs and Divorce http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200405/20040521/tows_slide_20040521_01.jhtml Interview with Oprah Winfrey, May 21, 2004 (March 6, 2008)
Song lyrics, American Pie (1971), American Pie
Context: So come on, Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack Flash sat on a candlestick
'Cause fire is the Devil's only friend
Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage
No angel born in hell
Could break that Satan's spell
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite
I saw Satan laughing with delight
The day the music died.
Source: No Treason (1867–1870), No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority, p. 24; the first sentence here is widely paraphrased as: A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
Context: A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible.
The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implying the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible lawmaking power, which the Constitution — according to their interpretation of it — gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us.
But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put into his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one?
The "Camelot" interview (29 November 1963)
“I didn't try to hit him. I just tried to make my pitch and the ball went out of my hand.”
Gano, Rick, St. Louis 5, Chi Cubs 4 http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/recap?gid=240719116, Yahoo! Sports, Retrieved on June 15, 2007
2004
"Yes", from Naked; inspired by Molly Bloom's soliloquy in James Joyce's Ulysses (2002). Live performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htbsGpcc0Fw