I am that I am

“I am that I am” is a formula of self-identification whose apparent certainty shifts across scripture, Hermetic philosophy, and a threatening scene of mistaken identity. The phrase first supplies an absolute assertion of being; when a black-robed figure adapts it, the same formula becomes a taunt about concealed identity and the Jesuits’ capacity to deny or assert their existence as circumstances demand.

Scriptural and Hermetic Formula

The expression is linked first to Exodus 3:14, where it is presented as a biblical declaration. It is then identified as Ego sum qui sum, an axiom of Hermetic philosophy, in a citation from Madame Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled. The juxtaposition gives the formula two registers: a scriptural statement of identity and a philosophical maxim about being.

A further citation, from Alexandre Dumas’s Giuseppe Balsamo, turns the formula into dialogue. Asked who he is by a multitude speaking with one voice, the character answers, “I am that I am.” Across these references, the words retain their form while moving from sacred text to philosophical axiom to dramatic speech.

The Phrase in the Novel

The formula returns in Casaubon’s encounter with a hooded figure wearing the black habit of the Jesuits. Casaubon initially mistakes him for Cre’tineau. The figure rejects the formula’s affirmative form, saying, “I am not I am that I am,” and smiles in a manner the narration describes as containing nothing human.

The alteration changes the phrase from a declaration into an unsettling denial. Rather than clarifying who stands before Casaubon, it deepens the uncertainty: the speaker’s identity is staged through a contradiction that invokes the very formula he disowns.

Identity, Denial, and Power

Casaubon interprets the exchange through what he calls the Jesuits’ method: they sometimes deny their existence and sometimes proclaim the power of their order to intimidate the uninitiated. The figure’s next assertion, “We are always other than what you think, sons of Belial,” makes concealment itself part of the performance. The formula’s significance therefore lies not only in its claim about being, but in its unstable use as a means of evasion and intimidation.

The novel’s treatment also places the phrase beside a conversation about invention and reality. After Casaubon and Belbo have sketched a dime-novel scenario, Casaubon suggests that a convincing Plan should remain closer to reality. Against that concern, the recurring formula marks how language can sound like ultimate truth while leaving identity unresolved: the words assert being, but their speakers and contexts determine what they can actually establish.