[Milton-L] Samson as suicide bomber

[Michael Bryson]

I argue (though one could counter that my argument
is not a "serious interpretation of SA") in "A Poem
to the Unknown God: Samson Agonistes and Negative
Theology." Milton Quarterly,Vol. 42, No. 1, 2008,
22-43 that SA is making no claims between Jehovah
and Dagon, presenting instead of certainty, the
brusque but ultimately uncertain claims thereto by
Samson, Manoa, the Chorus, et al (including Dalila
and the priests of Dagon). One image or another of a
divine that does not speak, does not appear,
expresses no will or desires whatsoever.

I'm curious to know what exactly are the "ungodly
deeds" of any member of the Ugaritic/Philistine
pantheon in SA, especially since Samson's rebuke to
Dalila along these lines comes after her description
of being approached by the religious and civil
authorities of her nation for help in apprehending
Samson. Samson's quote, "[...] gods unable / To
acquit themselves and prosecute their foes / But by
ungodly deeds, the contradiction / Of their own
deity, Gods cannot be" (896-99), has always struck
me as a claim that, were Dagon truly a god, the
Philistines would not have gone through the--in
Samson's eyes--degrading means of law (and a woman,
no less...horrors...) to apprehend a man who was
wreaking havoc in their midst (someone we might
today call a criminal, or perhaps a terrorist,
though the term is a loaded one), but would simply
have reached down with his divine hand and struck
Samson dead (or provided some such other
demonstration of force--the language Samson seems to
understand best). In Samson's eyes (and both Manoa
and the Chorus seem more than prepared to agree),
Jehovah is godly because he fights his own battles,
and with force, while Dagon is ungodly because his
people use law enforcement and the tips of a female
citizen to apprehend Samson. 

Are readers supposed to credit Samson's point of
view here? Are they supposed to believe that SA
credits Samson's point of view? I find this highly
problematic, especially if one puts Milton's Samson
in the context of the book of Judges, in which that
Samson is represented as the end of a sequence of
declining effectiveness in the role of the
judge-as-deliverer, the one who brings no period of
peace, no restoration of "true" worship, nothing at
all, and is then followed immediately by stories of
two corrupt Levite priests, including the horror
show that is Judges 19-21.

I do not think that Milton writes his Samson as
anything other than a contrast to his Son
(especially as portrayed in PR). If anything, Samson
is more reminiscent of his Satan (all of which I
argue in the above-referenced article). I think SA
quite seriously questions Samson's point of view,
and does so on nearly everything.

But maybe that's just me...

Michael Bryson

P.S. I also don't think that holding open the
possibility that we might not know is reducible to
"cognitive despair." Apophatic theology is hardly a
despairing tradition, and "leaving god for god" was,
in Eckhart's view, not a desperate, but a joyful
thing. Look at the portrait of certainty in SA, at
the characters who just know that they know. Their
actions speak eloquently, and many people die. Give
me uncertainty and "ungodliness" (at least as Samson
would define it), thanks.
Harold Skulsky wrote (on Monday, May 11, 2009):
*******************************************************************

Link: themeData
Link: colorSchemeMapping

A piece of friendly advice: eliminate analytical
categories such as "religious motive," "political
motive," , "nationalism," etc., from serious
interpretation of SA. These categories presuppose
(a) that SA draws a fundamental distinction between
politics and religion, and (b) that SA adopts a
neutral perspective on the dispute between Samson
and Dalila -- that is, on the claims of Jehovah and
the claims of Dagon.

 

As for the religion-politics distinction, both
Jehovah and Dagon are political agents in SA -- that
is, both are in the business of actively favoring
particular outcomes in a struggle between two
nations.

 

As for the possibility of reading the play as
recusing itself from Jehovah v. Dagon, much less
surrendering to a permanent suspense of judgment on
the matter, (1) SA, to put it mildly, never
questions Samson's view that the beings in the
Philistine pantheon are "unable / To acquit
themselves and prosecute their foes / But by ungodly
deeds," and hence are gods in no more than name. (2)
It's true (as I have argued at length elsewhere)
that Milton in SA delilberately refrains from
caulking embarrasssing leaks in the case for the
"godlilness" of Jehovah's deeds. On the other hand
(as I also argue elsewhere), there is a vast
difference between saying, in effect, "Lord, I
believe, help thou mine unbelief," and throwing
one's hands up in a fit of cognitive despair.

*******************************************************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090511/867da69c/attachment-0001.html