[Milton-L] Samson as suicide bomber

[Michael Bryson]

"Milton is of course perfectly capable of modifying
the
tradition to suit his needs, but we'd need to see
evidence of him
doing so."

A number of arguments for his modifying the
tradition have been made in print. No need to
rehearse them here, I think.

I agree, however, with your characterization of the
Biblical Samson, which is why I do not think Milton
is using--and modifying--that character as the basis
for his own creation in SA in any admiring or
uncritical way. We may accept the Biblical Samson as
implicit background (though I do not think "we
simply have to"), and I do in the sense I just
outlined, but that acceptance in no way necessitates
either an assumption that Milton wrote this
character and his actions as things to be admired
(Hebrews notwithstanding). In fact, accepting the
Biblical Samson as implicit background for Milton's
character leads me to quite the opposite conclusion.

Samson fails to bring peace to the people of Israel
and/or a restoration of "true" worship. He comes at
the end of a series of judges each of whom has been
less effective a deliverer than the judge before (as
evidenced by the progressively shorter periods of
peace outlined in the text). Samson brings nothing.
No peace, only strife. The writer of Hebrews simply
includes Samson as a name in a series of names held
out as examples of faith in Yahweh. Did Samson have
faith? After a fashion, but as James says, even the
demons believe (James 2:19). And finally, well, this
is where so much of the controversy in Milton
studies seems to reside--in the assertion that
because Milton is writing poems whose characters
populate the stories of a faith tradition, and
because the critics are often (though not always)
members of that faith tradition, then the only way
to understand Milton (since he was, of course, a
member of that faith tradition) is to read him
through (always and only through) that faith
tradition. The "pro-Samson" (if you will) argument
over SA becomes a syllogism: Judges approved of
Samson, and Hebrews approved of Samson, therefore
Milton approved of Samson. But each of the premises
is contestable, as is the resultant conclusion. 

But more than enough from me, really. Time to go
back to the mountain of my students' papers. It has
been an enjoyable discussion...

Michael Bryson

---- Original message ----

  Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 17:37:04 -0400
  From: James Rovira <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Samson as suicide bomber
  To: John Milton Discussion List
  <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
  >I'd mentioned this earlier, but glosses on Samson
  typically assume
  >that he lost his strength when he broke the last
  of his three vows as
  >a Nazirite by allowing his hair to be cut. He
  certainly broke his vow
  >with the jawbone of an ass episode (touching
  something dead) When his
  >hair grew back, he was once again in conformity
  with his vow, so his
  >strength returned. His hair is specifically
  mentioned in the angelic
  >message in Judges 13, and this association
  between the vow, Samson's
  >strength, and his hair is made explicit in ch.
  16:
  >
  > 17That he told her all his heart, and said unto
  her, There hath not
  >come a razor upon mine head; for I have been a
  Nazarite unto God from
  >my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my
  strength will go from me,
  >and I shall become weak, and be like any other
  man.
  >
  >The Biblical Samson at no time seems to care
  about God or anyone but
  >himself, really -- he kills Philistines out of a
  sense of personal
  >vengeance, not as an expression of Divine wrath.
  God is almost a
  >collaborator in Samson's personal vengeance at
  the end -- I think the
  >Biblical account would have us believe they just
  happened to want the
  >same thing at the same time, namely, a bunch of
  Philistines killed.
  >
  >When he's shaved, he loses his strength, when he
  grows his hair back,
  >he regains his strength. I think Harold's
  assertion that we simply
  >have to accept this as implicit background for
  Milton's Samson is a
  >good one. Milton is of course perfectly capable
  of modifying the
  >tradition to suit his needs, but we'd need to see
  evidence of him
  >doing so.
  >
  >Jim R
  >
  >On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Michael Bryson
  <michael.bryson at csun.edu> wrote:
  >> Well, I won't presume to speak for anyone else,
  but I don't think Samson's
  >> strength returns (in SA) as a result of any
  divine action. At 1355, Samson
  >> refers to his strength "again returning with
  [his] hair." I'm not entirely
  >> sure what to make of that--is the returned
  strength (a fact borne out by the
  >> poem) a function of the regrowth of his hair,
  with Yahweh taking no further
  >> part in it, as if once the "Consecrated gift"
  (1354) was given, it was
  >> neither revoked nor re-given once betrayed?
  That is the position I incline
  >> to, but I'd be most interested in hearing what
  others think about it.
  >>
  >> Michael Bryson
  >>
  >_______________________________________________
  >Milton-L mailing list
  >Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu
  >Manage your list membership and access list
  archives at
  http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
  >
  >Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20090514/98a88826/attachment.html