Rép . : Re: [Milton-L] Samson as suicidebomber

[jonnyangel]

Well, getting back to Milton's Samson, maybe I'm missing something.
When Salwa wrote, "The hair (like the forbidden fruit in PL) does not
contain any magic or strength.  It is the cutting of it (like the eating of
the forbidden fruit) that has destructive consequences.", I agreed 100%.
This is the way I have always read SA. I also thought it was interesting
that she brought up the apple from PL.

In PL, when Satan succeeds in his temptation, he boasts:

[...] Him by fraud I have seduc'd [ 485 ]
>From his Creator, and the more to increase
Your wonder, with an Apple; he thereat
Offended, worth your laughter, hath giv'n up
Both his beloved Man and all his World,
To Sin and Death a prey, and so to us, [ 490 ]
Without our hazard, labour, or allarme,
To range in, and to dwell, and over Man
To rule, as over all he should have rul'd.

In L.487, it's clear that Satan is missing the point of the "apple". He
thinks that he effectively pissed on God's parade, and did it with something
as insignificant as a paltry apple. But the apple is *not* the *thing* here.
Rather, it's the blatant disregard of God in disobeying his sole command to
not eat of the tree. The apple could have been an orange or a pineapple or
simply staring at the sun (think Lot's wife). So Satan is missing the point
here. Likewise, I read SA (with regards to his hair) the same way. I don't
see in SA where Milton is portraying Samson's *physical* hair being the
source of his strength. The hair isn't the *thing*; as it was with the
apple, it was the breaking of the covenant that was the *thing*.

- jonny




On 5/15/09 4:13 PM, "James Rovira" <jamesrovira at gmail.com> wrote:

> See, I think whether we are Christian or not we all tend to overly
> Christianize accounts and practices in the Hebrew Scriptures.  There's
> no association in the Mosaic law between taking a Nazarite vow and any
> internal moral or psychological state.  The vow consists solely of a
> series of external practices that in and of themselves comprise
> faithfulness to the vow.  There's no intent beyond the practices.
> 
> The conditions of the vow are described in Number 6.  A Nazarite is
> "separated" and "holy" to the Lord.  The words "separate" and "holy,"
> however, signify the object being reserved for God's use.  They don't
> necessarily signify a moral state beyond that which is necessary to
> maintain ritual purity, the maintenance of which reserves the object
> for God.
> 
> A distinction between outer ritual and inner intent is I think a later
> development in the Hebrew Scriptures and I think tends to follow the
> Babylonian exile, once the temple had been destroyed. Rabbinic Judaism
> is said to originate in this period, the emphasis shifting from ritual
> and morality to just morality once the temple had been destroyed.  The
> teachings of Christ proceed from this tradition, reinforcing and
> developing it.  He fought most with the Rabbis because they were the
> most like him.
> 
> So in terms of the Hebrew Scriptures, it literally does not matter
> that Samson was a selfish jerk, purely selfishly motivated, etc.
> While he fulfilled the ritual requirements of the law he was used by
> God.  While he did not, he could not.
> 
> Milton's appropriation of this tradition is another matter entirely.
> 
> Jim R
> 
> On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:43 PM, JD Fleming <jfleming at sfu.ca> wrote:
>> ok -- yes -- but the point I'm trying to emphasize is that Milton's Samson's
>> strength returns with his hair even while he remains in an apparent state of
>> psychological _dis_conformity with his vow -- wallowing in despair at the
>> beginning of the play, considering himself alienated from God, etc. Samson's
>> recrudescent strength, in _SA_, does not appear to entail a re-commencement
>> of the divine intention that gave him his strength in the first place.
>> Rather, the divine intention, having been impressed upon him, is completely
>> and permanently effective, as it was impressed. Milton's Samson is capable of
>> losing his strength by losing his hair; but he is not capable of losing the
>> correlation between his hair and his strength. I took you to be thinking
>> otherwise. JDF
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/