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

[jonnyangel]

You need to go here: http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l

And then scroll down to here:
To unsubscribe from Milton-L, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options enter your subscription email address:

ja


On 5/15/09 6:14 PM, "Morris, Jeffrey" <jmorris at carroll.edu> wrote:

> unsubscribe
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu
> [mailto:milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of jonnyangel
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 2:55 PM
> To: John Milton Discussion List
> Subject: Re: Rép. : Re: [Milton-L] Samson as suicidebomber
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/