[Milton-L] That fault I take not on me: reply to Derek Wood

[John Leonard]

Derek Wood asks:


" what does Samson achieve? Not even the beginning of Israel's deliverance. 
What has changed because of him? And what did the English revolution 
achieve? Nothing. Milton had friends who died in the war. For nothing. For 
many monarchists after 1660, the word 'revolution' meant 'something that 
turned around and ended up as it had been before.' Why should another 
temporal, physical, bloody revolution in the future achieve more than 
nothing?"

Critics who believe that Milton disapproved of Samson's violence often ask 
these rhetorical questions.  The difficulty for such critics is that the 
tragedy offers an answer, and it is not what the critics want to hear. 
Samson (twice) gave the Israelites an opportunity for liberty, and they 
twice turned it down.  Samson speaks of the first opportunity at line 241, 
when he answers the Chorus, who raise the very objection that Derek raises 
("Yet Israel still serves with all his Sons").  Samson:

That fault I take not on me, but transfer
On Israel's Governours, and Heads of Tribes,
Who seeing those great acts which God had done
Singly by me against their Conquerors
Acknowledg'd not, or not at all consider'd
Deliverance offerd. . . . (241f)

A few lines later he adds:

Had Judah that day join'd, or one whole Tribe,
They had by this possess'd the Towers of Gath,
And lorded over them whom now they serve. (265)

Yes, Samson's efforts were, in some sense, a waste--a missed 
opportunity--but Samson argues that it was his pusillanimous countrymen who 
missed the opportunity God offered.  Derek might answer that Samson would 
say that, wouldn't he?  Fair enough, but he has convinced the Chorus by the 
end of the tragedy.  They now see his last act as offering a second 
opportunity:  Samson has

                                    to Israel
Honour left, and freedom, let them but
Find courage to lay hold on this occasion. (1714-16)

We know that they will not take this opportunity either, but does our 
knowledge redound to Samson's discredit?  He would surely answer "That fault 
I take not on me. . ."  He did his part; let Israel now do theirs.  This 
does indeed have resonances with post Restoration England, but the parallel 
does not, I think, point to the pacifist or quietist conclusion that Derek 
wants to find. We should also remember that when the Israelites were 
eventually liberated, it was by violence.  David was not a pacifist--as 
Harapha's son learned to his cost.

John Leonard