[Milton-L] RE: Samson's prayer for revengr

Paul Miller pm9 at comcast.net
Mon Feb 25 11:56:28 EST 2008


What is  obviously ambiguous to you is simply the literary device of having 
a subjective witness describe the scene. From his vantage point "as" is all 
that could be said about the prayer. As I have mentioned before put the 
messenger in Judges where we know Samson is praying and from that same 
vantage point the description would likely be the same. Does anyone think 
Milton's first readers saw ambiguity when they read that section of SA or 
any readers before the post modern age?  You said that the bible is open to 
a variety of interpretations which is true but how does that apply here? It 
is just a broad floating statement. You said drawing the two works together 
broadens the interpretive possibilities no it narrows them when we get down 
to specific source passages. Milton didn't include that clunky prayer from 
Judges because he was writing poetry and as far as coming back to the 
literary text I'm the only one that has done that or marshalled the least 
evidence for a position. This discussion may have broader implications in 
that it seems to draw on the post modern trend toward ambiguity and 
relativism.  I have often felt that the post modern mind needed a little 
mucking out.

Paul Miller

So Hills amid the Air encounterd Hills
Hurl'd to and fro with jaculation dire,
That under ground, they fought in dismal
shade --- Paradise Lost

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "HANNIBAL HAMLIN" <hamlin.22 at osu.edu>
To: "John Milton Discussion List" <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] RE: Samson's prayer for revengr

> Milton is always capable of being idiosyncratic, of course (and therefore 
> falling outside of any context), but another interesting 17th c. treatment 
> of Sampson is in Donne's Biathanatos, where he is listed as a suicide.  Of 
> course, the treatise is a defence of suicide, so Sampson is still heroic 
> (and Jesus too is suggested as a kind of suicide).  Donne knew he was 
> playing with fire here, which is why the work was not published in his 
> lifetime, but it was published during Milton's (1644).  I'm not arguing 
> Milton read Biathanatos, or even that Donne's work is relevant to SA, but 
> it is evidence that 17th c. readers could interpret the Bible in many 
> different ways, some orthodox, some heretical.  Comparing Milton against 
> the Bible is useful and can be illuminating, but it doesn't prove anything 
> in itself.  The Bible is, and was, open to a variety of interpretations, 
> and so is Samson Agonistes.  Drawing the two works together just adds to 
> the interpretive possibilities; it doesn't
> reduce them.  Ultimately, we have to come back to the literary text, and 
> we have to deal with the fact that he didn't include the biblical prayer, 
> and that he used an obviously ambiguous phrase in describing Samson's 
> appearance (the "as" again, and I'll repeat my invocation of Spenser, whom 
> Milton knew thoroughly).
> Hannibal
> Hannibal Hamlin
> Associate Professor of English
> The Ohio State University
> Book Review Editor and Associate Editor, Reformation
> Mailing Address (2007-2009):
> The Folger Shakespeare Library
> 201 East Capitol Street SE
> Washington, DC 20003
> Permanent Address:
> Department of English
> The Ohio State University
> 421 Denney Hall, 164 W. 17th Avenue
> Columbus, OH 43210-1340
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sara van den Berg <vandens at slu.edu>
> Date: Saturday, February 23, 2008 9:31 pm
> Subject: Re: [Milton-L] RE: Samson's prayer for revengr
>> If you want to contextualize the poem in terms of 17th c English
>> Christians, then it is worth noting that Samson was a
>> controversial
>> figure in 17th c sermons.  Some were pro-Samson; others were not.
>> Some
>> sermons treated Samson as a type of Christ; others did not.
>> Joseph
>> Wittreich surveys the debate in his book on SA.  Another context,
>> of
>> course, is the publication of SA with PR, a juxtaposition that
>> invites
>> Milton's readers to compare/contrast Samson and Christ.  The
>> questions
>> just keep getting bigger.
>> Sara van den Berg
>> Rovira wrote:
>> > I think we need to distinguish between OT source material and
>> > Christian evaluations of the source material, first of all.  There's
>> > nothing morally questionable within the context of the OT law in
>> > Samson's killing of these thousands of occupiers.  Samson was God's
>> > appointed judge, the Philistines were on land belonging to God's
>> > people, Samson was fulfilling his God-ordained role as the deliverer
>> > of Israel.  The entire cycle of command-disobedience-foreign
>> > oppression-repentance-deliverance is spelled out very clearly in the
>> > latter chapters of Deuteronomy.  Only a Christian who has been
>> taught> that revenge is wrong would take issue with Samson's act,
>> and only
>> > then insofar as he perceived Samson as motivated by a desire for
>> > personal revenge.  To the extent that Samson was God's agent for the
>> > delivery of Israel from foreign oppression, even many Christian
>> > readers would not necessarily take issue with his act.  Those in
>> > pacifist Christian traditions would morally condemn Samson.  Those
>> > working from within some kind of just war theory would not,
>> > necessarily.  The question is at least open.
>> >
>> > The more important question is, of course, would Milton take issue
>> > with Samson's act?  Given his allegiances in the English civil war,
>> > it's hard for me to believe he would take issue with Samson's
>> revenge> as an act of political deliverance even if he did feel
>> differently> about the act as an act of personal revenge. Neither
>> is it hard to
>> > imagine Milton self-identifying with Samson; blind and trapped in
>> > chains by a pagan ruling class.
>> >
>> > Nor is it hard to imagine that Milton could have written the
>> scene to
>> > make Samson's prayer clearly heard by the messenger.  The messenger
>> > simply had to be close enough to Samson to hear the prayer and close
>> > enough to an exit to escape the building's collapse.  I suspect that
>> > the messenger was set at some distance because that is what we are
>> > from Samson's character, and perhaps, in Milton's mind, he was
>> at some
>> > distance even from himself regarding the restoration of the monarchy
>> > -- to fight it would be to bring down England.  Is it worth it?
>> Is it
>> > right?  Is it God that Samson speaks to?
>> >
>> > Jim R
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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 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
>> -- 
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Teach CanIt if this mail (ID 552935266) is spam:
>> Spam:
>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=s&i=552935266&m=e58296e35e02Not
>> spam:    https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=n&i=552935266&m=e58296e35e02
>> Forget vote:
>> https://antispam.osu.edu/b.php?c=f&i=552935266&m=e58296e35e02------
>> ------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Milton-L mailing list