Milton's Samson as a Terrorist By Tessa Daley
After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, audiences may see Milton's Samson Agonistes in a whole different light. Growing up in a very religious household, I was read the Samson story and was given Samson as a role model, someone I should admire and whose faith I should attempt to imitate. While reading Jessica Stern's Terror in the Name of God, it was disturbing how many characteristics Samson shared with the religious terrorists Stern interviewed for her book. I had never before questioned Samson's heroics or believed he was anything but admirable. I also never looked at the story from the Philistine perspective. But after seeing parallels in Samson's act and September 11, I began to reinterpret Samson's act of pulling down the Philistine temple. To effectively evaluate the usefulness of the category “terrorist” for understanding Samson's experience, a clear definition of terrorism is needed. My definition of terrorism draws elements from many already existing definitions. To me, it is essential that the definition is a psychologically motivated one. Definitions involving motives, the victims, and fear are most important when reading Samson Agonistes. The United States' Department of Defense defines terrorism as “The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies as to the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological” (Whittaker 3). The inculcation of fear for a religious cause is relevant, but this definition is missing the psychological factors that we encounter in Milton's play. Another definition that contains an element of great consequence is the US State Department's. It defines terrorism as “Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience” (Whittaker 3). I think it is important to emphasize this definition's categorization of the victims as noncombatants or civilians, but it still lacks the psychological traits that I feel are critical. For the purpose of my paper, my definition of terrorism will include an act of violence where the victims are innocent civilians. The act will have been carried out for the desired effect of causing fear. The terrorist will also have to be motivated by the psychological characteristics that Jessica Stern discusses in her book Terror in the Name of God: humiliation, alienation, and a psychology that comes from living in an occupied territory. Using my definition of terrorism, I believe Milton's Samson should be labeled as a terrorist. One of the first incidents where a terrorist mentality can be identified in Samson is during the visit from Harapha where Samson finds a renewed faith. His feelings of religious superiority are clear at this point. He talks about possible revenge on his enemies: “Yet so it may fall out, because their end / Is hate, not help to me, it may with mine / Draw their own ruin” (1265-67). Samson speaks as though the Philistines would be to blame for any act against them. It is also interesting to note that throughout the play, he tends to refer to the Philistines as a collective group or as a country instead of as individuals. Here he does not refer to deeds by individuals that would bring about their destruction, but acts by the group a whole. Moreover, during Samson's conversation with Harapha we see an opposing characterization of Samson. Harapha describes Samson as a “murderer, a revolter, and a robber” (1180). Samson describes himself more as a patriot or a freedom fighter and not as a murderer of innocent people: My Nation was subjected to your Lord: It was the force of Conquest; force with force Is well ejected when the Conquer'd can. But I a private person, whom my Country As a league-breaker gave up bound, presumed Single Rebellion and did Hostile Acts: I was no private but a person raised With sufficient and command from Heav'n To free my country. (1205-1213) This is reminiscent of the way the Hamas terrorist Abu Shanab talks in Stern's book. Shanab explains that “There are no civilians in Israel because every citizen is required to serve in the army…We are at war with Israel” (Stern 40). Later Dr. Rantissi expresses the same belief: “The intention is to kill combatants. When children are killed it's collateral damage” (Stern 57). Samson's attitude toward the Philistines also shows an important characteristic. He not only sees them as a collective, but he also makes himself unable to see their humanity. Near the end of the play, Milton adds the character of the Philistine Officer who is fairly sympathetic and friendly towards Samson. He seems genuinely concerned with Samson's wellbeing. However, after he tells Samson that he is sorry for what Samson's stubbornness might produce, Samson responds rather harshly: “Perhaps thou shalt have cause to sorrow indeed” (1347). Samson sees the officer not as a kind person, but as a Philistine who is not worthy of friendly discourse. Samson's social context also fits the profile outlined by Jessica Stern: he is a Hebrew under Philistine rule. Occupation is a constant theme throughout Terror in the Name of God. In the book, Abu Shanab says, “It is our duty for Muslims to struggle against occupation. It is our duty to defend the land for the sake of God. For Jews, the issue is the `Promised Land.' For us, it is not a question of something promised—it is our land” (Stern 39). Another section in Stern's book features an expert from the Israeli counterterrorism office. He speaks about the terrorists from Hamas, saying “They believe they have to change the behavior of the people prior to an Islamic revolution, but at the same time they have to persuade the Palestinian people that only they should be vested with the authority to lead” (Stern 60). Samson had the same beliefs, because even though he was patriotic, he still separated himself from his fellow countrymen: “if their servile minds / Me their Deliverer sent would not receive, / But to their Masters gave me up for naught, / Th' unworthier they; whence to this day they serve” (1213- 1216). He also is not fond of the fact that the Hebrews question his qualifications as a leader. Separation from others is yet another similarity between Samson and modern terrorists. Stern talks about the profile of a typical Palestinian: “He feels he has lost everything. The only way out is to find refuge in God” (Stern). The feeling of humiliation is also present within Milton's Samson. He has been blinded, imprisoned, and forced to lower himself before his enemies. Through the course of the play, Samson repeatedly laments the shame and embarrassment he has experienced as a prisoner of the Philistines. In lines 30-44 Samson harps on his captivity: Why was my breeding order'd and prescribed As of a person separate to God, Designed for great exploits; if I must die Betray'd Captived, and both my Eyes put out, Made of my Enemies the scorn and gaze; To grind in Brazen Fetters under task With this Heav'n-gifted strength? These lines are a few of the many spoken by Samson that illustrate the public emotions brought forth by disgrace and a feeling of humiliation. He seems upset and embarrassed that someone as great as he once was is so publicly debased. From the moment Samson steps into the story, the audience is introduced to his despair. In addition, Jessica Stern talks about the wide press coverage that suicide bombers achieve and how suicide terrorism is very public and theatrical. This quality is shown in Samson's act of publicly pulling down the temple during the very public festivities for the Philistine god Dagon. Manoa's response after Samson's death voices how this public event will have lasting effects on the Philistians: “Samson hath quit himself / Like Samson, and heroicly hath finish'd / A life Heroic, on his Enemies / Fully revenged, hath left them years of mourning, / And lamentation to the Sons of Caphtor / Through all Philistinian bound” (1709-1714). The Chorus responds in much the same way by saying, “Oft he [God] seems to hide his face, / But unexpectedly returns / And to his faithful Champion hath in place / Bore witness gloriously; whence Gaza mourns” (l1749-1752). In conclusion, by investigating Samson's actions using a psychologically motivated definition of terrorism, Samson should indeed be defined as a religious terrorist. He has been humiliated, both personally and through the occupation of Hebrew land by the Philistines. We have seen Samson's characteristic of alienation, not only from the Philistines but also by his fellow countrymen. He also further separated himself from his enemies in his mind by dehumanizing them. There has always been an assumption in the Christian tradition that Samson was a saint, one to be upheld as a great example of faith. What Milton's Samson Agonistes does is call this assumption into question by showing us Samson's possible psychology when performing his “great” act. And now after the devastating effects of September 11, we are given another tool for further interpretation of Samson's motives. Works Cited John Milton, Samson Agonistes. Ed. F.T. Prince. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1957. Stern, Jessica. Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. “Definition of Terrorism.” The Terrorism Reader. Ed. David Whittaker. New York: Routledge, 2001.
|