Samson Agonistes II

I took a break from Samson Agonistes for a few days as I'd felt discouraged after struggling with the first five hundred lines (it's 1,578 lines altogether). However, I picked it up again today and it came much more easily, in part because I used a basic trick I used to learn poetry when I was younger: I read it aloud. SA is a closet drama, which means that it was written to be read rather than performed: it's for the closet (or as we might say study or private sitting room) rather than the stage. Nevertheless, I think that most poetry and drama becomes much easier to understand when you the words are actually said aloud.

SA was no exception and I'm finding that I'm rather enjoying it now. Samson has an initial scene wherein he bewails his fate to his father: blind, betrayed, and a prisoner of the Philistines. Then in comes Delilah (Dalila in the play) all dolled up and says, rather sassily, "It was your fault you ended up like this; you should know that women love to know secrets but can never keep them." She offers to speak to the Philistine lords on his behalf, provided that Sansom agrees to return to her as her husband and allows her to nurse him; naturally he refuses. She exhibits little regret, and gives him the following speech before leaving:

I will be named among the famousest
Of women, sung at solemn festivals,
Living and dead recorded, who to save
Her country from a fierce destroyer, chose
Above the faith of wedlock bands... (982-986)

This is doubly (perhaps even triply) interesting. First, it positions Samson as a "fierce destroyer"; here and elsewhere in the play it is made clear that to the Philistines, Samson is a dishonest thug who quite deserves to be taken down. Second, Dalila's speech (which is a great deal longer than the excerpt I quoted) stands as an unusual example at this time of a woman eloquently defending her controversial actions and, furthermore, describing how she will be treated as a hero. Her actions won't be seen as excusable in her country- they'll be laudable, and the public will treat her as they treat their male heroes.


After she leaves, the Philistine warrior Harapha visits Samson to taunt him (again, he describes Samson as "A murderer, a revolter, and a robber" (1180)) and Samson's response, in spite of his blindness, is to challenge him to a duel. Harapha replies:

With thee a man condemned, a slave enrolled,
Due by the law to capital punishment?
To fight with thee no man of arms will deign. (1224-1226)

This is the principle rule of the seventeenth-century duel in a nutshell. Harapha could have quite easily agreed to fight with Samson, and he certainly believes that he would win if they did fight. However, even though Harapha is officially a man of the Old Testament, he is for all other purposes a thoroughly modern post-Renaissance gentleman whom convention prevents duelling with someone of a lower social status. It is not even that he feels compassion for Samson's impoverished condition; rather, Samson is beneath his notice, and to duel with him would be to indicate to the rest of society that they could interact as equals, thus compromising Harapha's own social standing.


Anyway, I haven't finished reading the play yet but I'm very pleased with what I've got out of it so far. Looking forward to reading the rest tomorrow.