Heroic contradictions: Samson and the death of Turnus.(John Milton's 'Paradise Lost' and 'Samson Agonistes')(Critical essay)

At key moments in both of his epics, Milton seems to reject the type of heroism traditionally associated with the epic genre. In Paradise Lost 9 he dismisses tales that glorify destructive passions such as:

 
  the wrauth 
  Of stern Achilles on his Foe pursu'd 
  Thrice Fugitive about Troy Wall; or rage 
  Of Turnus for Lavinia disespous'd .... (14-17) (1) 

His epic will celebrate instead "the better fortitude / Of Patience and Heroic Martyrdom" (9, 31-32). In Paradise Regain'd, the Son similarly claims

 
  They err who count it glorious to subdue 
  By Conquest far and wide, to over-run 
  Large Countries, and in field great Battels win, 
  But rob and spoil, burn, slaughter, and enslave 
  Peaceable Nations .... (3, 71-76) 

True glory is achieved only "By deeds of peace, by wisdom eminent, / By patience, temperance" (91-92). The Son admits that he went through a stage when "victorious deeds / Flam'd in my heart, heroic acts ...." (1,215-16). But this was a youthful phase, which he left behind as he matured and realized that it was "more humane, more heavenly first / By winning words to conquer willing hearts, / And make perswasion do the work of fear" (1,221-23). In Paradise Lost, it is Satan who plays the part of the conventional epic hero, which the Son rejects for a higher form of heroism. (2) While the War in Heaven was fought in the old classical heroic mode, the apocalyptic battle between good and evil will take a more spiritual form. As Michael (himself a fierce warrior in book 6) tells Adam, the final conquest will be achieved not through a big bashout "Duel" (12,387) but "by obedience and by love"(403).

For many modern readers, who share the Son's distaste for military glory, Milton's apparent denunciation of brutality masked as valor seems reassuring. But this has created problems for reading Samson Agonistes. Milton's tragic figure is in many ways a throwback to the epic hero driven by "wrauth" or "rage," that his epics had denounced. Recent criticism of the play has been increasingly split. Some readers have seen Samson's final act as proof of his recovery of his insight and his fulfillment of God's plan, and Samson himself as "a hero of faith" who "secures his people's salvation by sacrificing his own life." (3) Yet others have been more suspicious of Samson's last bloody act, and suggested that Milton means us to denounce, not applaud, Samson's actions. John Carey's recent and controversial comparison of Samson to a suicide bomber is an extreme version of a long-standing deep discomfort with this type of hero that readers of Milton, and indeed of the Old Testament original, have often felt. (4) As Joseph Wittreich argues, while many readers have assumed that drama traces the "reconstruction" of the hero, it is equally possible to read it as showing the "deconstruction of Samson's supposed heroism." (5)

It is not unusual, of course, for heroes to be complex and even contradictory. Homer's heroes, Achilles and Odysseus, have generated conflicting interpretations. Achilles's behavior in the Iliad may be read either as the just resentment of a magnanimous soul who rightfully felt himself impaired, or as the sulky tantrum of a spoiled goon. While Odysseus was often allegorized as the wise man, to the Romans especially his wisdom was nothing but sneaky Greek cunning. Hercules, an important model for Samson, has always been especially ambiguous: the manly laborer who cleans the world of evils, the narrower of hell who is ultimately deified, is also a cross-dresser, madman, and murderer. (6) These heroes were not simply accepted as ideals for imitation. The morality of their actions was debated in Renaissance theoretical discussions of classical characters (which raise the question too of whether or not the hero should be perfect) and in literary revisions of the epics, which often tried to rewrite central characters to resolve some of these ambiguities. (7) It is typical of Milton that while he recalls classical heroes, even to denounce them, he never simplifies them, but elaborates their complexity.