Abstract
I should like to return briefly to Donatello’s fifteenth-century sculpture, The Prophet Jeremiah (see figure 1.4). Donatello’s light yet powerful sculpture presents a statesman who stands upright, holding a paper or a small book in his left hand (perhaps one of the books he has composed), his right arm and part of his chest uncovered as he is draped in a long, flowing cloak, an icon out of classical antiquity. No melancholy subject here, he bears himself nobly, remaining proud and defiant even, we might assume, as the people do not heed his call and as Jerusalem falls. Knowing of Milton’s own sense of pride and defiance, we might imagine he would naturally fashion the self after this type of Jeremiah. A prophet, after all, is a politician. But the biblical Jeremiah is not this type of politician. Nor is Milton, who believed the English, like the Israelites before them, betrayed themselves into bondage. Like Jeremiah and like Samson—a biblical politician who happened to be a warrior—Milton placed the blame on the English people themselves. He probably did not feel he had failed in his duties, yet he must have wondered about the effectiveness of a prophet or a judge to whom few listen. He must have recognized, as well, that Jeremiah and Samson themselves are not blameless for their own failures.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Kenneth Clark, Civilisation: A Personal View (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1969), 121–23.
Mary Ann Radzinowicz, Toward “Samson Agonistes”: The Growth of Milton’s Mind (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1978), 269–70 n.l.
On the regenerative reading of Samson Agonistes, see John M. Steadman, “‘Faithful Champion’: The Theological Basis of Milton’s Hero of Faith,” Anglia 77 (1959), 13–28;
Mary Ann Radzinowicz, “Eve and Dalila: Renovation and Hardening of the Heart,” in Reason and the Imagination: Studies in the History of Ideas, 1600–1800, ed. Joseph A. Mazeo (New York: Columbia UP, 1962), 155–81;
Don Cameron Allen, The Harmonious Vision: Studies in Milton’s Poetry (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins P, 1954), 82–94, on “Christian despair” and Samson’s regeneration;
Geogia Christopher, Milton and the Science of the Saints (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1982), 225–54, on “the legend of a Hebrew hero who is an honorary puritan saint.”
Ashraf H. A. Rushdy, The Empty Garden: The Subject of Late Milton (Pittsburgh: U of Pittsburgh P, 1992), 292–306. Rushdy aligns himself with the following critics:
G. A. Wilkes, “The Interpretation of Samson Agonistes,” Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. XXXIV (1963), 363–79;
Irene Samuel, “Samson Affonistes as Tragedy,” in Calm of Mind, ed. Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr. (Cleveland: Case Western Reserve UP, 1971), 235–57;
Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr., Interpreting “Samson Agonistes” (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1986);
John Carey, Milton (London: Evans Brothers, 1969);
Stanley Fish, “Spectacle and Evidence in Samson Agonistes” Critical Inquiry, vol. XV, no. 3 (Spring 1989), 556–86. Rushdy disagrees with the regenerative-reading critics who “misconstrue Milton’s theological claims for the process and effects of regeneration and misread Milton’s play to make it fit this misconstructed theological pattern” (293). Such critics offer a theory “based not only on a misreading of the play but also on a commensurate misconstruction of Milton’s doctrine of regeneration” (296). Rushdy, therefore, views “with skepticism such enthusiastic, because ill-informed, arguments as Morris Freedman’s that Samson’s ‘newstrength is, simply, self-generated, self-controlled.’ This is simply untrue to Milton’s doctrine and his drama” (297). (For Freedman’s argument see “Waiting for Samson: The Modernity of Samson Agonistes” Milton Quarterly 13 [1979], 42–45.) Rushdy asserts “that because of Samson’s failure in transforming his ‘self into a subject of God, a failure caused by his inability to employ his reason in the act of self-knowledge, he loses his agential liberty and becomes, instead, subject to God” (281); Samson’s faith is “puerile…at best” (295); “Samson is incapable of rousing himself to unwavering faith,” and he cannot “act” properly because he has lost ‘reason’“ (295–96). What we are faced with in this reading is a “late Milton” who, when he writes Samson Agonistes, stumbles egregiously—assuming Milton did not intend to present a Samson as unattractive and unenlightened as Rushdy’s Samson.
Joseph Anthony Wittreich, Jr., Visionary Poetics: Milton’s Tradition and His Legacy (San Marino: Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery, 1979), 51–52.
William Kerrigan, The Prophetic Milton (Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1974), 201, 202.
John C. Ulreich, Jr., “‘Beyond the Fifth Act’: Samson Agonistes as Prophecy,” Milton Studies 17 (1983), 284.
Jackie Di Salvo, “‘The Lord’s Battels’: Samson Agonistes and the Puritan Revolution,” Milton Studies 4 (1972), 39–62.
Laurence Sterne and Harold H. Kollmeier, A Concordance to the English Prose of John Milton (Binghamton: Medieval & Renaissance Texts & Studies, vol. 35, 1985), 14.
Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, “Milton’s Samson and the ‘New Acquist of True [Political] Experience,” Milton Studies 24 (1989), 235.
Copyright information
© 2014 Reuben Sánchez
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sánchez, R. (2014). “With New Acquist / of True Experience”: The Failed Revolutionary in the Letter to Heimbach and Samson Agonistes . In: Typology and Iconography in Donne, Herbert, and Milton. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137397805_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137397805_6
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-48508-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-39780-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)