The Bilby Family Blog

This is not so much a book report as an essay. I don't blog much because I never really feel like I have all that much to say since all I ever really do is school work on my time off. But that is something! Plus the purpose of this blog is to keep people up to date on what I have been up to, so I have decided to start posting some of the essays I write for class. You all might find it boring, but deal with it :). Anywho, this is the most recent one I've written. I'm not the best at grammar so there are probably a few grammatical errors, but overall I think it's a reasonably well written essay. 'Specially since I wrote it the day it was due. ENJOY!!

Also, if you'd like to read anything by John Milton, Dartmouth College has a website with all of his works. They have been annotated for your convenience as well. Here's a link:

Dartmouth Reading Room

Dalila as a Catalyst in Milton’s Play Samson Agonistes

In “The Temptation of Understanding,” an essay included in his book How Milton Works, Stanley Fish argues that he is unable to find an action or plot element within Samson Agonistes that links “the play’s two actions—Samson’s regeneration and his pulling down of the temple” (Fish 392). Also, his fall cannot be understood because there is forever the question of “why did Samson betray himself to Dalila” (Fish 392)? This question, Fish argues, is never satisfactorily answered and he goes on to say that the action in the plot that should logically take Samson from the beginning of the story to the end—Dalila’s visit—is nothing more than “a motiveless malignity, and thus the perfect complement to Samson’s causeless weakness” (Fish 402). In regards to Samson’s “weakness” he claims that referring it to God “has the effect of begging what is for the hero the central question of the play: In a world like this, what does one do” (402)? In other words if one is created to do God’s work, then how can one be sure that one is in fact doing it correctly? With this question, Fish manages to reject the God angle as an answer to why Samson is weak, because if one can never be sure of God’s intentions then one cannot argue that God is the cause. However, in a play that questions how one can know God’s intentions and then answers that question by implying that everything is God’s intent, God must be considered. Where Fish argues that the “cause/effect reasoning” of Samson Agonistes’ is not logically sequential, I will argue that it is. Milton, in using Dalila as the catalyst, successfully regenerates Samson from a dejected state where he questions his actions and God’s intentions, to a state where he is able to fulfill his predestined role of freeing the Israelites.

From early on in the play Milton’s characters argue to implicate or free from blame God in regards to Samson’s fall because they cannot understand that Samson’s current state could possibly have been Divine intention. Samson wars within himself when it comes to questioning God because for all his life he has trusted that his own actions were what God intended for him. In his current state however—blind, captive, fallen—he is unsure. Thus, in considering his weakness in telling Dalila that his strength is kept in his hair, he reasons that it his own fault and wonders “what if all foretold / Had been fulfill’d but through mine own default” (44-5). To Samson—at this point in the play—it is obvious that God would not have intended for him to err so grievously and the fault within Samson has naught to do with him. After all a blind dejected man, who has lost all of his powers cannot possibly deliver “Israel from Philistian yoke” (39). This forces one to the question however, that if God is the creator then how can he not have also created within Samson this flaw? And in his confusion, Samson moves on to implicate God. He notes that God, “when he gave [him] strength, to shew withal / How slight the gift was, hung it in [his] Hair” (58-9), and then later says that the “Vessel trusted to [him] from above, / [was] Gloriously rigg’d” (199-200). In other words, God sets Samson up to fall. Putting his strength in his hair makes it fragile and easily attacked, or shorn off as is the case. To make matters worse, Samson’s body has a flaw that makes him susceptible to the wiles of women. This can only mean of course that God intended for him to betray “the secret gift of God / To a deceitful Woman” (201-02) all along. The Chorus, not ready yet to believe that God would purposefully create someone to sin as a means of ensuring that his Divine plans will be enacted, reprimands Samson for making God culpable and tells him to “tax not divine disposal” (210). Thus, Samson, not able to blame God, and stating that Dalila “was not the prime cause” (234), reverts back to his original claim that he himself is to blame. However, the question remains: if God is the creator, then didn’t he also create Samson’s flaw? It is at this point in the play, with God still unaccounted for, that Dalila enters the play.

Dalila’s main role in this play is to debunk Samson’s previous reasoning as to why he succumbed to Dalila and fell by using his own arguments against him. She begins with an explanation that her “rash but more unfortunate misdeed” (747) is a common female weakness, not unlike the “weakness” Samson claims at the onset of the play when he states that the “seal of silence [he] could not keep, / But weakly to a woman must reveal it” (49-50). In result to this, Samson, who cannot—by virtue of the Bible—be like Dalila, must discard his claim to weakness because as Dalila has successfully demonstrated, anyone can make that plea. Samson decides that “all wickedness is weakness: that plea therefore / With God or Man will gain thee no remission” (834-35). Thus, Samson can no longer claim that his sin was caused by weakness because it is not a valid excuse. God will not forgive it and with weakness cast aside, Dalila tackles Samson’s uncertainty over his actions and God’s intentions.

Dalila compares her motivations to Samson’s and reveals that “the Priest / Was not behind, but ever at [her] ear, / Preaching how meritorious with the gods / It would be to ensnare an irreligious” (857-60). This can be directly correlated to the heroic life of Samson. If not already aware of Samson’s history, the Chorus brings it to the attention of the audience when it questions whether this “can this be hee, / That Heroic, that Renown’d, / Irresistible Samson?...The glory late of Israel” (124-26, 179). Here, the Chorus is relaying that Samson was a man to be admired, a savior. After all, Samson is the chosen one whose “birth from Heaven foretold / Twice by an Angel” (23-4). This idea forces Samson to question how he could have been so wrong as to misunderstand what God had planned for him. He did everything he thought God wanted of him, but instead of the glory predestined, “many evils have enclos’d [him] round” (194). However, with Dalila to compare himself to, someone who has been told just as he has, that to betray the “irreligious” would be estimable, he is forced to rethink his previous notion. Was he not going to betray Dalila for his people and his God, just as she betrayed him? Isn’t that the reason he married two Infidel women because “what [he] motion’d was of God; [he] knew / From intimate impulse” (222-23). This creates a problem though since Dalila is the enemy and therefore her actions cannot be godly. Thus Samson reckons they were done “in feign’d Religion, smooth hypocrisie” (872). He goes on to reason that “zeal mov’d [her]” (895), not Divine intent, and that furthermore, her gods are “gods unable / To acquit themselves and prosecute their foes / But by ungodly deeds, the contradiction / Of their own deity, Gods cannot be” (896-899). Samson is implying that Dalila’s gods are false gods which means that no longer can he call into question his actions or wonder if they were Divinely intended, because they must have been. If they were not, then his god is also a false god. In this instance then, as with the previous claim of weakness, Dalila fails to convince Samson that they are alike in their actions. All she manages to do is to help reinstate his notion that he is indeed God’s tool. This then is the catalyst for Samson’s regeneration. Through Dalila, he is able to remove the veil that was dropped over his eyes (note his blindness), and see that his actions—including his inherent flaw which caused him to fall—and their results were God’s intent. Thus, although Samson may still be blind, no longer is the “work of God to [Samson] extinct” (70). Dalila has effectively aided Samson in regaining his self-assurance, some strength, and most importantly his unquestioning faith in God. Because Samson questioned God though, however briefly, it is necessary for him to adhere to his religious laws.

When the first messenger appears and tells Samson that the Philistian Lords require “some public proof” (1314) of his extra-human strength, Samson automatically answers in the way his religious laws demand: No. He does not question, just outright refuses. The Chorus however, implies that perhaps Samson should not be so hasty in his refusal because he is still their slave and as such will be forced to serve “the Philistines, / Idolatrous, uncircumcis’d, unclean” (1363-64) anyways. Samson explains that there is a difference between “vaunting [his] strength in honour to thir Dagon” (1360) and the “honest and lawful” (1365) labor he would undergo as their slave, and according to his religious laws, the former act God would never forgive, but the latter he would. The Chorus however explains that “where the heart joins not, outward acts defile not” (1368). In other words, it does not matter the action; if one’s heart is not in it, if one is forced into it, then one will not be defiled. Samson argues that he is not being forced into performing these feats of strength though because the “the Philistian Lords command. / Commands are no constraints” (1371-72). Thus, if Samson consented to perform at Dagon’s Temple, then he would be doing it “freely; venturing to displease / God for the fear of Man…which in his jealousie / Shall never, unrepented, find forgiveness” (1373-76). Because the product of Dalila’s visit however, was not merely to reinforce Samson’s trust in his religion, but also in the “intimate impulses” he receives from God, he recalls an opinion voiced earlier in the play by the Chorus: God’s “own Laws he can best dispence” (314). Samson moves on to reason that since God has dispensed of his laws in the past—such as when he “motion’d” (222) that Samson should marry the woman from Timna—why should this instance be any different? This opinion, initially ignored and thus dismissed by Samson, can now be accepted. Samson thus, reasons that God “may dispense with [him] or thee / Present in Temples at Idolatrous Rites / For some important cause, thou needst not doubt” (1369-79). With this in mind, Samson reassuredly goes with the messenger without fearing that he will dishonor his God or his religion. He claims that “this day will be remarkable in my life / By some great act, or of my days the last” (1384-89). Thus, it can safely be assumed that a regenerated Samson is now ready to pull down the temple.

Milton’s play, Samson Agonistes, successfully links “the play’s two actions—Samson’s regeneration and his pulling down of the temple” (Fish 392) by using Dalila as the catalyst. To see this however, God must be implicated as the cause. Fish who dismisses God as questionable, fails to see the logically sequential “cause/effect reasoning” of Milton’s play. At the onset of the play Samson’s faith in his deeds and what he thought were Gods intentions, is in question. Dalila comes to visit, and through her attempts to “debase [Samson] / And aggravate [his] folly” (999-1000), she is instead able to reinforce Samson’s unquestioning belief in God and his religion and therefore reassure him that his actions were indeed the intentions of God. Through his restored faith Samson is once again able to act on one of his “intimate impulses” and fulfill his destiny by freeing his people. Thus, through Dalila, Samson is once again able to find stable ground and reassuredly do Gods work.

[Not included in the essay that I turned in, but something that would be interesting to further consider, is why John Milton’s play, Samson Agonistes, portrays Samson in this light. Samson’s regeneration is ridiculous. The fact that Samson is able to regain his strength and purpose merely because God and his religious laws say that he cannot be like Dalila (though he is in all respects) is hypocritical, and it is no accident that Milton implies this. Also, something to consider would be why does Milton write the main action of the play (Samson’s pulling down of the temple) to take place off stage? Everything that Samson accomplishes is by word of mouth only, and other main characters do not actually see what happens. This parallels the idea that history is written by the victors, not the losers. In other words, are the accounts accurate? Was it really “God’s intent” or the intent of the people? And furthermore, how can you be sure? Thus, I would probably argue that Milton’s intent was to speak out against the Catholic Church and the problems he saw within it. Through a close reading of this play and others written by him, one can easily see that although Milton was a Christian, he saw many problems within the church that needed fixing.]

Works Cited

Fish, Stanley. How Milton Works. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001. 391-405.
Milton, John. "Samson Agonistes." The Riverside Milton. Ed. Roy Flannagan. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co, 1998. 784-844.

I don't know how to copyright my essays, but I am claiming that it is!! This is copyrighted by Olivia Bilby.

Thanks for inviting me to play! I've been wanting to do one of these tag things for ages!

What is your husband's name: Neil
How long have you been married: 5 years as of the 21st of this month.
How long did you date before you got married: About a year and a half.
Who eats more: He eats a tiny bit more than I do, but stays way thinner. I eat faster than he does.
Who sings better: We both sing pretty well. I am the section leader for the sopranos in our choir, and he is the tenor section leader. I've been singing way longer though.
Who is smarter: I dunno. Sometimes I think I am, but then he comes along and shows me up completely out of the blue. I learn faster, but he has a much better memory.
Whose temper is worse: I think mine, but both of us are pretty darned mellow.
Who does the dishes: me, usually, unless I am sick. He will help me unload without my even asking him...which is huge in my book.
Who pays the bills: I do. I do everything on-line. If it were up to Neil, it would all be paper and pen, and I hate it that way.
Who cooks dinner: me. Neil can cook a mean frozen pizza. Nevertheless, I make him get all the meals on Fridays, which means we go out to eat. Yah!
Who drives when you are together: Mostly Neil. He is an excellent navigator, and cannot read in the car, so he prefers it that way. I read out loud to him when we are on long trips, which he likes.
Who is more stubborn: Sometimes I think I am, but on some things, Neil just won't budge an inch. He's like my dad that way...he smiles and agrees but then does it his way anyway.
Who is the first to admit when they are wrong: me, because I can't stand it when I've done anything to hurt Neil.
Whose parents do you see the most: His folks. They are right up there in OK. My dad won't fly anymore, so we have to save to go see him.
Who kissed who first: Neil
Who asked who out first: He asked me out to lunch at Romano's.
Who proposed: Neil. He took me to Palo Duro Canyon for a picnic, and he proposed then. Very old fashioned.
Who is more sensitive: When it comes to other people, I guess I am the one who is more easily bugged, when it comes to each other, he is the more sensitive.
Who has more friends: We both have a ton of friends, church, dance and band. They're all mutual friends, so it works out very nicely.
Who wears the pants in the family: I don't wear pants much anymore. Neil makes the final decisions about big money purchases. He is not a pushy man, but I defer to him.
Where did you meet your husband: at a contra dance. He was the first man to ask me for a dance, at the very first contra dance I attended in Denton.
Where was your first date: Romano's Macaroni Grill.
What was the first thing you said to your husband: He asked me if I would like to dance, and I said I would love to.
Where was your first kiss: At my old house in West Plano.
Where did you get engaged: Palo Duro Canyon.
Where were you married: St. Barnabus Episcopal Church, Garland, Texas.
How did your reception go: Everything went well. Good cake, my girls all looked gorgeous, and we had a wonderful dinner out at my friends' Elizabeth and Ron's house.
Where was the honeymoon: We went to a bed and breakfast in Dallas that had the most awesome food and afterwards drove to an annual dance weekend in Dennison, TX on Lake Texoma.
If you could have changed anything about it, what would it have been: Nothing. Great food, great dancing, all of our friends there.
Editor's note: I would have changed something! I would have made sure Livvy's boyfriend, Nick stayed away from the green beans almondine!!