1. That Which Purifies us
is Contraries
Making the Irrational Choice in Milton’s Paradise Lost and
Samson Agonistes
Matthew Kwong
English 416
11/19/12

2. Kwong1
The power to choose is an important part of John Milton’s work. Characters created by
Milton are often forced to make difficult choices; readers of his work are also presented with
multiple choices, whether it is how to interpret a particular word or how to understand his ideas as a
whole. In the same way that God gave Adam and Eve the freedom to make their own choices, so
too does Milton give his readers the ability to make choices by constructing his works in such a way
that it can support multiple readings, all of which are potentially correct. Allowing the freedom to
choose consequently means that the mechanisms of making a choice are also present, as Milton
remarks of Adam in the Areopagitica: “when God gave him reason, he gave him freedom to choose,
for reason is but choosing” (Milton, Areopagitica 252). Therefore to Milton reason is akin to making
a choice, with the act of choosing being an exercise of reason; yet if reason is practiced by making
choices, this still leaves open the question of whether choices must be governed solely by reason.
For there are many instances in both Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes where choices are made
independent of reason, where the decision made appears irrational, illogical and contrary to common
sense. These apparently unreasonable choices are an important part of Miltonic reasoning in Paradise
Lost and Samson Agonistes, for they showcase the other forces behind human choice.
That Paradise Lost would contain content which defies reason is not readily apparent at first
glance. The poem is meant to be a “great argument” (Milton, Paradise Lost 1.24) which will attempt
to do “things unattempted yet in prose or rhyme” (Lost 1.16). An argument necessitates the use of
proof and evidence, which takes the form of a connected series of statements or reasons intended to
establish a position (OED); hence Milton’s purpose for ParadiseLost is to make an argument that has
yet to be attempted, through the use of reason, proof and evidence. Specifically this argument is
meant to “justify the ways of God to men” (Milton, Lost 1.26) which would again imply that Milton
intends to use reason to prove, or “justify”, the correctness of God’s actions. Yet the grand scale of
the project Milton has decided to undertake – a miniscule human being arguing on behalf of his

3. Kwong2
omnipotent creator – also raises a fundamental objection to Paradise Lost: notwithstanding his claims
of being a prophet of God, how could Milton possibly understand the ways of God, let alone justify
them to others? After all, Milton himself states in Christian Doctrine that “God, as he really is, is far
beyond man’s imagination, let alone his understanding” (Milton, Doctrine); it would appear that if
God is beyond mortal comprehension than certainly he would not need reason nor justification for
his actions. Furthermore, to justify an action means that the act in question could potentially be
construed as wrong and requires arguments to support it (Bryson, Evil 92) – does Milton see the
need to “justify the ways of God to men” because he believes God to be less than perfect in his
benevolence, a belief which is blasphemous in itself? Thus Milton’s own choice to pen his “great
argument” can be seen as contradictory to reason because it is humanly impossible to apply reasons
to God. Yet this does not necessarily mean that the argument of ParadiseLost is invalid. To reconcile
these contradictions in Milton’s argument it is important to recognize two aspects of Paradise Lost:
the justifying of God’s actions does not have to be through reason – hence Milton is not
overstepping mortal boundaries by trying to apply human reasons to the divine – and Milton is only
creating a representation of God, without assumptions of the God in Paradise Lost being one and the
same with the divine God – thus a humanly imagined God can legitimately be understood by
humans, with any criticisms of this representation of God having no direct bearing on the divine
God itself (and is therefore not blasphemous).
In Book III of Paradise Lost God himself feels the need to justify his creation of man. He
claims that man was made free, with whatever repercussions that would entail – free to stand but
also free to fall (3.99). Freedom is a major component of God’s justification, in that man was made
with the capacity to choose independently of God:
When will and reason (reason also is choice)
Useless and vain, of freedom both despoiled,

4. Kwong3
Made passive both, had served necessity,
Not me. They therefore as to right belonged,
So were created (3.108-112)
Thus the exercise of will and reason is reliant on the presence of freedom. Should will and reason
not be free they would both be made “passive” and cease to function; actions and reason driven by
anything other than themselves would be a service of necessity and would therefore not be an
appropriate obedience to God (Walker 147). God specifies directly that “reason also is choice”, in an
echo of Milton’s phrase in Areopagitica that “reason is but choosing” (252). Hence the obedience that
God requires is that which is freely chosen, through an exercise of both will and reason (Walker
148). Implicit in God’s justification of himself is that he cannot make man free without giving them
the freedom to disobey; a Hobson’s choice whereby man has freedom to obey God but not the
freedom to disobey would also qualify as serving “necessity”, in that man literally has no choice but
to obey. Yet to make man free to disobey also means accepting that man can and will disobey. True
freedom means accepting man in its entirety, both in their potential to stand but also to fall; the
choice to be free necessarily entails an act of tolerance, whereby we must choose to accept that
others may not make decisions or have viewpoints that we agree with. To tamper with freedom – in
the case of God, to make humanity incapable of disobeying – would be the end of freedom.
This principle is exemplified when Satan comes to the gates of Hell in Book II and finds his
progeny Sin in possession of the only key which can open the gates. A reasonable person may ask
why God would lock Satan into Hell but leave the key within Satan’s reach, in the possession of Sin
who is clearly disloyal to God. As Sin herself states “But what owe I to his commands above who
hates me, and hath hither thrust me down” (2.856-857). She has no reason to listen to God’s
commands, having been thrust down into the depths of Hell; thus it may appear unreasonable for
God to entrust the key of Hell’s gates to the one being he knows he cannot trust, but arguably that is

5. Kwong4
the point. Satan must be given the means of escaping – the key and lock on his side of the gates –
because to do otherwise would be to force his captivity and obedience to God’s wishes. Whether
God desires him to remain in hell or not is beside the point; God desires free obedience and
therefore Satan must be allowed the choice of whether he will remain in hell or not. Denying Satan
the ability to choose would be to violate God’s own principles of creating man free.
Ironically the same concept governing God’s entrusting of Hell’s key to Sin can also be
applied to the fall of man in Book IX, whereby Eve eats the forbidden fruit against God’s direct
commands. Though many critics have questioned why God would banish Satan to hell but leave
him with the means of escaping, interestingly the parallel concept of having a forbidden tree in the
Garden of Eden has not received similar scrutiny. Why would God create forbidden fruit in Eden, if
its only purpose is to allow Adam and Eve the means of disobeying? One possible answer is the
aforementioned principle of freedom, whereby God must give Adam and Eve the means of
disobeying in order for them to prove their obedience. Yet Satan and Sin also differ from Adam and
Eve in that the former have fallen while the latter have not; presumably God would be more
concerned with protecting Adam and Eve from falling and would therefore provide reasons as to
why they should not eat the fruit. Inexplicably however no reasons are given for God`s command,
and Eve remarks as such:
But of this tree we may not taste nor touch;
God so commanded, and left that command
Sole daughter of his voice; the rest, we live
Law to our selves, our reason is our law. (9.651-654)
God left his command as “the sole daughter of his voice” because he never explained to Adam and
Eve why this particular tree out of all the other trees in the garden is forbidden. Thus Adam and
Eve’s actions in regards to the forbidden tree are essentially devoid of reason because they only have

6. Kwong5
God’s commands to rely on. For everything else in the Garden of Eden besides the forbidden tree
Adam and Eve “live law to our selves” in that “our reason is our law”. As previously mentioned
reason is the same as choice, meaning that Adam and Eve’s choices are the law; specificallylaw is
representative of outside restriction on choice, and since Adam and Eve’s choices govern law they
are essentially devoid of restriction. The forbidden fruit is the only exception since God has imposed
a law upon their choices and is therefore the only case in which Adam and Eve’s reason is not the
law (Fish 254). Adam and Eve are expected to abstain from eating the forbidden fruit merely
because God told them to do so; the arbitrariness of the command is itself the point, meaning that
Adam and Eve are supposed to demonstrate their belief rather than reason in choosing God (Fish
270).
Belief in Miltonic terms is the stage of understanding which is above and beyond reason,
whereby individuals are supposed to use reason to evaluate all the evidence available but ultimately
make the choice which leads to God, even if God is not the most well-reasoned (Pallister 80-82).
The choosing of God despite evidence and reason serves as a demonstration of the individual’s
belief. While this may sound obtuse – indeed belief can never be wrong since the absence of reason
means it is impossible to disprove it – there are nonetheless times when choices must made through
belief rather than reason. Consider the contemporary example of comic book heroes: in the first
Spider-Man movie Peter Parker gains his powers as Spider-Man and naturally uses his powers for
good. Already there is an exercise of belief – Parker does not choose good over evil because of any
particular reasons either way, but rather out of the belief that doing good is right. Unfortunately the
citizens do not take kindly to Spider-Man and shun him irrespective of his good deeds, leading to
Spider-Man’s nemesis Green Goblin attempting to persuade Parker to team up with him as a villain.
Green Goblin has ample reasons for Parker to turn evil: if Spider-Man is going to be hated by the
citizenry anyway, why should he not benefit from his powers? Parker refuses the offer but does not

7. Kwong6
refute Green Goblin’s reasons, stating only that “it is the right thing to do”. This is an exercise of
belief: the fact that doing good “is the right thing to do” cannot be proven, cannot be supported by
evidence and is independent of reason. In contrast doing evil can be reasoned and proven; the
money gained from robbing banks and the angry newspaper articles citizens write about Spider-Man
are all evidence in support of doing evil and can be quantified and measured. Yet Parker chooses the
less well-reasoned choice out of belief, the choice he believes is correct. Hence the choice between
good and evil is one of belief and extends beyond the comic book to encompass society in general.
Conscience is a form of belief and everyday people make choices based on it – if they did not
robberies would be everywhere and no one would pay for anything, because there are reasons in
favor of not paying but no reasons in favor of paying. Adam and Eve lacked sufficient belief to
choose God regardless of reason and thus fell; likewise our own society can fall if we do not exercise
belief in our choices.
The character of Dalilah in Samson Agonistes has proven to be deeply perplexing to critics.
Readers who are aware of her depiction in the bible would recognize her as treacherous prostitute,
who sold out Samson to the Philistines and indirectly caused his death. Her representation in the
bible leaves little doubt as to her motives, since it explicitly states that Samson was literallysold out
for gold. In Milton’s version of the bible story however he reworks Samson Agonistes to allow readers
to choose; whereas the bible account does not allow reader’s a choice on how to perceive Dalilah by
directly presenting her motives, Milton is more ambiguous about her character. Samson Agonistes
does not retell the entire bible story of Samson but rather begins after Samson has been captured by
the Philistines and put in prison. Hence it is not a coincidence that the epic begins after Dalilah’s
betrayal has happened; by carefully choosing to exclude her actual betrayal, Milton prevents readers
from making an easy judgement of Dalilah based on her treachery. What he does present readers
with is a dichotomy, of Samson portraying Dalilah as a “monster” (230) and a “traitress” (725)

8. Kwong7
juxtaposed with her actual appearance within the epic as a repentant and loving wife. Thus Milton
has set up the framework for an argument regarding Dalilah’s character, with two competing and
equally relevant viewpoints that the reader will use to pass judgement on her. To judge also means to
choose, and by allowing readers the ability to judge Milton is also prompting them to choose
whether Dalilah is sincere or not.
Once Dalilah comes to seek the forgiveness of Samson, their exchange is akin to an
argument. Dalilah enters the epic dressed in luxurious garments: “that so bedecked, ornate, and gay,
Comes this way sailing Like a stately ship” (712-714). To be gay means to be happy, meaning that
her “gay” dress is unbefitting of a mourning woman seeking forgiveness and does not seem to fit
her purpose of extracting pity from Samson. Furthermore Samson would not able to see her dress
anyway since he is blind; hence her real purpose in dressing glamorously is not to impress Samson
but rather the reader who will be judging her, cementing the reader’s role as a judge for Dailah. She
employs an emotional argument in trying to justify her actions:
And what if love, which thou interpret’st hate,
The jealousy of love, powerful of sway
In human hearts, nor less in mine towards thee,
Caused what I did? I saw thee mutable
Of fancy, feared lest one day thou wouldst leave me (790-794)
Dalilah’s argument is intriguing in that she argues her actions were motivated not by a lack of love,
but too much love. She rebuts Samson’s allegation that she betrayed him out of hate – a lack of love
– and instead claims was moved to act by love “powerful of sway in human hearts”, love which
consumed her heart and was too great to resist. This “powerful” love is jealousy and her line about
“the jealousy of love” can thus be interpreted in multiple ways. Dalilah is referring to the jealousy
which results from loving Samson too much but also the jealousy of love, whereby Dalilah is jealous

9. Kwong8
of Samson’s love and whether it may be bestowed upon somebody else. Therefore her statement
that “I saw thee mutable Of fancy, feared lest one day thou wouldst leave me” serves to frame
Dalilah as a victim of intense love and jealousy for Samson, but also to shed some of the blame on
him. Samson is portrayed as inconstant, with Dalilah’s insinuation being that she only acted out of
jealousy because she realized he is “mutable of fancy” and prone to changing his affections.
Dalilah’s reasoning that she loved Samson too much is reminiscent of the closing lines in
Othello by William Shakespeare, whereby Othello states he “loved not wisely but too well”. His love
for Desdemona consumed him with jealousy, which caused him to kill his own wife and commit
suicide once he realizes his folly; thus Dalilah’s argument has precedence among previous dramatic
works. Furthermore both Othello and Samson Agonistes are defined as tragedies, with Milton stating in
the title that Samson Agonistes is “of that sort of dramatic poem which is called tragedy”. As a genre
tragedies operate on the downfall of a character which is honorable but flawed, and arguably both
Samson and Dalilah fit this description. Just like the title character of Othello, Dalilah “loved not
wisely but too well” because her love for Samson caused her to succumb to jealousy. Therefore in
naming his epic a tragedy Milton may be arguing that Dalilah is also a tragic character. Milton’s
version of Dalilah deviates from her bible counterpart because she possesses well-meaning but
detrimental love, allowing readers to make the unreasonable choice: to look beyond her betrayal of
Samson and judge her not as a conniving schemer, but rather as a tragic character that was
honorable but also flawed.
In a departure from the bible Dalilah also argues that she was not motivated by greed. She
directly refutes the bible statement that she was paid off by the Philistines: “It was not gold, as to my
charge thou lay’st, that wrought with me” (849-850). In stating so she emphasizes that her love is
not mercenary, or rather that her affections for Samson are not that which can be superseded with
gold. Her motivations are therefore more intangible: she was “adjured by all the bonds of civil duty

10. Kwong9
and of religion” (853-854), until at last“to the public good private respects must yield” (867-868).
This means that Dalilah’s previous argument about acting out of love for Samson is still valid; she
did not betray him because she did not love him, but rather it was her “civil duty” and the “public
good” which overrode her love, whereupon her “private respects” of love must yield to the
common interest. Milton casts Dalilah as a parallel to his own life serving the public good by
supporting the English republic. Just like Dalilah Milton often had to sacrifice his own interests for
civil duty, so presumably he would be supportive of Dalilah’s reasoning. The attempt to frame
Dalilah as a makeshift heroine who compromised her own good for everybody else’s would be
troubling to readers, since Dalilah is also a traitor. Yet what this contradiction shows is that
ultimately the difference between a heroine and a villainess is a matter of perspective. To the
Israelites and Samson Dalilah is a villainess, but to the Philistines she is a selfless heroine who
worked for the common good. Samson Agonistes circumvents the narrow viewpoint afforded of
Dalilah in the bible by showing that she made a difficult and selfless choice, by sacrificing her
personal love for Samson and choosing the public good over her own interests.
In contrast Samson’s heroism is harder to ascertain. Presumably he is cast as the hero of
Samson Agonistes because of his grand mission ordained from birth, to “Israel from Philistian yoke
deliver” (39); likewise the tragedy is that he divulged the secret of his strength in a moment of
weakness to Dalilah – tragic characters have flaws – and is thus “himself in bonds under Philistian
yoke” (42) rather than delivering Israel from that yoke. Yet Harapha raises an interesting argument
against Samson’s heroism even before he became blind:
For hadst thou not committed
Notorious murder on those thirty men
At Ascalon, who never did thee harm,
Then like a robber stripp’dst them of their robes? (1185-1188)

11. Kwong10
Harapha labels Samson as a criminal, not a hero. He argues that Samson committed “murder” on
thirty men who had never done any wrong to him, the insinuation being that Samson killed for the
sake of killing rather than for any justifiable cause. Nor did Samson stop at killing thirty men: he also
stripped them of their robes, an act which Harapha defines as robbery and a symbol of Samson’s
own corrupt morals. Samson replies that in a case of national interests the use of force was justified:
“my nation was subjected to your lords. It was the force of conquest; force with force Is well ejected
when the conquered can” (1205-1207). The problem with his rebuttal however is twofold. First he is
unable to directly refute Harapha’s claim that Samson targeted people who did not actually harm
him; the argument that violence was necessary because Samson’s nation was subjected by Philistine
lords broadens the conduct of a few lords to encompass the entire Philistine population, exposing a
weakness in Samson’s argument. This practice of stereotyping a nation according to the conduct of
an elite few is common among war propaganda and lends credence to the idea that Samson is
representative of a terrorist or warmonger. Another issue is apparent with his use of the word
“conquest” and how “force with force is well ejected”. The Philistines used force to conquer the
Israelites and now Samson would use force to overthrow the Philistian yoke; though their
motivations are different in the end Samson is no different from his Philistine enemies. Both insist
on using force to accomplish their objectives, but Samson has yet to realize that his goal of
delivering Israel cannot be accomplished by strength alone.
Ultimately the contradiction between Samson’s mission and his methods is a symptom of a
larger problem. The use of force to achieve salvation is self-defeating becausethe very act of using
force produces the wrong virtues (Hill 364). By using force to overthrow the Philistines Samson
produces the same virtues of brutality and cruelty that the Philistines produced in conquering Israel,
which could be a reason why the Israelites reject him as their saviour. For his part Samson believes
that the fault lies with the Israelites: “if their servile minds me their deliverer sent would not receive,

12. Kwong11
but to their masters gave me up for nought, the unworthier they” (1213-1216). This establishes a
parallel between Samson and Jesus, whereby the Messiah was sent by God to deliver mankind from
sin just as Samson was sent as a “deliverer” for Israel. Likewise it is the duty of the people to
“receive” their saviour and both Jesus and Samson were rejected by the Jews. The difference
between them lies in how they respond to this rejection. Whereas Jesus continued to work towards
saving the Jews despite their rejection of him, stating that they should not be blamed because “they
know not what they do”, Samson chalks up the Jew’s rejection of him as proof of their “servile
minds” and unworthiness. Both men are tasked with the deliverance of their people, but Jesus
realizes that to deliver people from sin means that “the true fight is fought first in the hearts of
men” (Hill 364). Physical deliverance is not enough: Jesus could destroy all temptations and even –
theoretically – destroy the source of sin by eliminating Satan himself, but that would not bring
spiritual deliverance becausehe has not won the fight within the hearts of men. Similarly Samson
has the strength to kill every single Philistine and thus provide physical deliverance for the Israelites,
but that would not turn his people away from Dagon and back to God; in fact the Israelites hate
him precisely because he tried to provide physical deliverance, tying Samson up and handing him
over to the Philistines after Samson had killed a number of Philistine people. This exemplifies the
point that the use of force is self-defeating, whereupon Samson’s victories in physical war also make
him lose the spiritual war within human hearts. To truly deliver the Israelites, Samson must choose
to move past the mindset of fighting force with force – a natural human instinct to strike back when
struck – and instead help the Israelites to make their own choice of turning back to God.
Arguably Samson succeeds in delivering the Israelites by the end of Samson Agonistes because
he adopts the model of spiritual deliverance favored by Jesus. Samson’s final act is to bring down a
building on the Philistines, killing himself and masses of other people in the process. Whereas the
bible version of the Samson story only describes the consequences of this act in terms of how many

13. Kwong12
people he killed, Milton’s version alludes to other possible outcomes besides killing people. Samson
is described as having completed his purpose: “Living or dying thou has fulfilled the work for which
thou wast foretold to Israel, and now li’st victorious” (1661-1663). Though literally the “work” that
Samson fulfilled is the slaughtering of Philistines, the statement that he fulfilled “the work for which
thou wast foretold to Israel” is ambiguous enough to suggest that since Samson was foretold by
God to deliver the Israelites, what Samson actually achieved was the deliverance of the Israeli
people. Hence Samson “li’st victorious” because in death he had completed God’s will. Exactly how
spiritual deliverance of the Israelites can result from Samson’s sacrifice is unclear, but some hints are
provided:
Find courage to lay hold on this occasion,
To himself and father’s house eternal fame;
And which is best and happiest yet, all this
With God not parted from him, as was feared,
But favouring and assisting to the end. (1716-1720)
By sacrificing himself Samson has assumed a messiah role to the Israeli people. The line “to himself
and father’s house eternal fame” does not specify exactly who “himself” and “father” is; therefore it
is possible that Samson is being cast as the son of God, sitting beside the almighty father’s throne.
As the son of God Samson would be likened to Jesus, an interpretation which is further supported
by Samson’s identity as a Nazarite – directly descended from God to deliver Israel at his behest.
That Samson has gained “eternal fame” is an allusion to the glory which he tried to obtain in life but
was only able to achieve in death. By dying and renouncing all glory Samson is heralded for his
sacrifice because he no longer desires to be glorified (Hill 364). Thus Samson becomes a hero
precisely when he stops wanting to be a hero; true heroism comes not from his killing of the
Philistines during life, but rather his self-sacrifice and self-denial in death (Bryson, Evil 89). As an

14. Kwong13
emulation of Jesus dying for humanity’s sins, Samson has likewise died for the Israelites to save
them from their sins. There is also a suggestion that Samson’s sacrifice has done what he could not
do while he was alive, by winning the battle within people’s hearts and turning the Israelites back to
God. His death and subsequent killing of the Philistines convinces the Israelites that God had not
abandoned Samson, but rather was “favouring and assisting to the end” (1719-1720). Again Samson
is likened to Jesus, in that just as the sacrifice of Jesus convinced humanity of the benevolence of
God, so too does the sacrifice of Samson convince the Israelites that their God has not forsaken
them. Thus his ultimate victory comes internally rather than externally; deliverance of the Israelites
came not from his killing of the Philistines, but rather his own choice to set aside his heroism and
demonstrate the goodness of God through self-sacrifice.

15. Kwong14
Bibliography
Bryson, Michael. ""That far be from thee": Divine Evil and Justification in Paradise Lost." Milton
Quarterly (2002): 87-105.
—. "A Poem to the Unknown God: Samson Agonistes and Negative Theology." Milton Quarterly
(2008): 22-43.
Fish, Stanley. Surprised by Sin: The Reader in ParadiseLost. London: Macmillan, 1997.
Hill, Christopher. Milton and the English Revolution. London: Faber, 1977. Book.
Milton, John. "Paradise Lost." Orgel, Stephen and Jonathan Goldberg. John Milton: The Major Works.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 356-618. Print.
Milton, John. "Samson Agonistes." Orgel, Stepen and Jonathan Goldberg. John Milton: The Major
Works. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 671-715. Print.
Pallister, William. Between Worlds: The Rhetorical Universe of Paradise Lost. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 2008. Book.
Walker, William. "Reason, Faith, Freedom in Paradise Lost." Studies in English Literature (2007): 143-
159.