Reflection: Three Blind Men: John Milton’s Samson in Samson Agonistes, Shakespeare’s Gloucester in K
Through the pain and suffering caused by physical blindness, John Milton’s Samson in Samson Agonistes, Shakespeare’s Gloucester in King Lear, and Sophocles’ Oedipus in Oedipus come to address the “metaphorical blindness” which ultimately leads to each of their tragic ends. Beyond this connection, I have noticed another interesting theme shared by these three great works: within each text exists there exists a constant tension between free will and fate. Milton, Shakespeare, and Sophocles explore the theme of the freedom of human action in relationship to the decrees of God/the gods in order to better understand human nature.
While still an infant, it is prophesied that Oedipus would grow up to murder his father and marry his mother. Despite his father’s attempts to thwart the will of the gods by leaving his infant son for dead, Oedipus grows up to fulfill the prophecy. Samson’s parents also receive a prophecy concerning the fate (or divine plan, if we prefer a more Judeo-Christian word) of their infant son. In the beginning of Samson Agonistes Samson declares, “[M]y birth from Heaven [was] foretold/Twice by an Angel” (23-4). Unlike Oedipus, who clearly fulfills the terms of his prophecy, Samson struggles to see how his life could be used to fulfill the great plans God has promised for him given the poor decisions that he has made. Though the kind of overt prophecy like those found in Oedipus and Samson Agonistes is not utilized by Shakespeare in King Lear, there is a definite sense, at various parts in the play, that the lives of human beings are subject to the cold, uncaring will of fate. In a famous line from the play, Gloucester says, “As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods./They kill us for their sport” (4.1.43). Each of these stories beg the question: how much freedom do human beings really have?
Ultimately, Sophocles, Shakespeare, and Milton all conclude that human beings possess the agency to make their own decisions. And because we are not mindless pawns, we are responsible for our actions. The prophecy that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother was not set it stone; the prophecy was fulfilled because Oedipus chose to continue walking along the path of his own destruction. Gloucester (and King Lear) foolishly casts out his good and faithful son because he chooses to trust information given to him that has not been verified. The outcome of both of these men’s lives could have been very different if they had made different choices. Milton, of course, is the champion of liberty. (He emphasizes the notion of free will in his work possibly more than any other writer I have ever encountered or ever will encounter again.) Samson, like Gloucester and Oedipus (though Oedipus to a lesser extent than Samson or Gloucester), realizes that his suffering is the result of his own decisions. He does not blame Dalila, and he does not (ultimately) blame God.
Though the theme of free will is sensical within the logic of Shakespeare’s King Lear, Sophocles’ Oedipus, Milton’s Samson Agonistes, I wonder if these authors do not, perhaps, overemphasize human agency—especially Milton. I am not advocating a rigid, deterministic view toward the course of people’s lives; people do, in fact, have the ability to make choices and are responsible for the outcomes of these choices. But to say that there are not forces, spiritual, sociological, or otherwise, that affect one’s ability to make decisions or the outcomes of these decisions, or to even imply that this is the case, is simply unrealistic and inaccurate. There are forces from the outside that work to shape who we are and what we do. Because the disciples of psychology and sociology were not developed until the end of the 1880s, I am not frustrated or upset with Milton, Shakespeare, or Sophocles for failing to understand/account for the impact of these forces on our free will. However, as critical contemporary reader, it is important, I think, to keep the impact of social and psychological forces on the individual in mind when considering areas of human existance such as ethics or ontology.
Works Cited
Milton, John. “Samson Agonistes” The Riverside Milton. Ed. Roy Flannagan. First ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1998. 802-844. Print.
Shakespeare, William. "King Lear." The Necessary Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. Third ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. 662-709. Print.
Sophocles. "Oedipus." Vol. 1. Literature of the Western World. Ed. Brian Wilke and James Hurt. Firfth ed. N.p.: Prentice Hall, 2001. 2 vols. 744-791. Print.