The Many Faces of Samson

J. Cheryl Exum

The best actors in the world, either for tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical-historical-pastoral, scene individable or poem unlimited . . . Polonius, in , Act II, Scene II Samson: Hero or Fool? This was the topic of the conference where I first presented the ideas expressed in this essay, and, as soon as I saw this title, I thought, what an interesting dichotomy. I knew at once what my subject would be, for Samson has long struck me as a man with many faces, a man of many facets. Hero or fool? Is it a case of either–or? What about Samson as heroic fool, or foolish hero? Not to mention—as I shall do shortly—other ways of describing Samson as well. ‘Hero or Fool’, I sup- pose, is a convenient short-hand way of categorizing positive versus nega- tive evaluations of Samson, for Samson is one biblical character who has had his share of both, as the long history of the reception of the Samson narrative reveals. Indeed, David Gunn, in surveying this rich history of interpretation, seems to view ‘buffoon’ or ‘national hero’, broadly speak- ing, as the major interpretative alternatives (Gunn 2005, 230). Susan Ack- erman echoes this same dichotomy when she observes, ‘ “Heroic” is hardly the adjective that springs to mind to describe this witless lout’ (Ackerman 2000, 35). Rather than try to fit Samson in any one category, in what follows I want to consider how multifaceted Samson’s character is, not simply ‘this’ or ‘that’ but ‘this’ and ‘that’ and ‘that as well’, depending on how you look at it. I am not proposing that the faces of Samson I consider here are equally tenable, or that these are the only possibilities, and I would also note that much depends on how one defines one’s categories. What, pre- cisely, do we mean by ‘hero’? What do we mean when we say Samson is a fool? Rather than getting entangled in definitions, I find myself (perhaps unwisely) identifying with Polonius, who, in the play within the play in Hamlet, combines genres with abandon: tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral-comical, historical-pastoral, tragical-historical, tragical-comical- historical-pastoral, scene individable or poem unlimited. Similarly I am 14 j. cheryl exum willing to acknowledge many possible combinations of the labels I will be using.

Samson as Fool

I begin with Samson as fool, and with Ackerman, whom I cited above, who locates Samson’s folly in his rashness. ‘[H]e is rash’, she says, ‘to the point of being a fool . . .’ Among the examples she gives are his ‘fit of reck- less killings’ in order to pay off his wager when the Philistines answer his riddle (14:19); ‘abandoning his bride’ in spite of all the trouble he went to in order to marry her (14:19); his ‘spree of wanton destruction’, burning the fields of the Philistines, when he finds that his wife has been given to another (15:1–5); further ‘murderous rampages’ (15:8, 15–16); his fatal mistake in failing to foresee that Delilah would cut off his hair, just as she had carried out the other procedures he deceitfully claimed would rob him of his strength; and his expectation, upon awaking from sleep after his hair had been cut, that he could defend himself ‘as at other times’, 16:20 (Ackerman 2000, pp. 34–35). For my part, when I consider in what sense Samson is a fool, I think first of all of Samson as a fool for love. It is often said that Samson’s weakness is his fatal attraction to women, but actually what leads to his downfall is love. When love is not involved, Samson suffers no setbacks; indeed, he comes out the victor, as the incident with the harlot at Gaza shows (16:1–3).1 Matters are different, however, when Samson’s love is called into question, first by his Timnite wife (‘You only hate me, you do not love me’, 14:16), and then by Delilah (‘How can you say “I love you” when your heart is not with me?’, 16:15).2 To prove his love, Samson reveals his secrets—the answer to his riddle, the source of his strength—both times with disastrous results. Now one might argue that Samson could not have anticipated that revealing the riddle’s answer to the Timnite would lead to its disclosure to her countrymen, but with Delilah he has three chances to learn what she will do with the information he gives her. And yet he tells her anyway. Which leads us to another facet of Samson.

1 The Philistines use women to overcome Samson; when they do not rely on a woman’s help, as in the case with the harlot at Gaza, they do not succeed. 2 Gunn thinks that, in the case of Delilah, Samson loves for the first time (1992, 243). There is, however, no reason to assume that the narrator wants to suggest that Samson does not love the Timnite woman just because he does not mention it explicitly, since Samson answers her challenge to prove his love by telling her the answer to his riddle.