I am sending this email to my adviser with my annotated bibliography. Or, at least this is what I have so far, between now and its due date on 1 July. Maybe it’ll be longer by the time I submit it (hopefully not, for the sake of his sanity?)
The portrayal of literal blindness, particularly in relation to Samson having a noted absence of guides or aids in the text, aside from having actions and expressions narrated for him. I’ve scanned the text multiple times and was unable to find anything hinting at, say, a mobility aid, which was common in art and literature stretching back to antiquity (according to Moshe Barasch, who offers a really compelling art historian point of view about blindness). Simone Chess also wrote a really compelling piece in Recovering Disability in Early Modern England about literal portrayals of disability in literature (as opposed to metaphorical ones), and I would credit it for inspiring me to pursue this subject more seriously.
Jumping on that point, how narrative plays into the portrayal of blindness (I think I conveyed that properly). There is an interesting play on types of blindness; Samson’s literal blindness, his figurative blindness with Dalila, and the blindness of Manoa when a messenger describes the scene of his son’s death. Eyesight is unstable; just as Samson’s strength is unstable; and knowing through seeing is also unstable. I noticed on a few occasions that the language of instability, delicacy, and vulnerability pervade some speeches, and I would be interested in considering who says what in terms of disability and delicacy/instability. Pillars are also unstable.
What is a disability? What is blindness? What is blindness in early modern England and how does Samson Agonistes stack against or with it. Barasch mentions portrayals of blindness are strikingly disparaging or used to comedic effect, and there’s nothing comedic about Samson’s; though there was a difference between the blindness of a commoner (according to Barasch) and the blindness of a figure like Samson. (i.e., blind gods were majestic and respected, like Fortuna, while common people who were blind were not so respected and subject to ridicule). (according to Barasch, again)
Normalcy vs non-normalcy. I wonder what there is to say with the introduction of Harapha (a character Milton created). I fathom a giant would constitute as a non-normative body. I really think there could be something worth pursuing here.