significant differences between Dalila and these earlier femmes fatales. Similarly, Lynch herself admits that it is difficult to see Samson as rejecting the trappings of romance in his encounter with Harapha because Samson is, after all, perfectly willing to fight the giant (232). Lynch also repeatedly assumes that the Philistines have no conception of or capacity for publicness (e.g. 70, 200, 202, 203), but there is little evidence for this. The Philistines may not be godly, but they seem to be an aristocratic republic where public speech might well have a role. And Lynch consistently sees Dalila in a highly negative light – she describes Dalila’s language, for example, as just jangling harassment (200) – despite the fact that Dalila’s final speech is one of the most compelling passages of the poem. Finally, while Lynch’s footnotes document her deep grounding in Milton criticism, she does not acknowledge as much as she might how her Arendtian approach to the poem’s climax competes with more familiar readings. Perhaps Samson’s public speech before the Danites does produce regenerate, Arendtian “appearance” in his crowning moment of violence, but the “rousing motions” that drive this moment point in other directions as well: a passionate subjectivity or a divine inspiration that have nothing to do with publicness or Arendt. This is not to claim that Lynch should subordinate her argument to these already well-known interpretations. But discussing these readings more fully would raise new possibilities, not least the possibility that Samson Agonistes does not advocate for Arendtian republicanism so much as argue for its precarity. All this is not to deny, however, the overall interest of Lynch’s Arendtian approach to Milton. As Arendt herself might observe, speech acts need not result in uniformity of opinion, and certainly Lynch’s book makes a contribution by staking out its own unique position in the current debates of Milton studies.

中文翻译：

---

英国的历史写作，1688-1830

Dalila 和这些早期的蛇蝎美人之间的显着差异。同样，林奇自己也承认，很难看到参孙在与哈拉法的相遇中拒绝浪漫的装饰，因为参孙毕竟非常愿意与巨人作战（232）。林奇还反复假设非利士人没有公开的概念或能力（例如 70、200、202、203），但几乎没有证据证明这一点。非利士人可能不敬虔，但他们似乎是一个贵族共和国，公开演讲很可能会发挥作用。林奇始终以高度负面的眼光看待达丽拉——例如，她将达丽拉的语言描述为刺耳的骚扰（200）——尽管事实上达丽拉的最后演讲是这首诗中最引人注目的段落之一。最后，虽然林奇的脚注记录了她在米尔顿批评中的深厚基础，但她并没有尽可能多地承认她的阿伦德式的诗歌高潮方法与更熟悉的读物是如何竞争的。也许参孙在但人面前的公开演讲确实在他暴力的最高时刻产生了重生的阿伦蒂亚式“外观”，但推动这一时刻的“激动人心的运动”也指向了其他方向：热情的主观性或神圣的灵感做公开或阿伦特。这并不是说林奇应该让她的论点服从于这些众所周知的解释。但是更充分地讨论这些读物会提出新的可能性，尤其是萨姆森·阿戈尼斯特斯 (Samson Agonistes) 不提倡阿伦特共和主义，而是为它的不稳定辩护。这一切都不是否认，然而，林奇对米尔顿的阿伦特方法的整体兴趣。正如阿伦特本人所观察到的那样，言语行为不一定会导致意见的统一，当然，林奇的书通过在当前的弥尔顿研究辩论中确立自己的独特地位而做出了贡献。