Refutation of Meaning in Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, Sailor
Richter presents the controversy as viewing Melville’s story with two diametrically opposed perspectives; in short, was Melville’s story one of acceptance or a testament to the resistance of authority? Richter claims this centers on a reader’s estimation of Captain Vere, one of the three central figures in Billy Budd.
A reader either sees what Captain Vere has done to Billy as a hard necessity but ultimately right and morally sound (acceptance) or that he stepped far over the line of moral good when he sentenced the good sailor to death, and Melville is in fact subtly hinting at his decision’s basic unscrupulousness (testament of resistance).
A cause can be made for both opinions, acceptance or resistance, provided for on both sides by textual support from Billy Budd, Sailor. However, an argument just as strong can be made for the inconclusive nature of Melville’s tale due to it being incomplete when published.
Acceptance was a very popular way to characterize Melville’s last work when it was first uncovered and published in 1924. Joseph Schiffman of Long Island University recognizes this tendency of early writers to categorize Billy Budd accordingly: “. . .the story is usually taken as Melville’s ‘Testament of acceptance’ or, in the latest and most extended criticism, as Melville’s ‘Recognition of necessity'” (128). David Richter also addresses this tendency in his examination of Vere. It was found that the earlier the critical essay was published, the more likely it tended to support Vere’s actions and interpret Melville’s purpose as one of resignation to hard necessity and authority.
One paramount essay is entitled “Melville’s Testament of Acceptance,” by E. L. Grant Watson. Published in June 1933, this essay exemplifies the common view taken by critics in a similar time period. He starts by claiming that “Melville is no longer a rebel” (322). He follows up with this example:
It should be noted that Billy Budd has not, even under the severest provocation, any element of rebellion in him; he is too free a soul to need a quality which is only a virtue in slaves. His nature spontaneously accepts whatever may befall. When impressed from the merchant ship, the Rights of Man, he makes no demur to the visiting lieutenant’s order to get ready his things for trans-shipment. Such simple power gives him the buoyancy to override troubles and irritations which would check inferior natures. (322)
In short, because Billy is by nature an acquiescent soul, it can be interpreted that Melville, too, toned down his rebelliousness so profound in his earlier works. Watson goes on to point out that Vere is also a character that embodies “acceptance.” According to Watson, Vere accepts his responsibility as a citizen of England and a Captain underneath the King himself, and though he doesn’t wish to kill an innocent man, he accepts his responsibility in full despite what his heart tells him to do.
Watson sees, like others of his day, Vere’s call to execute Billy Budd as a woeful necessity, the lesser of two evils, but nevertheless just. Comparing Billy Budd to Melville’s earlier work, Pierre, Watson decides ” . . .the philosophy in it has grown from that of rebellion to that of acceptance . . ” (325).
Resistance is at the other end of the continuum, and some critics attest that Melville in no way advocated acceptance to such brutal authority, but by means of subtlety was attempting to convey the stark opposite-resistance to unjust laws and practices, or rebelliousness in general. Raymond G. Malbone’s short article lists several authors of critical essays who insist that resistance is indeed what Melville was advocating: Schiffman (1950), Campbell (1951), Casper (1952), Zink (1952), Whithim (1959), and Bowen (1960). It is to Schiffman’s article (which declares the resistance and irony found in Billy Budd was Melville’s true message) that this essay now turns.
Schiffman begins by stating that Melville, especially in light of his previous works, ” . . .preferred allegory and satire to straight narrative, and who, late in life turned to irony for his final attack on evil” (128). Schiffman says that Billy’s last words, “God Bless Captain Vere” (Melville 2481) have been taken by many critics to bolster their arguments that Melville’s story was about the acceptance of the realities and hardships of life, an argument he takes head-on in disproving.
His argument has merit. He gives snippets of documents written by Melville to prove that his frame of mind shortly before beginning Billy Budd was at the same disillusioned level as those of his earlier works. His point that other critics “. . .divorce Billy Budd from all of Melville’s other works in the same way that a man might search for roots in treetops” (130) is a powerful argument against the aforementioned cases for acceptance. He follows this up with mentioning that other writers of the day were as disillusioned as Schiffman believed Melville to be right before he began Billy Budd.
This argument is less convincing because of its ease to be refuted. What does one popular writer’s opinion of the age have to do with Melville’s own? And in view of Melville’s short story “Bartleby, the Scrivener,” written in 1853, one would know that that particular short story was an attack on popular writers of the day, which Melville passed off as mere copyists. Who is to say that Melville’s opinion of popular writers has not been carried with him to his old age? Knowing this, Schiffman’s argument loses ground.
Unlike the critics that propose the testament of acceptance, Schiffman finds faults with Billy’s carefree, naked innocence, making them subject to Melville’s irony as opposed to Melville’s acceptance:
Melville regards Billy fondly, admiringly in many respects, but critically. He reminds us of Billy’s limitations throughout the tale, so when Billy utters those famous words, ” God bless Captain Vere,” the reader should be qualified to evaluate those words in the mouth of the speaker. Billy is an ironic figure, as well as Captain Vere. (133)
Therefore, Billy Budd’s depiction as a jolly, good-hearted soul, sometimes plagued with a stutter, is not meant to be lightly. Billy’s shortcomings are keys to unlocking the irony of later events. According to Schiffman, Melville painted this Handsome Sailor so handsomely as to make his few faults stand out garishly.
Schiffman’s argument for the irony of Vere is perhaps the most stirring of the essay. He gives numerous examples of irony in Vere’s very character, pointing out that “A student of philosophy, he ironically rules out all inquiries into the motives for Billy’s act . . ” (133). He also says, “At heart a kind man, Vere, strange to say, makes possible the depraved Claggart’s wish-the destruction of Billy” (133).
This irony is overt in the story, but Schiffman, using the words of Charles R. Anderson, claims that even the passages in which irony is not apparent are literally doused in satirical and subtle irony. The stronger the subtlety, the stronger the message and more effective its demonstration. Schiffman attributed this to Melville’s discovery of a new literary weapon-extreme subtlety-all the while warning that his irony should not be attributed to a radical change in his thinking. Melville’s resistance to injustice is written underneath, within, and around the words of Billy Budd, by means of the astute crafting of Melville’s ironic penmanship.
The glaring problem in each of these arguments is very basic. Each of these conclusions are derived from viewing Billy Budd, Sailor as a complete work put forth into the world by an author who has worked out all the kinks through drafting. As Melville’s final story was found some 30 years after the author’s death, then reassembled for the literary community, and finally released as though it were a finished work raises some serious questions (not to mention eyebrows) concerning any final interpretation of Melville’s intent in writing it. Before exhibiting why an incomplete work cannot be properly analyzed, it is important to expel each argument of acceptance and resistance as read in the existing editions of Billy Budd, Sailor, as Melville’s intended edition can never exist.
The strong contrast between acceptance and resistance and the ambiguous nature of the story are reasons why neither is an adequate way to interpret the story. On the one hand, the story seems to encourage acceptance of authority, events, and situations we have no control over. In Captain Vere’s stirring speech on why men ought to obey the letter of the law and “let not the warm hearts betray heads that should be cool” (Melville 2473), there is an overt message that urges the men in the room to accept the heavy burden and give the inevitable verdict to Billy-one of death.
Does this speech reflect Melville’s final thoughts on authority, that one should bravely face it, regardless of its violation (or termination) of one’s life? Other examples in the text seem to point out that this is indeed the case, especially further dialogue spoken by Captain Vere. But not only does Vere seem to accept this fate, but Billy Budd also seems to come to some sort of acceptance at the end of his life, when he shouts out for God to bless the captain. So, in spite of it all, Billy seems to accept the fact that he had to die for the good of England and the Bellipotent.
Yet one can easily come back with an argument that insists that these instances were meant ironically. After all, what was Melville’s writing career but one focused on breaking outside the norms, writing what no one wanted to read, writing in spite of hostility to his work? Can a genius like Melville really do an about face at the end of his life and chide his very own past writings, thus doing away with the very potency of his genius in one single novella? The aforementioned critic, Schiffman, seems to think that the examples listed in the above paragraph are the exact reasons why Billy Budd, Sailor is an ironic tale. Why on Earth would critics list similar instances in the story yet arrive at interpretations that lay at two opposite extremities of the spectrum?
A historical digression easily explains the reason why the message of Billy Budd, Sailor seems unattainable. According to a short history of Melville’s life and works, Billy Budd was written:
. . .during the final years of his life, and though he seems to have essentially finished a draft of the novel, he never prepared it for publication. When he died in 1891, he left it in the form of an extremely rough manuscript with innumerable notes and marks for correction and revision, some in his own handwriting, some in the handwriting of his wife. (Cocola 1)
Melville either decided not to publish his work or died before completing his final story. Regardless of either, the work is incontrovertibly incomplete, and as a more proof that further explains the differing explanations of the tale is the fact that there were three different editions published, some leaving out chapters, some adding chapters. The first two editions (chronologically) had the Bellipotent named the Indomitable. If it took publishers three editions to decide to change the name of the ship, who is to say that any part of Billy Budd can be exhibited, as it commonly is, as Melville’s “final word?” Also of some interest is that the original manuscript was hidden away.
Perhaps Melville wrote it, disliked it, and decided to put it away and wash his hands clean of it. Though unlikely, this example could have very well been true. In fact, just about any scenario one could think up concerning the author’s intentions could be made to be true-just conclude that the editors should not have included a particular scene or chapter in the book, that Melville meant to take it out, and any argument may still hold. But what about marks of revision written by Melville’s own hand? Shouldn’t that point in what direction he wanted his novella to flow? Again it can never be determined, editorial marks or no, because Melville never prepared his manuscript for publication.
One critic, C.S. Duncan, still argues that Billy Budd does not suffer from structural incompleteness, and communicates his reasoning thusly: “Even a brief analysis of the structure of Billy Budd reveals a tightly woven pattern of mirror images and doubles” (89). Duncan proceeds to point out many dualities found in the story, such as the intelligence of Captain Vere and Graveling and the hatred and jealousy of Red Whiskers and Claggart, and finally rests his case by stating, “Thus Billy Budd doubles back on itself, its structural unity providing a framework for the narrator’s ‘ragged edges'” (89). This argument is easily dispelled. A story that provides numerous dualities is no more structurally sound than a house with two walls. Duality does not grant completeness.
Raymond G. Malbone said it best when he wrote, “That Billy Budd, Sailor is an unfinished work probably accounts for much of the critical disagreement regarding it” (500). To lean towards one explanation or another is a natural (and only) way for a critic to interpret a work, unless such a critic concludes that there is no (or can’t be any) meaning. Near completeness cannot be weighed equally with completeness, much as almost winning can never be viewed as a victory. Melville’s final work is unrefined and indubitably unfinished, and one must be aware that even the smallest revision or alteration can turn any story in an entirely opposite direction, which is why, sadly, Billy Budd, Sailor will never be interpretable.
Works Cited
Cocola, Jim and Phillips, Brian. SparkNote on Billy Budd, Sailor. 4 Dec. 2005 .
Duncan, C.S. “Melville’s Billy Budd, Sailor.” Explicator. Vol. 49 (1991). Issue 2. Pp. 89-92. Academic Search Premiere. December 4th, 2005 .
Malbone, Raymond G. “How Shall We Teach the New Billy Budd, Sailor?” College English. Vol. 27 (1966). No. 6. Pp.499-500. JSTOR. December 4th, 2005 .
Melville, Herman. Billy Budd, Sailor. The Norton Anthology of American Literature 1820-1865. Sixth Edition. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003. Pp. 2431-2487.
Richter, David. “Billy Budd, Sailor.” Forms of the Novella. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1981: Pp. 16-31.
Schiffman, Joseph. “Melville’s Final Stage, Irony: A Re-Examination of Billy Budd Criticism.” American Literature. Vol. 22 (1950). No. 2. Pp. 128-136. JSTOR. December 4th, 2005 .
Watson, E.L. Grant. “Melville’s Testament of Acceptance.” The New England Quarterly. Vol. 6 (1933). No. 2. Pp. 319-327. JSTOR. December 4th, 2005 .
