Moby Dick

The Epilogue is fascinating to me for a variety of reasons: partly for its sheer brevity, partly for the hint at survivor’s guilt, and also partly for what it implies about nature. The sea, which had become so violent in response to Ahab and the Pequod, is suddenly much more calm after the Pequod’s destruction. While before (in the final chapter), “[r]etribution, swift vengeance, eternal malice were in [Moby Dick’s] whole aspect” (506), after the whale destroys the ship “the great shroud of the sea rolled on as it rolled five thousand years ago” (508). This idea is described in even greater detail in the Epilogue. There, the “unharming sharks, they glided by [Ishmael] as if with padlocks on their mouths; the savage sea-hawks sailed with sheathed beaks” (509). It is incredible to describe creatures sharks, notoriously deadly creatures in most literature, as “unharming” with “padlocks on their mouths.” Suddenly, the sea is no longer a frightening and deadly place to Ishmael. In fact, it seems that fate or destiny (or perhaps nature itself) wants Ishamael to survive. It seems to me that Ishmael is implying that once nature has defeated man and his violent tendencies, it wants someone to live to tell the tale so that perhaps it might be a lesson or instruction to others. Again, this appears to link all of nature with itself; in other words, each entity and being in nature seems to communicate with each other–they all act in “concert” (like in “The Symphony”). In the Epilogue, not only is the sea now calm, but so are the sharks and “savage sea-hawks.” The balance of nature has been restored and the sea, and nature in general, continues just as it did “five thousand years ago” (508). I think the interesting implication here is that nature can (and does) exist without us, without humans, and that it will continue to do so in the future. Nature has disarmed another potential threat and will continue on in its seemingly peaceful “nature.”

I found this final section of the text quite interesting, but I still have some questions, and I am curious what other people think. Does Melville view this text as a cautionary tale, a way of warning people about attempting to destroy nature? How does fate play a role in the final section of the book? Is Ishmael correct when he attempts to make meaning of the signs he sees around him, thereby determining that his fate was to retell this tale? Or is Melville saying something about survivor’s guilt and, by extension, implying that fate isn’t really there, but is rather just our way of attempting to make meaning out of what happens in our lives?

Trackback URI | Comments RSS