Feb 23 2010
The Footnote
For this post I figured I’d tackle the most subtle, perplexing aspect of Ishmael’s narration: the foot note. What is the purpose of the footnote in Moby Dick? What are these pesky, little creatures that pop up at the bottom of the sea?
Since nobody else has the time and patience, I did an exhaustive search of the book and counted a total of 17 footnotes (if anyone wants to challenge me on this matter please go ahead).*
Footnotes typically belong to the phylum of non-fiction, in which case they are added by the author, or in an antiquated or translated work of fiction, in which they are added by an editor or translator, like in my Norton ed. of The Brothers Karamazov.
So does Meville revolutionize the footnote by employing it in Moby Dick?
At first glance, they seem to be nothing out of the ordinary, often giving the appearance of explaining dry, technical details. In fact, this could have added to the early mis-categorization of the book as a novel about cetology. In the chapters Cetology and The Right Whale’s Head, they are used to give further insight on the categorization and anatomy of whales, backing up the perception that the book is primarily about whales. However, as often with Melville, this soon proves not to be the case. In the chapter The Whiteness of the Whale, the footnote recalls personal observations and memories, giving the appearance of a travel narrative. Others explain the meaning of mariner terms and other aspects of whaling life to land-locked, tight-lipped readers, in which case they could also be a satire for the travel narrative he felt he had outgrown. Melville certainly takes as much creative license with footnotes as he does with other narrative and stylistic forms in Moby Dick.
There are many other types of footnotes in Moby Dick:
Humorous footnotes that give color to the text:
The monkey-rope is found in all whalers; but it was only in the Pequod that the monkey and his holder were ever tied together. This improvement upon original usage was introduced by no less a man than Stubb, in order to afford the imperilled harpooner the strongest possible guarantee for the faithfulness and vigilance of his monkey-rope holder. (Signet, 311)
Feminist-footnotes:
When by chance these precious parts in a nursing whale are cut by the hunter’s lance, the mother’s pouring milk and blood rivallingly discolor the sea for rods. The milk is very sweet and rich; it has been tasted by man; it might do well with strawberries. (376)
Elitist footnotes:
But as these pig-fish are a noisy, contemptible set, mostly lurking in the mouths of rivers, and feeding on wet hay, and especially as they do not spout, I deny their credentials as whales; and have presented them with their passports to quit the Kingdom of Cetology. (128)
Abuse of footnotes:
(See The Whiteness of the Whale)
Whatever you may make of them, or even if you skip over them, these footnotes leave us a footprint of Melville’s thought.
So, next time you stumble upon a footnote in the text, stop and take note. You may find something interesting.
*Compiled list of footnotes (by no means authoritative):
Signet Edition
Pg. 106,128,133,182,183,199,200,228,234,276,277,293,311,325,376,406,456,527
** I can’t count, there are actually 18
2 Responses to “The Footnote”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
A brilliant entry, Julian — thank you for counting up the footnotes and commenting on them, as they were a hugely misunderstood part of the book for many years…until, of course, our current literary period, where tons of “postmodern” authors use the footnote as a literary device both humorous and quasi-scholarly. It is as if Melville wants to poke fun at the taxonomizing nerdiness of Ishmael, who is so overly thorough in his explanations at times. I like how you yourself taxonomize the footnotes, categorizing them as humorous or feminist, which, in effect, calls attention to the ways in which Melville’s text defies categorization! Very nicely done.
It is very interesting that you chose to write about footnotes in the novel. Though they were very subtle within the context of the novel, I think they definitely had their place. I have always imagined footnotes as a way for the novel to seem “real” and make the reader believe that everything written is factual. I agree that the footnotes could be a way for Melville to poke fun at Ishmael; if thought of in that way, the footnotes really make the longer sections of the book more interesting! I also love how you divided the footnotes into different categories–it’s really amazing how Melville put thought into literally every aspect of the novel.