Moby Dick

Anyone who has had minimal exposure to greek literature in their lifetime will be familiar with the term “Hubris”.  It is most typically referring to those Greek tragedies in which the main character, likable or not, is brought down by his own haughtiness, oftentimes by the gods themselves.  The most memorable characters involved in these sorts of stories would of course be Odysseus, Oedipus and Icarus, but many others were brought down alongside these men.  Greek historian Herodotus summarizes the idea of hubris in the following passage:

Seest thou how God with his lightning smites always the bigger animals, and will not suffer them to wax insolent, while those of a lesser bulk chafe him not? How likewise his bolts fall ever on the highest houses and the tallest trees? So plainly does He love to bring down everything that exalts itself. Thus ofttimes a mighty host is discomfited by a few men, when God in his jealousy sends fear or storm from heaven, and they perish in a way unworthy of them. For God allows no one to have high thoughts but Himself. (Wikipedia)

Now, anyone who has gotten up through chapter 36 in Moby Dick must surely see the parallels this statement has with our favorite captain, and as the novel progresses, Ahab only digs himself in deeper and deeper:  “Talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me…. Who’s over me?” (Melville 178).  This does not bode well for the ship, as Starbuck realizes: “God keep me!-keep us all!” (179).  Although perhaps Melville did not write his story after the model of the greek tragedy, that doesn’t mean that he won’t rely on a similar storyline; for what story of hubris would be more relevant to Melville than that of Jonah?  As the bible states, “But the LORD provided a great fish to swallow Jonah” (Biblegateway Jonah 1:17).  So, there is a biblical predecessor to Moby Dick involving both a whale and a man that defies God… it seems that Starbuck was quite founded in his fears. 

Ahab’s hubris is brought on and enhanced by the  impenetrable greatness that Moby Dick possesses as a figure.  In his first unfortunate encounter with the whale, the discrepancy in the power of these two characters could not be more obvious:

His three boats stove around him, and the oars and men both whirling in the eddies; [Ahab], seizing the line-knife from his broken prow, had dashed at the whale… blindly seeking with a six inch blade to reach the fathom-deep life of the whale…. And then it was… Moby Dick had reaped away Ahab’s leg, as a mower a blade of grass in the field. (Melville 199)

Ahab attacks the whale with a pitiful 6-inch knife, crazily hoping to reach the beast’s “fathom-deep life”, and Moby Dick cleaves his leg “as a mover a blade of grass”-and all this after Ahab has experienced the disgraceful destruction of his fleet.  As a result of his loss to the whale, Ahab finds himself mentally altered:

[Ahab] at last came to identify with [Moby Dick], not only all his bodily woes, but all his intellectual and spiritual exasperations…. All the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visible personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick. (Melville 200)

And so manifests the “mask” that Ahab refers to (178), and the aporia we referred to in class; Ahab feels that he is kept from some greater truth due to the continued existence of this whale, and by finding this blockage “assailable,” he will most likely stop at nothing to rid himself of this elusive foe.

Although one might prefer to think that in his crazed delirium, perhaps Ahab could never lead his ship to this whale, there is further evidence of their intertwined rivalry in Ahab’s leg-for rather than wood or any other substance that he could have used to replace his missing limb, Ahab chooses whale ivory, intertwining in his very physical being the manifestation for what is to come. 

Works Cited:

“Hubris.” Wikipedia. Wed. 2 Feb. 2010. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubris>

“Jonah 1.” BibleGateway. Web. 2 Feb. 2010. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jonah%201&version=NIV>

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. Northwestern University Press, 1988. Reissued 2003. Print.

In the chapter, “The Specksynder,” (sorry for going back in the text, I just thought this was an interesting place to comment on Melville’s notion of work/slavery) Melville discusses a job lacking on the Pequod, which is that of the Specksynder. Considering the Specksynder’s role of splitting the leadership of the whaling vessel with the captain, it is not surprising that Melville left the position out of his novel. With a Specksynder around, someone would have been able to put Ahab’s dangerous aspirations at bay, being in control of the part of the ship that directly relates to Ahab’s goal of hunting and killing Moby Dick. Ahab embodies the absolute ruler of the ship in this respect further, as he has his own secret crew set aside for the killing of the great, white whale. Melville, makes readers aware of the potential Specksynder as a foil for how Ahab handles the whale-hunting portion of his crew, which is with the utmost control, as there is no better way to make something all yours than by making it your secret.
Melville’s description of the Specksynder also serves as a foil for Ahab himself. Ahab hides out below deck for the beginning of the voyage, separating himself from the crew as much as possible, and when he ascends he remains aloof, unless he is clearly exhibiting his power over the ship through a “team rallying” session in “The Quarter-Deck.” Melville writes of the Specksynder, on the other hand:

…therefore, the grand political maxim of the sea demands, that [the Specksynder] should nominally live apart from the men before the mast, and be in some way distinguished as their professional superior; though always, by them, familiarly regarded as their social equal.

Ahab’s behavior certainly does not conduce social equality with his crew on the Pequod. Also, in keeping with the metaphor of the Pequod as the nation from which it set sail, the absence of the Specksynder is very telling. Without this position, there is no real bridge between the absolute authority of the boat (the nation) and the crew (the people, or the slaves, as they are trapped on Ahab’s boat and thus slaves to his will). One could argue that the mates could serve such a purpose, but, alas, they remain under the absolute authority of the captain. Thus, (hopefully this is not too much of a stretch) such laws as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 are allowed to pass in America because there is no social arbiter, really, between the political authorities and those whom the laws most affect, i.e. the slaves, just as the crew cannot avoid Ahab’s dangerous mission now that they are on his craft. In Moby Dick, perhaps Melville tries to emphasize the political importance of the position of the Specksynder, as such is needed to keep the government from ruling over the lowliest of men without the latter’s best interests in mind.

Chapter thirty-two in Herman Melville’s Moby Dick deals exclusively with Ishmael’s own categorization system for whales.  Throughout this chapter, Ishmael tells the reader everything he has experienced or has heard of that would be useful in distinguishing whales from one another.  Yet, the most common piece of knowledge is that whales are largely a mystery.  Ishmael begins the chapter with quotations regarding this mysteriousness, this “ impenetrable veil covering our knowledge of the cetacea” (126).  Despite this grounding in mystery, Ishmael goes on to provide the reader with his own set of classifications for the whale.  These are based largely on size and then appearance.  Within these divisions, whales are discussed regarding their value to whalers, primarily the value of their oil.  However, he also comments on whales’ sociability:

The Fin-Back is not gregarious.  He seems a whale-hater, as some men are man-haters.  Very shy; always going solitary; unexpectedly rising to the surface in the remotest and most sullen waters; his straight and single lofty jet rising like a tall misanthropic spear upon a barren plain; gifted with such wondrous power and velocity in swimming, as to defy all present pursuit from man; this Leviathan seems to be the banished and unconquerable Cain of his race, bearing for his mark that style upon his back.

From there I drew a similarity from the way Ishmael discusses whale to the way in which he discusses men.  He also feels the need to categorize men based on their birthplace.  The three mates on the Pequod are all introduced with their origins as one of their chief characteristics.  Just as Ishmael judges whales based on the value of their oil, he seems to judge men based on their affinity with water.  The Lakeman, while being born far from the ocean, is still respected because the Great Lakes have given him similar experiences.  The Canallers are predisposed to betrayal due to their upbringing along the Erie Canal.

And yet in reality, this sort of stereotyping comes about because so much is unknown about individuals.  Ishmael is able to classify people based on his limited experience and on what he has heard from others, just as he classifies whales.  I found this to be yet another example of the science of whales being intertwined with Ishmael’s views on humanity.

In chapters 36 through 40, Melville inserts a Shakespearen mini-play into his novel using literary devices such as poetic rhythms & images, soliloquies, and stage direction that help to illustrate the dramatic and tragic elements of Moby Dick. Through the use of soliloquies, Melville also communicates to the reader (without relying on the narrator) the true feelings and reflections of Ahab, Starbuck, and Stubbs.

Much like Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who is driven to madness by his obsession of exacting revenge on his uncle Claudius, Ahab, admittedly, has grown mad with his fixation on killing Moby Dick. In his soliloquy, Ahab proclaims,

What I’ve dared, I’ve willed; and what I’ve willed, I’ll do! They think me mad—Starbuck does; but I’m demoniac, I am madness maddened! That wild madness that’s only calm to comprehend itself! The prophecy was that I should be dismembered; and—Aye! I lost this leg. I now prophesy that I will dismember my dismemberer (Melville 183).

Ahab’s reflections on Moby Dick and his “demoniac” attitude demonstrate that Ahab’s quest for vengeance on the whale has completely consumed him, and, as he acknowledges, has driven him quite mad. Melville’s juxtaposition of Ahab’s madness and his acknowledgement of this madness is very curious. You might ask, ‘how crazy can a person be who is aware of their madness?’ As Ahab says, “that wild madness that’s only calm to comprehend itself!”, implying that Ahab can set aside his craziness for an instant, only to recognize it; apart from that self-awareness, this madness has consumed every other aspect of his life. This passage illustrates Ahab as a flawed protagonist because he is fully aware of his madness, but he is willing to put others at risk to achieve his goal of “dismember[ing] his dismemberer.”

Starbuck’s soliloquy also plays an important role in these chapters. The first mate comments to himself:

My soul is more than matched; she’s overmanned; and by a madman! Insufferable sting, that sanity should ground arms on such a field! But he drilled deep down, and blasted all my reason out of me! I think I see his impious end; but feel that I must help him to it (Melville 184).

Despite Starbuck’s recognition of Ahab as a “madmen”, he is unable to stand up and combat his captain; he even fells compelled to help Ahab with his mission, perhaps because he prophesizes that their quest for Moby Dick will lead Ahab to an “impious end.” With Starbuck’s soliloquy, Melville foreshadows a tragic end for Ahab and the rest of the Pequod.

         The cetological references, details, and discussions in the first twenty-one chapters of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick are somewhat limited. The whaling voyage that Ishmael is going to embark on has not yet set sail, and thus Ishmael has not come in contact with any live whales.

            Not surprisingly, Ishmael’s attraction to whaling and to the ocean is very much intertwined with an interest in whales. He states that

“Chief among these motives [for whaling] was the overwhelming idea of the great whale himself. Such a portentous and mysterious monster roused all my curiosity. Then the wild and distant seas where he rolled his island bulk; the undeliverable, nameless perils of the whale…” (Melville, 6).

As a member of a whaling expedition, Ishmael’s responsibilities will revolve around the killing of whales. In spite of this, he seems to have respect for them.

            There are few direct physical descriptions of whales that could be viewed in a scientific light. Ishmael describes the wide, “vast arched bone of the whale’s jaw” (Melville, 12) and “the long sharp teeth of the Sperm Whale” (Melville, 67). However, these are essentially the extent of the cetology that is included in the first twenty-one chapters of Moby Dick.

            The main scientific passages in this first section of the book arise more from the workings of Ishmael’s mind than from the science of whales. There are many instances in the beginning of the novel where Ishmael’s thought processes come close to following the patterns of the scientific method. For example, at the Spouter Inn, Ishmael spends time thinking of how and where he should sleep. He thinks of several possible methods, tests one, and tries another when the first does not work. This process is also followed when he makes his presence known to Queequeg (Melville, 16-23).

            Ishmael also seems to be prone to quietly making observations about the events and people around him. His observations of Queequeg and Queequeg’s culture/religion can be categorized as anthropological observations.

            At the beginning of the novel, Ishmael ponders man’s natural and innate attraction to water – “Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged into his deepest reveries – stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water…” (Melville, 2). While this is foreshadowing of Ishmaels journey to and on the sea, this insight also has a biological base. Water is necessary for survival, and it is very likely that humans and other animals have an instinctual desire and ability to find water. The fact that the attraction to water is biological also establishes just how strong this attraction is. Ishmael proceeds to include many references to the ocean, to ships, and to whales, and the continuity and abundance of these references, in conjunction with the mention of the attraction to the sea, serve to convey the message that Ishmael’s journey to the ocean is inescapable.

            At the end of the twenty-first chapter, the whaling ship is preparing to depart. The remainder of the novel will likely include many more cetological and scientific references.

For this post, I would like to discuss the relative importance of being politically correct (talking in an unbigoted manner) compared to *acting* in an unbigoted manner. Ishmael provides a fascinating look into this question, for he makes blatantly racist remarks about so-called savages, but at the same time exhibits a remarkable respect and admiration for his friend, Queequeg. For example, Ishmael reveals his disgust for savage culture as early as Chapter 3, in which he stumbles upon “…a heathenish array of monstrous clubs and spears,” causing him to wonder “what monstrous cannibal and savage could ever have gone a death-harvesting with such a hacking , horrifying implement.” And yet just a few pages later he states that “a man can be honest in any sort of skin” and “For all [Queequeg’s] tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal.” Astoundingly, Ishmael even compares Queequeg to George Washington!

Therein lies the problem: How are we to reconcile the fact that this white man damns his cannibal compatriot out of one side of his mouth, and then compares him to George Washington and Socrates out of the other?

I would argue that, when denoting someone as racist or not, the superficial judgements and ignorant labels (“savage”) one uses hold far less import than one’s actual behavior toward others. That is, I would never call Ishmael a racist *person* simply because he was brought up in an environment in which he was taught that certain bigoted terms are acceptable. Even today friends will make jokes about everything from each other’s physical stature to their place of birth to their ethnicity without a second thought. I would be far more offended by a friend’s subtle remark about how my Jewishness must mean I’m stingy than if a different friend jokingly calling me something as ostensibly anti-Semitic as “damn Jew”. Political correctness be damned! It’s the sentiment that counts!

So, one may count up the scores of times Ishmael uses the term cannibal to refer to island peoples, but these add up to naught next to the number of times he praises Queequeg, Tashtego, and Daggoo for their strength of character and unfailing performances in the face of danger. After all, when the “bumpkin” in Chapter 13 falls overboard, it is the recently-derided Queequeg who dives in after him to save his life. As a result, “all hands voted Queequeg a noble trump” and Ishmael immediately makes a silent vow to stick to Queequeg “like a barnacle”. Whatever unfortunate attitudes Ishmael was raised with, he clearly cares more about the content of an individual’s character than the color of their skin.

Moby Dick, by Herman Melville, copyright fictionwise ebooks.  (hence no page numbers)

How far can you stretch American exceptionalism?  Take it too far, and America has regressed to the colonial era.  In class we discussed the hierarchy of the ship and how the Pequod represents a floating ship that Melville wants readers to compare with America.  Yet whaling is an industry of categorization and hierarchy.  Americans relied heavily upon the revenue and resources it brought in and used American success to raise the country’s status among other nations; Americans wanted to rule the seas.  But the organization of a whale-ship and of whaling as an industry mirrors the structure of the governments that America claimed to have separated itself from.  Americans their superiority stemmed from a democracy and the country flourished through the rule of the people.  Yet whaling was an industry that supported an “irresistible dictatorship,” as Ishmael describes Ahab’s captaincy (Melville, 129).

Whaling is entrenched in categorization and in the rankings of those categories.  The novel opens with pages of quotations assembled to describe every possible mention of  a whale in literature.  More categorization follows in  chapter 32 as a detailed account of cetology.  Later, Ishmael vividly describes the hierarchy of the crew.

In classifying whales in the chapter “Cetology,” Ishmael foreshadows the description of the organization of the crew in later chapters.  Throughout chapter 32, Ishmael makes it clear that some whales are useful for whalers and some whales have no value at all.  In the cases where he does not know much about a species, he simply cuts his description off abruptly.

From the first pages of quotations to the extensive chapter on cetology to the descriptions of the crew, Ishmael seems fixated on categorization and organization.  Perhaps Melville is trying to point out the extremity to which Americans try to fit people into categories, often at the exclusion or belittling of others.  When describing whales, Melville says that

“they form such irregular combinations; or, in the case of any one of them detached, such an irregular isolation; as utterly to defy all general methodization formed upon such a basis…nothing but to take hold of the whales bodily, in their entire liberal volume, and boldly sort them that way” (122)

People, like whales, are too diverse and complicated to fit in defined categories.  But then the narrator says that whales should be divided by only their outward characteristics; he has divided whales by these just as white Americans have divided people by their races.

Ishmael, however, does take the time to explain the other whales, not just the favored sperm whale.  This passage mirrors the scenes when Ishmael questions the racist views of white society; he yet again sways between complete categorization, trying to make sense of the world, and accepting differences.

But in his description of people, Ishmael says that the hierarchy is absolute.  He states that

“never mind how much like an old Mesopotamian family these whalemen may, in some primitive instances, live together; for all that, the punctilious externals, at least, of the quarter-deck are seldom materially relaxed, and in no instance done away.” (129)

For whaling, the hierarchy is so important and the captain is so revered that even abuse is valued by the crew.  In chapter 31, “Queen Mab,” a merman says “No, you were kicked by a great man, and with a beautiful ivory leg, Stubb.  It’s an honor.” (115)  This seems to me on par with groveling at a king’s feet and thanking him for a whipping.  If the Pequod is supposed to represent America, then Melville is pointing out how backward America is compared to how she views herself; she has returned to the era of “knights and squires,” not the modern age of democracy.  How could Americans so embrace whaling when it perpetuated all of the qualities that Americans believed themselves to be rid of.  Or even beyond embracing, why did they glorify it?  Maybe in the race to get ahead they unwittingly took a few steps backwards.

But Ishmael (and Melville), even with all of the categories and hierarchies, have left open the possibility of free thinking.  Ishmael says in chapter 32, right after all of the divisions that he just made, “God keep me from ever completing anything.  This whole book is but a draught — nay, but the draught of a draught.” (128)  Melville is open to change, and perhaps his categories have slightly blurred boundaries.

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1988. Reissued 2008. Print.

In the first chapter of Moby Dick (“Loomings”), Ishmael discusses his decision to go to sea. He claims that he has a desire to sail around the world whenever he feels depressed or gloomy, because sailing helps him feel happier and more content (1). However, Ishmael does not think that this desire rests solely with him, but rather “almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings toward the ocean” (1). Ishmael describes thousands of men who stand by the ocean in a dreamlike state (1). Water appears to have a profound effect on them (and people in general). The ocean is like a great frontier and there seems to be something magical about its properties:

Say, you are in the country; in some high land of lakes. Take almost any path you please, and ten to one it carries you down in a dale, and leaves you there by a pool in the stream. There is magic in it. Let the most absent-minded of men be plunged in his deepest reveries–stand that man on his legs, set his feet a-going, and he will infallibly lead you to water, if water there be in all that region. Should you ever be athirst in the great American desert, try this experiment, if your caravan happen to be supplied with a metaphysical professor. Yes, as everyone knows, meditation and water are wedded for ever (2).

Throughout the previous description it is difficult to discern if it is Melville or Ishmael speaking. I would argue that it is likely both, since I imagine that Melville’s and Ishmael’s views align here. The ocean is set up as a wide open expanse on which to wonder and marvel at the earth. It is also an occasion to ponder and question one’s fate or destiny (and whether one has one, and, if so, what it might be). It seems that Melville is describing the ocean much like America was often viewed: an open frontier filled with nature and a place still largely untouched by man and his industrializing influences. It seems likely that later in the novel, the ocean (much like the wild west) will itself be wild and dangerous. However, Melville and Ishmael clearly believe that there is something that guides a person toward it (whether in spite of or because of its danger).

Melville seems to suggest that there is an innate or natural desire to be near water, something that draws people close to it. The ocean (and water generally) does seem to inspire reflection and meditation. From the sounds of waves crashing on the beach, to the trickle of a stream, and even the fact that our own reflections can be seen in water (leading to an interesting double meaning), water has a naturally comforting nature, which in turn makes it more likely to find oneself thinking about life. The fact that Melville links philosophy with water (in the quoted passage above) seems quite profound. Should the reader begin wondering about larger significances of what the ocean stands for or what it means? It seems likely that, just like Ishmael and the crew of the Pequod, we too should be on the lookout for signs, things that would indicate something larger than just a simple concept or thing. But in this case, what should we think? Is the water indeed like a great frontier? Is it representative of nature itself? Does sailing on a voyage become a metaphor for living life? Perhaps we should continue to look for more signs to attempt to find out.

Today it is increasingly difficult to find a book where romance does not play some role in the plot – in the worst cases it seems nothing more than an attempt to make a book sexy and appealing to readers.   Perhaps the lack of any hint of romantic interest within (at least the first twenty chapters of) the novel is one of the reasons modern readers find it hard to relate to Moby Dick and often label it “boring.”  Of the few female characters we have met even briefly (Mrs. Hussey, Aunt Charity), none are described in any way other than domestic providers, for better or for worse. While in many adventure novels (and, indeed, in other works by Melville) the exotic and seductive female “savage” is a commonly found character, it is interesting that the role of savage is here embodied by a man, Queequeg.

“Man and wife, they say, there open the very bottom of their souls to each other; and some old couples often lie and chat over old times till nearly morning.  Thus, then, in our hearts’ honeymoon, lay I and Queequeg – a cosy, loving pair.” (47)

Ishmael and Queequeg’s relationship is significant on many levels, not least of all because of the fact that they are two men who share close physical and emotional bonds.  The above excerpt is particularly descriptive of this aspect of their friendship, to the point it is described more than once as a “marriage” between the two of them.  Ishmael proves to be surprisingly receptive to not only sharing a bed with this savage stranger, but also sharing with him ideas and cultural practices.  Surprising also is the unexpected physicality between the pair; one passage describing how while sleeping together in bed they “rolled over from each other, this way and that, and very soon were sleeping” seems almost sexually suggestive (51).  While I do not necessarily think this was Melville’s intention, it nevertheless prompts readers to reflect on these roles normally shared between man and wife.  Of course, it is important to remember that the companionship Ishmael feels with Queequeg is paired with his persistent stereotyping of his friend’s cannibalism and paganism.  If we are to think of their relationship as a type of marriage, despite his obvious physical strength Queequeg’s apparent ignorance and role as a certain kind of outcast in a man’s world would perhaps make him what an ostensibly sexist writer like Melville would perceive as the “wife.”

Among the many themes of Moby Dick, gender is not one I would have thought featured prominently.  However, as I read the novel it becomes more and more clear that the bonds of masculinity Ishmael perceives between the crew members of Pequod will be an important theme throughout.  The general lack of female characters forces readers to think more deeply about the homosocial relationships found in Moby Dick, and in these first twenty chapters the bond Ishmael shares with Queequeg seems like it will be one of the most important.

It was the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me. (181)

What struck me about this quote was that it was not the size or ferociousness of the whale, Moby Dick, that terrified Ishmael but the whale’s “whiteness”. It was as if this was the first time in his life that whiteness was not purely innocent.  Instead the idea of whiteness held a foreboding and almost evil connotation.  Ishmael continues by stating, “Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty; as if imparting some special virtue of its own.” (181) Thus if whiteness is all that “enhances beauty”, what is darkness? Furthermore, if whiteness is associated with all that is noble and innocent, is it not a rationalization and justification of the enslavement of men who are not white but instead another color?  Personally, I do not believe that that was what Melville was attempting to convey. Rather, Ishmael’s realization that whiteness could possibly be corrupted is frightening awakening.  He writes,

But not yet have we solved the incantation of this whiteness, and learned why it appeals with such power to the soul; and more strange and far more portentous – why, as we have seen, it is at once the most meaning symbol of spiritual things, nay the very veil of the Christian’s Deity; and yet should be as it is, the intensifying agent in things the most appalling to mankind. (188)

Especially, Ishmael’s recognition, that “whiteness” could be an “agent in things the most appalling to mankind”. (188) Clearly, that is a direct reference to slavery.  Whiteness and white men had committed one of the most horrific crimes of mankind by enslaving fellow men merely based on the color of their skin.  Thus whiteness was not an “emblem of many touching, noble things” but that of immoral customs and practices.  (181)  Is the great white whale a symbol of America’s strength and perverted morality?  Are we supposed to see through the majestic “whiteness” of the whale and realize all the horrors it has committed, as seen with Ahab’s missing leg?

Perhaps what is most terrifying to Ishmael is the realization that he has sworn an oath to his captain that he at all costs will hunt and execute the white whale.  He writes,

I, Ishmael, was one of that crew; my shouts had gone up with the rest; my oath had been welded with theirs; and stronger I shouted, and more did I hammer and clinch my oath, because of the dread in my soul…With greedy ears I learned the history of that murderous monster against whom I and all the others had taken our oaths of violence and revenge. (171)

Thus it is the realization that all he has believed to be pure and innocent, due to its “whiteness”, perhaps is evil and must be slain.  In the same light, did Melville not have the same realization about his own whiteness in relation to the horrors of slavery? Was he not appalled that his fellow man could not see through the immoral business of human trafficking? Finally, is the white whale a symbol of American greed?