Moby Dick

Herman Melville begins Moby Dick with a vocabulary lesson on the word “whale,” and follows this with a series of literary references to this famous creature.  While he cautions the reader that we “must not, in every case at least, take the higgledy-piggledy whale statements, however authentic, in these extracts, for veritable gospel cetology” ( xxiii), they do contain what sounds like scientific information about whales.  Much of this information comes from recordings of voyages taken by various explorers around the globe.  However, there are also references that come from great literary works such as the Bible, Shakespeare, and Paradise Lost.

These excerpts elevate the whale from being a mere animal to an entity whose history is intertwined with humanity’s.  Giving us the translation of “whale” in different languages also implies that this creature has an important place in cultures all over the world.  I would like to know his source for the Hebrew translation though.  As far as I can tell, חר means “hole,” or biblically “lord,” and the word for whale is actually לויתן, which is “Leviathan” in English.

These early pages prepare the reader for the importance of the whale in the main part of the novel.  Though the long introduction takes place primarily on land, whaling is present in many aspects of the lives of residents of New Bedford and Nantucket.  The Spouter-Inn is decorated with the accoutrements of whaling, and the bar is shaped like a whale.  Even the pulpit at a local church resembles a ship.  The chaplain gives a whale themed sermon retelling the story of Jonah who is swallowed by a whale for disobeying God.  Queequeg, Ishamael’s new harpooner friend, uses his harpoon to shave in the morning.  These details display ways in which whaling can truly enter into peoples’ ways of life.  Ishmael seems to understand this melding as he himself has a very close relationship with the sea, and goes to it for a form of catharsis.

Ishmael describes his affinity for water in the opening pages, but also implies that all men are innately drawn to the sea.  Men who work in offices every day at some point leave and “must get just as nigh the water as they possibly can without falling in” (2).  This connection between men and the sea, and between humanity and whales, acts as foreshadowing for the rest of the novel.  After the long introduction, the plot will continue away from land and become increasingly concerned with the act of whaling and man’s fascination with the whale.

Whaling is the perfect career for Ishmael.  The story of Melville’s Ishmael closely parallels that of the Bible’s.  Melville’s opening paragraph sets Ishmael in the same position that the baby Ishmael was placed in: both need water for survival.  Melville then continues for several paragraphs describing the importance of water to humans.  Melville binds the two Ishmaels by the one thing that will save both of their lives.

Violence also binds the two figures together.  As we discussed in class, Genesis 16:12 describes Ishmael as

…a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.  (Biblegateway.com)

Many times in the first few chapters, the narrator comments on the violence of whaling – in describing the “heathenish array of clubs and spears” that decorates the inn (Melville, 10), in his concern for Queequeg when he shaves with the head of a harpoon (Melville, 25), and in his confusion over the fact that a devout Quaker, such as Captain Bildad, would participate in such an occupation (66).  For these reasons, the job of whaling meshes perfectly with the biblical figure for whom Melville’s character is named.

The biblical Ishmael also represents a person who followed a different path, just as Melville’s Ishmael makes his own way in the world.  Melville’s characters would have grown up with the stories of Isaac and his descendents, but Ishmael’s story travels off in a different direction.  In mirroring his namesake, Melville’s Ishmael can question the norm and decide his own fate.  But Melville’s Ishmael strays even farther from any sort of settled path; even though he has so many connections to the Genesis story, this Ishmael does not even follow completely in his namesake’s footsteps.  He defies the second part of the prophecy and makes a bosom friend, Queequog at the beginning of the novel.  Although the job of whaling, where everyone must work smoothly together for the three long years that they inhabit the cramped quarters of the ship, seems to work against Ishmael’s prophecy, I think that Melville’s Ishmael makes himself even more similar to the biblical character by making himself a path different from the norm.  But by tearing himself away from the constraints of the story that gives him his character, I think that Ishmael becomes even more closely tied to the biblical character.  And whaling allows Ishmael to explore his freedom and question any norm or idea.

Another question that arises for Ishmael is the morality of whaling.  In presenting this question, whaling allows him to question his life.  Even though Ishmael seems destined for a whaling ship at the beginning of the novel, whaling is perhaps one of the most ungodly professions.  Melville writes that Captain Bildad is “a sworn foe to human bloodshed, yet had he in his straight-bodied coat, spilled tuns upon tuns of leviathan gore” (66).  Here Melville implies that whaling is comparable to murder – a act prohibited by one of the Ten Commandments.  A few sentences later, Ishmael says that “a man’s religion is one thing, and this practical world is quite another.  This world pays dividends” (66). Ishmael is starting to question the well-travelled path of his past and searching for a new religion.  He is becoming the biblical Ishmael.  After all, Ishmael went on to father his own religion, Islam.  The high seas offer Melville’s character a place in which to question and explore his ideas on religion.

Yet Ishmael is not the first to look to whaling for answers to spiritual questions.  It seems that the entire town of New Bedford, and perhaps most of New England, has found a way to reconcile whaling with God.   The imagery in chapters 7,8, and 9, “The Chapel,” “The Pulpit,” and “The Sermon” shows how far a church can go to becoming a whaling ship.  This begs the question “how far can a whaling ship go to becoming a church?”  The church, however, also raises another question for Ishmael to sort out.  In chapter 8, “The Pulpit,” Melville describes the pulpit of the church as enclosing Father Mapple almost as if he is isolated from the congregation in a whaling-inspired room of his own.  The description of the church as similar to a whaling ship makes me think that the Pequod will be a sort of community, but when Mapple shuts himself away, he makes prayer seem to be an individual activity.  So on his journey, will God make Ishmael into “a great nation,” the metaphorical father of the men on the Pequod, or will Ishmael travel alone? (Biblegateway.com) Whaling seems to bring up many questions for Ishmael, but perhaps it will also reveal the answers to his unique future.

Works Cited:

• Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1988. Reissued 2008. Print.
• “Genesis 16:10-12.” Biblegateway. New International Version, Web. 29 Jan 2010. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+16:10-12&version=NIV>.
• “Genesis 17:20.” Biblegateway. New International Version, Web. 29 Jan 2010. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+17:20&version=NIV>.

What of it, if some old hunks of a sea-captain orders me to get a broom and sweep down the decks? …Do you think the archangel Gabriel thinks anything less of me, because I promptly and respectfully obey that old hunks in that particular instance? Who aint a slave? … Well, then, however the old sea-captains may order me about-however they may thump and punch me about, I have the satisfaction of knowing that it is all right; that everybody else is one way or other server in much the same way – either in a physical or metaphysical point of view.

Melville’s words have a meaningful message.  When deciding to become a sailor, one accepts that there will be a break down of their previously unconstrained and entitled life.  They will be at the mercy of their captain, who will abuse them to the greatest extent.  But a sailor knows he is not alone, his fellow shipmates will experience the same mental and physical cruelty.  Thus when Ishmael comments, “Who aint a slave?” (4) is he incorrect? Is a man not a slave to the work he is forced to complete? But is the horrors of slavery lessened when one knows that his fellow men are enslaved as well?  To answer these questions, I think we would need to discuss the definition and terms of slavery.  Understandably, Ishmael is not a slave in the sense that he chose this career for himself, but once he is on the boat with the captain, he cannot escape from him.  Thus is a sailor a slave to the captain or the boat? Or perhaps both?

No, when I go to sea, I go as a simple sailor, right before the mast, plumb down into the forecastle, aloft there to the royal mast-head.  True, they rather order me about some, and make me jump from spar to spar, like a grasshopper in a May meadow. And at first, this sort of thing is unpleasant enough.  It touches one’s sense of honor, particularly if you come of an old established family in the land, the Van Rensselaers, or Randolphs, or Hardicanutes.

Furthermore, is humility not something we should all learn and experience? To live under the control of another individual, does it not teach us who we are or want to be?  To clarify there is a difference between humility and slavery.  They are not one and the same.  But I believe Melville is attempting to articulate is that although a man’s “honor” is taken away when he becomes a sailor because he can no longer live behind his possibly good name; he can create his own respected name through working with his own hands.  Thus hard work teaches humility and respect for one’s superiors but also gives a man honor.  Labor is then not demeaning as some would believe because it gives a man the ability to accomplish something through their own physical force.  And unlike money, these accomplishments cannot be taken away; they belong to that man forever.

Moby Dick, at least through the first 21 chapters, is primarily concerned with masculinity. To demonstrate, leafing through a Google image search of “Moby Dick,” one will find completely unrelated images of cars and narcotics before coming across an image invoking any feeling of femininity, let alone one of a female character. Significant characters in these chapters are almost entirely male, themes addressed are traditionally masculine ones, and allusions are to still more male characters for masculine works. Melville was also influenced, first and foremost, by male authors; stylistically by Sir Thomas Browne, the 17th century prose writer, by Shakespeare, especially for his characters, and of course, by his contemporary, Nathaniel Hawthorne, to whom the novel is dedicated.

In the opening paragraph, Ishmael tells us that, “If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.” Though Melville does not mean men in the sense of humanity, he means only men, and excluding women. Ishmael holds that men go to sea and does not leave any interpretation that women too may be drawn to the sea and take up the lives of whalewomen alongside their husbands. He is a sexist and selfish narrator for our story, and when he goes on in chapter 1 to discuss his interest in going to sea as a sailor, rather than a passenger, he seems to imply that real men live as active, paid sailors, and women and the rest, go as the paying passengers.

Under the masculine perspective of our narrator, there lie some homosocial, if not homosexual themes in these opening chapters. The character interactions are primarily homosocial and may touch on a possible homosexual undertone when Ishmael must go to bed with Queequeg, though Melville heteronormatively points out that, “No man prefers to sleep two in a bed.”

However masculine, no story can be completely devoid of feminine influences. As Ishmael duly points out when describing the warmth of his and Queequeg’s bed, “…there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself.” Among these touches of the other gender, we see work here fulfilled in very traditional male-female roles: The sailors are all men, while the women remain at shore to tend the the sailors, their families, and their (husbands’) businesses, as this was a sexist society. And then of course, the good old Pequot is portrayed as a female vessel, referred to as “she” as most all ships are.

Melville may have been concerned with issues of race and equality when writing his great work, but through the reading of these introductory chapters, one may doubt that he held any similar views of gender equality or the importance of the feminine perspective.

There are three chapters in a row – “The Chapel,” “The Pulpit,” and “The Sermon” – all dedicated to religion and Ishmael’s interaction with faith and church.  We may learn more about Ishmael’s beliefs, however, from his reaction to Queequeg’s religious rituals.  Queequeg is certainly what the white Christian American of the 1850’s would call a savage – his most frequent religious act is to worship a wooden Congo Idol baby.  Ishmael tempers his unexpected affinity for Queequeg by persistently referencing his otherness – he is a “comely looking cannibal” (43), “just enough civilized to show off his outlandishness in the strangest possible manner” (47), and so on.

But instead of using religion as a trope to highlight a savage vs. civilized, pagan vs. Christian paradox that relegates “others” to sub-human status, Ishmael uses his religion to do the opposite.  “I say, we good Presbyterian Christians should be charitable in these things, and not fancy ourselves so vastly superior to other mortals, pagans and what not, because of their half-crazy conceits on these subjects” (102).  Not only does he equalize the “savage” Queequeg as a fellow-mortal, he says this is the good Presbyterian thing to do.  This short passage was likely unsettling to readers who considered themselves good Christians and who looked down upon “savages” like Queequeg for their strange, exotic, violent, uncivilized behavior, along with their pagan rituals.  Based on his relationship with a savage that started as his bed-mate, Ishmael rejects any hierarchical view of religion: “Heaven have mercy on us all – Presbyterians and Pagans alike – for we are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need mending” (102).

Even before his story has moved to the ship, Melville is making the argument that men of different backgrounds and religions can live as equals, and that “savages” are often not very different at all.

Melville’s narration in Moby Dick can be described as moody. Ishmael is presented as such a believable character because he exhibits the unpredictable highs and lows of the author. While Ishmael is a believable character, the question of his reliability as a narrator is another issue. Starting with the line “Call me Ishmael”, the reader can’t help but wonder who the person that we are commanded to refer to as Ishmael actually is. The narrator called Ishmael takes many shapes, which I will now explore.

I believe that Ishmael’s narration takes the shape of and is characterized by those he comes in contact with. This is exemplified by the simple narration that Queequeg always seems to inspire. Needless to say, Queequeg’s speech is extremely basic, but what is interesting is how Ishmael answers his child-like presence with a simplicity of his own:

But Queequeg, do you see, was a creature in the transition state-neither caterpillar nor butterfly. He was just enough civilized to show off his outlandishness in the strangest possible manner. His education was not yet completed. He was an undergraduate.(27)

Notice how Ishmael addresses the reader, adopting a colloquial tone that distinguishes itself from much of the rest of the narration. This tone is furthered by the short, elementary sentences that follow. This tone is juxtaposed by another one of Ishmael’s forms, which is that of Melville himself. Quite often Melville blatantly takes over the narration in the form of deep philosophical musings. The following is one of my favorite examples of this so far:

But what then? Methinks we have hugely mistaken this matter of Life and Death. Methinks that what they call my shadow here on earth is my true substance. Methinks that in looking at things spiritual, we are too much like oysters observing the sun through the water, and thinking that thick water the thinnest of air. Methinks my body is but the lees of my better being. In fact take my body who will, take it I say, it is not me . (35-36)

What caught my eye about this passage first was the skill and beauty of the language itself. What indicates that we are no longer understanding the world through the eyes of Ishmael but through the eyes of Melville is the use and repetition of the word “Methinks” which is uncommon in the novel, and is used tactfully by Melville to emphasize the passage to the reader as one of personal worth.

The narrator is at the helm of Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick. While Captain Ahab may be in charge of the ship, Ishmael is our crazed captain, sailing us through the story. It seems that Melville wrote in 20th century parlance what would have been termed “a romance” through the style of a travel narrative, which was the form that was most familiar to him. Melville has created such a chaotic world, both on land and on “the watery part,” that a narrator just as complex is needed to steer the ship. Melville is not giving us a docked story, but a ship, which must be steered to reach its destination.

Ishmael is the frothy film between the murky depths and us.  We are not given the undiluted ocean, the whole truth, the whole, watery body of knowledge.  We are told everything through Ishmael’s perspective.  There is an arduous attempt to recreate reality through great observational detail, but all we are left with are the lines left in the sand after the waves have receded back into the ocean.  Ishmael, as a prophet, is left with a great burden.  He must convince us of the reality of the story, despite the fact that the water tastes less salty when it has not touched our lips.

In many ways, we have to take Ishmael on faith.  We can call him Ishmael, and we can believe his story—or we can choose not to.  In Chapter 18, Captain Peleg of the Pequod tells Ishmael, “Young man, you’d better ship for a missionary, instead of a fore-mast hand; I never heard a better sermon… why Father Mapple himself couldn’t beat it, and he’s reckoned something” (86, Signet ed.).

What is Ishmael’s purpose as a narrator? Is it actually to tell us a story or to tell us a sermon?  It is pretty evident from the beginning that he is back-narrating the story, so he could not have remembered much detail, yet he retells such colorful conversations and striking sermons word-for-word.  Though I don’t see an omniscient form of narrative emerging yet, I do see a narrator with a God-like memory, or imagination.

In fact, if Ishmael is better at telling sermons than Father Mapple, how do we know that he did not author the sermon in Chapter 9 himself?  I think it is likely.  It is so rife with whaling references that it would make the sub-sub-librarian blush.  I think it also has too many parallels to the unfolding plot of the story, and that Melville, the writer, would not miss a chance like this to make some of the themes of the book explicit.

For instance, when Jonah boards the ship, the priest comments:

“In their gamesome but still serious way one [sailor] whispers to the other—‘Jack, he’s robbed  a widow;’ or, ‘Joe, do you mark him; he’s a bigamist;’ or, “Harry lad, I guess he’s the adulterer that broke jail in old Gomorrah, or belike, one of the missing murderers from Sodom” (41).

When Ishmael boards the Pequod, Captain Peleg asks him:

“What makes thee want to go a-whaling, eh?—it looks a little suspicious, don’t it, eh?—Hast not been a pirate, hast thou?—Didst not rob thy last Captain, didst thou?—Dost not think of murdering the officers when thou gettest to sea” (68)?

God (Yahweh in Hebrew) chooses Jonah; “The lot is [his]” (44). Queequeg’s idol, Yojo, selects Ishmael (65).

And another:

“The hard hand of God is upon [Jonah]” (44). Ishmael remembers finding a “supernatural hand” placed in his as a child after waking from a nightmare (25-26).

In class, we heard Melville’s style compared to jazz music, but I’d like to compare it to the music of someone one wouldn’t typically associate it with. Charlie Chaplin once recalled having this discussion with the great Romantic composer Rachmaninoff:

I remember [Vladimir] Horowitz, the pianist… Just before the war [World War II] I dined at his house with his wife, the daughter of Toscanini. Rachmaninoff and Barbirolli were there… It was an intimate dinner, just five of us.

It seems that each time art is discussed I have a different explanation of it. Why not? That evening I said that art was an additional emotion applied to skillful technique. Someone brought the topic round to religion and I confessed I was not a believer. Rachmaninoff quickly interposed: “But how can you have art without religion?”

I was stumped for a moment. “I don’t think we are talking about the same thing,” I said. “My concept of religion is a belief in a dogma–that art is a feeling more than a belief.”

“So is religion,” he answered. After that I shut up.

Rachmaninoff meant religion as a feeling, as an obsession which pervades one’s work.  Could religion or obsession also be guiding this narrative?  Could Melville be trying to show that aspect of religion, i.e., its very essence?  Ishmael is obsessed with the waves, the sea, and ocean life.  Are “his ears, like two sea-shells, still multitudinously murmuring of the ocean”(46)?

Throughout the story, it may be Ishmael’s invisible hand that is guiding us.

“Call me Ishmael” (1).

From the very moment the reader is introduced to Ishmael, the narrator of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, it is evident that he is no ordinary man-turned-sailor. His request that the reader address him as “Ishmael”  forces the reader to consider why he asks to be called this unique name of biblical fame. Perhaps within the world of Moby Dick it is a name and nothing more, but the recurring references to religion and the Bible within the text suggest that many of the character names — Ishmael, Ahab, and Elijah, to name a few — are chosen with a purpose. By investigating the origin and background of these names and their original owners, one can attempt to understand why Melville specifically chose these names as a connection to the references of the Bible and religion (in general) throughout the novel.

The choice of the name”Ishmael” for the narrator of the story is of particular interest when one considers the biblical character. According to the Old Testament, Ishmael was the son of Abraham, who is considered the father of the Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths, and Hagar, his servant. Ishmael was conceived because Abraham’s wife Sarah was deemed too old to have a child. Alas, she did become pregnant with Isaac and, out of jealousy, she banished Hagar and Ishmael. As they departed an angel of God comforted them with the news that Ishmael would lead a great nation. Before he was born, however, it was revealed to Hagar that Ishmael would be a “wild donkey of a man” who would constantly be struggling with others. Thus far in the novel, Ishmael remains somewhat of an enigma but does not appear to be in any struggle with human beings. On the contrary, any struggle seems to lie within himself; for example, he notes that he goes to sea whenever he is close to committing suicide. It is hard to say whether or not the character Ishmael will completely adopt the characteristics of his Bible counterpart. What is clear, however, is Ishmael’s different religious attitudes and thoughts on worship; this will be discussed in another blog post, as I believe it is very important in the novel thus far.

Though the reader has not been introduced to Captain Ahab at this point in the novel, perhaps his biblical name will offer some insight as to what he will be like as a character. In the Bible, Ahab ruled the nation of Israel and was regarded as the most evil and wicked of its kings. King Ahab worshipped the “pagan” gods of his wife, Jezebel, which was viewed as completely wrong in the eyes of the Israelites. Perhaps King Ahab was arrogant and believed he could defy the God of Israel by worshipping other false gods. It will be interesting to see if the character Ahab will also possess this same hubris; time (and extensive reading) will tell.

Chapter 19 of Moby Dick, ironically titled “The Prophet,” concerns an encounter Ishmael and fellow sailor Queequeg have with a mysterious stranger who calls himself Elijah. Elijah warns them about Captain Ahab, hinting that their journey will not end well. In the Bible, Elijah was a prophet of God whose second coming was to be a harbinger of God’s wrath. Melville’s use of the name “Elijah” is very fitting for the character as he does warn Ishmael and Queequeg against sailing with Ahab. Whether his hints of doom for the whaling ship Pequod are true or not is yet to be determined.

Thus far in the novel, it is more than clear that Melville is using biblical names with a purpose in mind. So far, Elijah seems to match the role of “prophet.” Ishmael seems to have some characteristics of his Bible counterpart but thus far he doesn’t seem to completely match up with the Bible’s Ishmael. As for Captain Ahab, little can be determined at this point as he hasn’t been “technically” introduced yet. This connection between the Bible and characters’ names is only a small part of the overall importance of religion within the novel. In my next blog post I will explore Ishmael’s relationship and struggle with religion.

This post uses YouTube as an example, but other object plugins from other sites can be inserted into WordPress posts, I encourage you to explore & experiment. If you discover a great trick, just post it and add it to course support (category).

Copy the “embed code”. Click on the “HTML” view. Paste in the Embed Code.

“Add Media” by URL doesn’t seem to be working at present

WordPress authors can insert images into wordpress either as links or by uploading the image directly into the WordPress engine. Linking to images is semi-risky as resources might shift about and not be displayed, unless you control them. If you are uploading images, be sure to upload optimized or web-friendly images (in other words, don’t upload raw images of a whaling expedition you went on last summer).

Advanced image searches in Google will allow you much finer turned searching for image file types and sizes. It also enables you to limit your searches to items in the public domain, which will help prevent copyright infringement. An equivalent search engine exists on Flickr.

Click on the “Add an image button” from near the text “add media”. Upload your file or insert the image based on the url.

Moby Dick Graphic