Moby Dick

I first became interested in the varying philosophies in Moby Dick when I read about the carpenter. Ishmael describes the man like a pocket knife, saying that “if his superiors wanted to use [him] like a screwdriver, all they had to do was open that part of him” (451-2). At the end of the chapter, Ishmael tells us, “this it was, this same unaccountable, cunning life-principle in him…that kept him a great part of the time soliloquoizing” (452). The carpenter believes that everything is part of a machine, even people, and even parts of people. In fact, Melville begins the chapter by mentioning that when you think of humanity as a whole, each individual is the same as all the others. We are all part of the machine that is mankind. However, the carpenter, Ishmael assures us, is “no duplicate,” and that is why we should care about what he thinks (450). This got me interested in the individual philosophies of each of the characters in the novel. Melville wrote about them for a reason. They are not duplicates, and we should care what they think.

One of the most significant philosophies, I believe, is that of Queequeg. Queequeg is a foreigner. He is not white, and we know already that his religion differs from that of Ishmael and the other white sailors. Queequeg’s beliefs become really intriguing in chapter 110, “Queequeg in his coffin,” when he wills himself back to health. Queequeg explains to the sailors that “If a man made up his mind to live, mere sickness could not kill him” (463). Immortality? It’s possible.

Now, because Queequeg did not fail in his attempt to deny death, Melville is saying not that it is possible in the real world, but that it is not a wrong belief. If Queequeg had failed, there might be a lesson in it, like: foreign beliefs are wrong, tribal cultures are wrong, Jesus is the way. But Queequeg succeeded, so what Melville might be advocating is that different religions are right for different people. If you believe it, it is true for you. Queequeg believed he had control over his own life and death, so he did. What I love about this chapter is that it reminds me of the novel Jitterbug Perfume by Tom Robbins. It is about two people who, through will-power and good habits, defy death, and live for thousands of years.

One of my favorite characters in Moby Dick is Stubb. In chapter 39, “First Night-Watch,” Stubb assures us that “a laugh’s the wisest, easiest answer to all that’s queer” (163). I agree. What a line to live by! To have a sense of humor is the smartest way to go about life – enjoying every bit of it, having no regrets, and finding the good in what you might not like or understand. Stubb’s carefree disposition reminds me once again of Jitterbug Perfume, which teaches us that a light heart will get us everywhere. It makes me think either Melville is ahead of his time, or Robbins got inspiration from an unlikely place: a happy sailor in a dense tragedy.

Starbuck is the opposite of Stubb. He looks for the bad everywhere. In “Dusk,” Starbuck exclaims, “O life! ’tis now that I do feel the latent horror in thee!” Starbuck is the serious sailor who doubts Ahab and finds omens. Bad omens. A fantastic contrast between Starbuck and Stubb occurs in chapter 114, when Ishmael, Ahab, Starbuck and Stubb ponder the beautiful sea. Starbuck asks of the sea, “Tell me not of thy teeth-tiered sharks, and thy kidnapping cannibal ways,” once again emphasizing the bad parts of a good thing, whereas Stubb declares “that he has always been jolly” (473).

One could then read the novel to the end, and interpret all this to mean that no matter your beliefs, you will die. Even Queequeg, who can fight and win against deadly illness, can and does die in battle with a whale. You can think, if you want, that we are all going to die, but Queequeg, Stubb and I believe we are all going to live, and I leave you with this: “we’re in no more danger…than all the crews in ten thousand ships now sailing the seas” (490).

Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. New York: Signet Classic, 1998

The Symphony is considered by all those we have studied as a major chapter in Moby Dick, as it begins the end of the novel, the crescendo to the final movement of the piece, where finally things have come together. It occurs immediately prior to the chase’s start, acting as a sort of calm before the storm. And what I love most about this chapter is how, like a well constructed symphony, the elements of the plot are coming together here, working like the various instruments and movements, to create a final push that ties it all together.
This chapter opens with a very interesting description of the sea and the sky, in contrast and similarity. Ishmael notes how “they were hardly separable” but for the sexing that he has applied to them. To him, the sky is a feminine force and the sea a masculine, which is sensible for a sailor (if you are keeping with traditional gender stereotypes); the sky represents an array of nurturing elements, acting as a sort of mother to the men, while the sea, instead of caring for them challenges and defies them. In this context, air is the giver of life, while water is the taker of it. I may be writing with prior knowledge of what is coming, but the foreshadowing should give any reader enough evidence that this idea is clear. Water, which is often used as a symbol of life and rebirth cannot be used as such here for it can neither quench your thirst nor wash away sin. This water is the destroyer of men. Contrariwise, the sky is air, which brings life to the sailors. As long as they have the sky, they shall not drown and they shall still have wind enough to bring them home.
Yet, like Ahab’s eventual description of Starbuck and Stubb (in The Chase – the First Day), as foils of each other, simple reversals of the same humankind, the sky and the sea are at their base the same: they blend together on the horizon, and life and death are joined, two faces to the same coin.
This is where my reading took a turn for the religious, for I began to see the comparison to the two parts of the Bible, the Old and the New Testaments. As a avid theologian, Melville would have been aware of the key differences between the Old and New Testament Gods. In the Old Testament, God is vengeful, harsh and unforgiving, smiting those who do not obey his will. A perfect example is the occurrences of Sodom and Gomorra, where due to their living in sin, entire cities are destroyed by the Lord. Lot’s wife is turned to a pillar of salt simply for turning back after being told not to do so. Job suffers through every possible degradation and torture at the hands of his God simply so that God might prove his follower’s faith. In this part of the Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures, God is what is traditionally considered masculine. He encourages holy war (holding the sun in the sky so that Jericho might fall at the hands of his followers) and even physically manifests to wrestle Jacob. He is the definition of the un-nurturing God, who is defined by “manly” qualities.
In the New Testament, God shifts drastically to a feminine side, embracing his children through Jesus Christ. Jesus is a nurturing figure who demands loyalty from his followers not through blood and sacrifice but through love and brotherhood. Jesus is often interpreted as a feminine character, which is sensible. He inspires love, caring and discourages any bloodshed or violence. He is a giver of life, a forgiving God, who truly wants to embrace mankind. Charity and love are the new principals.
So how do these connect? They are two sides of the same coin as well. The Testaments are two parts of the same bible, and the God within them has not changed; God is constant, but his presence changes between the two. It is impossible in Christianity to worship two gods, so one must find the consistency between these two apparently different deities and worship accordingly. Likewise, as one must understand the power of life and death, and how they are inextricably linked. And a sailor must see that the ocean and the sky are connected, even though one is terrible and the other life-giving.

After Monday’s class, I decided to revisit the chapter entitled “Jonah Historically Regarded.”  In this chapter, Melville dives right into a specific discrepancy between science and religion with the story of Jonah.  The character introduced as Sag-Harbor uses his knowledge of whales to cast doubt on Jonah’s sojourn inside of one.  For each of his doubts, however, Ishmael/Melville presents an opposing interpretation that accounts for the scientific fact.  A possible interpretation even goes so far as to suggest that the whale was actually a ship simply named “The Whale.”

Melville uses this chapter to clearly set out the divide between science and religion.  Sag-Harbor is first inspired to question the Jonah story because “He had one of those quaint old fashioned Bibles, embellished with curious, un-scientific plates” (353).  This immediately places science and the Bible in opposition.  Sag-Harbor continues to bring up ways in which science and geography would prevent the Jonah story from occurring as it does in the Bible.  The responses of biblical exegesis are very liberal, as exemplified in the above example of Jonah’s whale being a boat.

The fact that Melville even presents these alternatives shows that he is open to interpretation of religion.  He insists that the Jonah story is true, but he allows that there are discrepancies that need to be accounted for, such as the location of Nineveh regarding its proximity to deep water.

While Melville’s continuous emphasis on science throughout this novel demonstrates his interest, this chapter shows that he has also allowed science to enter into a dialogue with his religious belief.  I think this dialogue has an important bearing on what makes this book so interesting, as it permits Melville to better explore the natural and biblical world.

One occurrence of Melville’s literary allusions in Moby-Dick can be seen in his penchant for naming his characters after individuals from the Bible (Captain Ahab and the stranger Elijah).  These two examples reflect the embodiment of Melville’s individuals with the Scriptural significance of their stories.  Captain Ahab is named after the wicked, malicious king of Israel, who the Bible refers to as the “most evil of all kings that came before him” (1 Kings 16:30).  Named after such a reputation, this vindictive personality seems to loom over Captain Ahab, even before the reader is introduced to him.  Elijah, the curious stranger Queequeg and Ishmael encounter before leaving port, refers to the Biblical prophet of the same name (Melville even classifies him as such).  In Scripture, Elijah is first introduced through his warnings to King Ahab of the terrible misfortune that will come as a result of his evil doings. In Moby-Dick, Elijah serves a similar purpose by warning the two whale-men of the enigmatic sufferer who will be their captain, and the trying expedition ahead of them: “Shan’t see you again very soon, I guess; unless it’s before the Grand Jury.” (Melville, 95).  In this way, Elijah encapsulates the Biblical reference of his name.  He stirs in Ishmael a sense of apprehension and curiosity concerning his future captain and impending journey.

While these two characters are more clearly linked to the qualities their namesakes possessed, Ishmael presents a more interesting study.  The name Ishmael calls to mind the story in Genesis of Abraham’s slave-born son, Ishmael.  In Scripture, Ishmael is seen in opposition to the spirit of God.  The illegitimate son of slavery, there is no place reserved for him in the Family Covenant of God.  He is cast out from society, ostracized and shunned by mankind and God himself.   However, Ishmael, as the protagonist of Moby-Dick, chooses to purposefully separate and remove himself from the general body of society and the traditions of conventional Christianity by traveling to sea.  Ishmael writes, “I am tormented by an everlasting itch for things remote.  I love to sail forbidden seas and land on barbarous coasts.” (Melville, 6)  His questioning of the mainstream hypocrisy of Christianity can be seen through his friendship with Queequeg, a savage pagan, whom he develops a close relationship with and respect for his hybrid form of spirituality and religion.  Although he questions the morality of those who call themselves Christians (such as Captain Bildad), Ishmael does not abandon the religious virtues he was taught; those of compassion to others, ethics and a sense of righteousness.  Further reading of Moby-Dick will reveal the full extent and ways in which our narrator embodies the layered references of his name.  Perhaps by choosing this name, Melville hints at the unstable role Ishmael may hold in this small society on the ship.  As Ishmael questions the veracity of those proclaimed Christian, he may also question the authority of Captain Ahab and jeopardize his place in the journey.

(Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick. Signet Classic: NY, 1998.)

This novel contains many, many references to the Bible and to religious figures, stories, morals, parables. It is often said that Melville wrote this novel with a Bible near his elbow. So, this group’s posts will consider all manner of religious allusion — notice how and when and why Melville refers to a biblical story, or a biblical figure, and do a little web research to find out who the figure is or where the allusion comes from (if you can’t figure it out or don’t know it). Also, posts can focus on moments where religious imagery or religious tones are invoked, without clear or specific references to the Bible.