No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
It may be that an element of contradiction is integral to any outstanding literary work. A major writer, in presenting one philosophical viewpoint or attitude directly, cannot help, by virtue of his sensitivity and breadth of awareness, but present the alternative angle indirectly. Nevertheless, although the narrative may shuttle ambiguously between two such poles, there should finally be no doubt as to which side of the argument the author inclines to. A limited degree of ambiguity makes for vitality. A total ambiguity makes for inferior art. If this criterion is acceptable the reputation of Melville's Billy Budd, Sailor may deserve revaluation. Critical opinion, which turns upon Melville's attitude towards Captain Vere, appears to have reached a stalemate, in spite of the recent publication of the Hayford-Sealts authoritative edition of the story which the editors hope ‘will narrow the ground of disagreement and widen that of understanding’. A division still exists between the ‘straight’ readers who see Vere as exonerated and the ironists who believe that Melville is subtly undercutting the validity of Vere's stand.
page 221 note 1 Behind these remarks are the assumptions made by Booth, Wayne C. in The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago, 1961)Google Scholar that, for a writer, complete objectivity is neither possible nor desirable.
page 221 note 2 Hayford, Harrison and Sealts, Merton M. Jr, ‘Editors' Introduction’, Billy Budd, Sailor (Chicago and London, 1962), p. vGoogle Scholar. All references within the text are to this edition.
page 221 note 3 Practically all Billy Budd criticism falls into one camp or the other. The representative examples are Wilson, E. L. Grant, ‘Melville's Testament of Acceptance’, New England Quarterly, 6 (06, 1933), 319–27Google Scholar; and Withim, Phil, ‘Billy Budd: Testament of Resistance’, Modern Language Quarterly, 20 (06, 1959), 115–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 222 note 1 Bowen, Merlin, The Long Encounter: Self and Experience in the Writings of Herman Melville (Chicago, 1960), pp. 216–33Google Scholar.
page 223 note 1 The Letters of Herman Melville, ed. by Davis, Merrell and Gilman, William (New Haven, 1960)Google Scholar, Melville to Hawthorne, November 1851, p. 142.
page 223 note 2 Leyda, Jay (ed.), The Viking Portable Melville (New York, 1952), p. 573Google Scholar.
page 224 note 1 The Works of Herman Melville, Standard Edition, 16 vols. (London, 1922–1924)Google Scholar, White Jacket, v, p. 182.
page 224 note 2 Ibid. p. 185.
page 225 note 1 Ibid. p. 380.
page 225 note 2 In this connection, see Foley, Mary, ‘The Digressions in Billy Budd’, in Stafford, William T. (ed.), Melville's Billy Budd and the Critics (San Francisco, 1961), pp. 161–4Google Scholar.
page 225 note 3 The Viking Portable Melville, pp. 739–40.
page 226 note 1 E.g., Wright, Nathalia, Melville's Use of the Bible (Durham, N.C., 1949), p. 126–36Google Scholar; and Arvin, Newton, Herman Melville: A Critical Biography (New York, 1950), pp. 292–9Google Scholar.
page 226 note 2 Franklin, H. Bruce, In the Wake of the Gods: Melville's Mythology (Stanford, 1963)Google Scholar.
page 227 note 1 See Berthoff, Warner, The Example of Melville (Princeton, 1962), pp. 183–203Google Scholar.
page 227 note 2 In this connection see Brodtkorb, Paul, ‘The Definitive Billy Budd: “ But aren't it all sham? ”’, PMLA, 81 (12 1967), 602–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 228 note 1 I believe that Edgar A. Dryden is mistaken in arguing that this digression is one of the ‘disappointing sequels’ which subvert the import of the main narrative. See his Melville's Thematics of Form (Baltimore, 1968), pp. 209–16Google Scholar.
page 229 note 1 Edward H. Rosenberry writes, concerning the same passage, ‘In the face of such rhetoric one might rather expect to find an author reproached for excessive explicitness than debated as an enigma’, ‘The Problem of Billy Budd’, PMLA, 80 (12 1965), 492Google Scholar.
page 229 note 2 Stern, Milton R., The Fine Hammered Steel of Herman Melville (Urbana, 1957), p. 233Google Scholar.
page 230 note 1 Stern, op. cit. p. 232.
page 231 note 1 Chase, Richard, Herman Melville: A Critical Study (New York, 1949), p. 274Google Scholar.
page 231 note 2 The following studies are particularly concerned with the role of Nelson in Billy Budd: Glick, Wendell, ‘Expediency and Absolute Morality in Billy Budd’, PMLA, 68 (03 1953), 103–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barrett, Laurence, ‘The Differences in Melville's Poetry’, PMLA, 70 (09 1955), 606–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noone, John B. Jr, ‘Billy Budd: Two Concepts of Nature’, American Literature, 19 (11 1957), 249–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stern, pp. 206–10; Bowen p. 229; and Willett, Ralph W., ‘Nelson and Vere: Hero and Victim in Billy Budd’, PMLA, 81 (10 1967), 370–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
page 232 note 1 I have reconstructed this passage and the one preceding from the ‘Genetic Text’ in the Hayford—Sealts edition.
page 233 note 1 Cohen, Hennig (ed.), The Battle-Pieces of Herman Melville (New York, London, Toronto, 1963) p. 39, lines 46–8Google Scholar.
page 233 note 2 Ibid. p. 42, lines 36–9.
page 234 note 1 Ibid. p. 37, lines 5–7.
page 234 note 2 Ibid. p. 40, lines 74–9.
page 234 note 3 Ibid. p. 87, lines 47–53.
page 234 note 4 Ibid. p. 40, line 65.
page 234 note 5 Ibid. p. 146, lines 26–33.
page 235 note 1 Ibid. p. 41, line 87.
page 235 note 2 Ibid. p. 40, lines 67–8.
page 235 note 3 Ibid. p. 140, lines, 5–12.
page 235 note 4 Ibid. p. 146, line 39.
page 235 note 5 Ibid. p. 202.
page 235 note 6 The Works of Herman Melville, xv, 295 (Part IV, canto xxiv).
page 236 note 1 There are a number of interesting parallels between Claggart and Hawthorne's Chilling-worth. Both are associated with the European continent and, while Claggart is linked with the Popish Plot, it is rumoured that Chillingworth was involved in the Overbury murder.
page 2361 note 2 Franklin, op, cit. pp. 192–9.
page 237 note 1 Whether or not Billy Budd may be considered a tragedy in the classical sense remains a moot point. There appear to be similarities between Billy Budd and Oedipus Rex because, in both cases, the reader has the problem of reconciling himself to apparent injustice. But is Budd a tragic hero? Budd's failure to report to his superiors the fact that he was approached concerning a potential mutiny may possibly be considered an aspect of his hamartia. Richard Chase believes, and I agree, that Billy is too unsubstantial a person to be a tragic hero; pp. 276–7. Richard Harter Fogle, however, disagrees; ‘Billy Budd—Acceptance or Irony’, Tulane Studies in English, 8 (1958), 107–13Google Scholar.