Meaning_of_Absolutes_in_Billy_Budd

Melville’s Meaning of Absolute At first glance, Herman Melville presents Billy Budd as an unambiguous story whose plot follows an innocent sailor striving to survive on a military vessel while being exposed to malicious characters and violent punishments. Melville portrays his protagonist as purely innocent and naïve, a child incapable of understanding, let alone imposing any harm. Melville pens his antagonist as the innately evil and conniving arch nemesis. However, these two conflicting characters are more alike than perceived. Melville creates the perception of an exterior story about two unquestionable foils trying to coexist; however, beneath the surface, there lies a much deeper meaning. Melville creates his novel from personal experiences had during voyages aboard military ships, as well as from his awareness of the ascending philosophy of Existentialism. Although a dark Romanticist, Melville adopts many of Soren Kierkegaard’s existential beliefs, a confusing and contradictory philosophy accepted by many. This philosophy depicts the unconditional rule of no absolutes. Ironically, making such a proclamation as the rejection of all absolutes presents an absolute affirmation in itself. Influenced by the great complexity of Existentialism, Melville communicates his confusion of the philosophy through the rivals of his novel. Through the impressionable nature of his characters, their blatant flaws, and the process in which those flaws lead to their demise, Herman Melville both supports and contradicts the perplexing Existential belief that absolutes cannot exist. Authors cast the first impression of each character in order to shape the reader’s expectations of how each character will behave throughout the rest of the story. The picture that Melville impeccably paints of his characters consists of individuals with seemingly distinct personalities. On the surface Melville’s “[novel] is a tale about [two] men in a boat: the innocent…[and] the devious” (Johnson 47). Melville creates “Billy Budd, a twenty-one year old ‘novice in the complexities of factitious life,’ is remarkable for his ‘significant personal beauty,’ ‘reposeful good nature,’ ‘straight-forward simplicity’ and ‘unconventional rectitude’” (50). The regularly occurring terms that Melville uses to describe Billy are “simple” and “handsome.” Billy’s beauty seems to awe his companions and they believe him to be good natured and delicate. In many ways, Melville recreates the reactions that had during his own personal experiences through his character Billy. Melville serves on a military vessel during his twenties and realizes that “discipline on the military vessel was different from that on board ships in the private fleets” (Yannella 5). The young sailor, Billy Budd, is impressed onto a similar warship run by discipline and punishment; however, having the personality of an ingenious child, Billy finds the harsh punishments and crude language of the ship difficult to understand. Melville, too “is bothered by the flogging, as is evident in Billy Budd” (5). Melville produces the image of perfection, and then contrasts it with an image of malevolence. War ships accompanied by figures of corruption influenced Melville to pen Billy’s archrival as the irreversibly and naturally evil master-at-arms John Claggart. In contrast with Billy, “Claggart, on the other hand, is presented as the very image of urbane, intellectualized, articulate evil” (Johnson 1). Billy’s perfectly good nature angers Claggart because his own comes off as stern and hard-hearted. This difference in character suggests an absolute contrast between the two foils. Melville’s voyages on ships provided a basis for not only the nature of Claggart, but also events that take place throughout Billy Budd. Melville writes from experience when choosing to have Claggart frame Billy for an alleged crime because “at the time Melville was in the Pacific from 1841 to 1844, his cousin Guert Gansevoort sat on the court which condemned to death three alleged mutineers…”(Yannella 4). Being an innocent newcomer to the harsh world of military living, Melville became aware of evil, as well as good, and continues to ponder the relationships between the two. Melville’s knowledge of military ships helps him to identify the differences between distinct personalities; nonetheless a part of him still puzzles over the absolute nature of people, a main point of existentialism. Melville’s confusion of absolutes permeates through the irony he constantly creates regarding his characters’ thoughts and actions. Melville creates mystery within his characters through his “genetic text,” which “reveals just how much [he] pondered the situation about which he was writing: how he kept returning to it, modifying it, shifting and refining character portraits, thematic emphases, bringing the tale’s actors out from the shadows and returning them there” (Yannella 5). By modifying the behavior of his characters Melville allows them to do the unexpected. Melville’s mystification with human nature flows as he creates a story of ambiguity and incongruity. One of Melville’s oldest and most influential friends, Nathaniel Hawthorne, shares his perspective on Melville’s beliefs by saying that “…He can neither believe, nor be comfortable in his unbelief; and he is too honest and courageous not to try to do one or the other” (7). Hawthorne has earlier said that “Melville, as he always does, began to reason of providence and futurity…and he informed me that he had ‘pretty much made up his mind to be annihilated; but he does not seem to rest in that anticipation; and I think, will never rest until he gets a hold of a definite belief” (7). The first interpretation of Melville’s Billy Budd seems to be an allegory between good and evil; however, as people examine Melville’s experiences, thoughts, and other literary works, a deeper philosophical meaning appears, one that Melville has been pondering over for a lifetime. The appearance of blatant character flaws of which Melville chooses to add to his story creates a crack in the prior picture of absolute good and evil. Billy Budd seems to be an unimpaired sailor who knows nor does any harm; however, Melville writes Billy with a minute, but fatal flaw: Billy stutters. Billy seems to only stutter under stressful situations, suggesting that he cannot control his emotions, for “in the hour of elemental uproar or peril, he was everything that a sailor should be. Yet under certain provocation of strong heart-feeling his voice…[he] was apt to develop an organic hesitancy…more or less of a stutter…” (Melville 15). Billy’s peers hold him up on such a high pedestal that this flaw in his beauty comes as a shock. Melville’s image of perfect, absolute good gets smothered by the fact that “[Billy] is illiterate, he cannot understand ambiguity, and he stutters” (Johnson 50). Billy’s inability to understand ambiguity also shows through his relationship with Claggart, and his confusion of Claggart’s inconsistent actions towards him. The shocking flaw that consumes Claggart serves to be just as blatant as Billy’s stutter to readers; however, those interacting with Claggart in the novel are blind to this flaw. In the beginning of the novel, Claggart’s attitude towards Billy comes off as resentful, including some sparks of jealousy. As the novel begins to unwind, Melville makes it clear that these frustrations that Claggart has over Billy actually result from his forbidden feelings toward Billy. The novel transmits that “Claggart [does in fact have] an evil nature among other dishonorable qualities, but he is also an ambitious and capable officer; he has a heart, too, and ‘could have even loved Billy but not for the fate and ban’” (Marovitz 1). Claggart does envy Billy, but “…but more, he longs for Billy with a passion that ‘assumes various secret forms’’’ (Rollyson 3). Claggart’s jealousy only results from his frustration with a passionate longing for Billy of which he cannot express. Billy, being oblivious to ambiguity, does not interpret Claggart’s actions, such as “the spilling of the soup and Claggart’s reaction to it,” as a display of his feelings for him (Johnson 58). This seemingly “sexual exchange…is lost on Billy, who cannot read” (58). The initial illusions of nature created by Melville leave “some readers insisting that such passages in the text represent the conflict between Claggart as the embodiment of evil and Billy as the embodiment of good, [however, after further interpretation of the novel], other [readers] suggest that they reveal a repressed desire on Claggart’s part that precipitates his continual plotting against Billy” (Rollyson 1). As the commanding master-at-arms, Claggart’s job involves protecting the ship from possible mutinies and attacks. With this is mind Claggart formulates a scandal in which he accuses Billy of mutiny in order to displace him from the ship and silence his feelings for Billy. Contrasts in character and nature further back up the idea of Melville’s extreme confusion of existentialism during his time of writing. “Billy is sweet, innocent, and harmless, yet he kills” and “Claggart is evil, perverted, and mendacious, yet he dies as a victim” (Johnson 51). Although Billy and Claggart show signs of being absolute, those signs actually contribute to the reasons why the two characters possess flaws. Billy’s innocence accounted for his inability to see a change in attitude in Claggart; “As it was, innocence was his blinder” (Melville 57). Had Billy been able to see Claggart’s smirks or smug comments as resentment, or “been conscious of having done or said anything to provoke the ill will of the official, it would have been different with him, and his sight might have gotten purged or if not sharpened.” Had Billy been more aware of ambiguity and evil, he might have been able to protect himself from the rising frustration mounting in Claggart (57). However, Claggart’s “occasional frank air and pleasant word went for what they purported to be,” and Billy’s flaw of blinding innocence led him to believe that there was never “too fair-spoken man” as Claggart (57). The existential idea that absolutes cannot exist together seems irrelevant in a situation where Melville’s characters possess flaws, therefore making them non-absolutes. Although the two characters possess flaws, making them non-absolutes, those flaws lead to their demises, demonstrating a contradictory belief about whether the characters are in fact absolutes. Billy seems like the perfect, naïve sailor who knows nothing of doing harm to others. When his flaw of stuttering begins to affect Billy’s thoughts and actions, Melville’s purpose for including his little imperfection becomes clear; this flaw will result in Billy’s downfall. When Billy is confronted about a punch he threw at Claggart after Claggart had accused him of forming a mutiny, he responds with, “Could I have used my tongue I would have not struck him” (75). Billy only stutters under times of pressure and frustration, which shows that he “seems to lack both self-control and self-awareness, and a thoughtful reader cannot help but see a flaw in [Captains] Graveling’s peacemaker” (Sterling 1). Throughout the story, Billy’s imperfection brings evil qualities that resemble those of Claggart, rather than the prior image of an absolute good “peacemaker.” Melville states the redirection of views on personalities in his novel: “In the jugglery circumstances preceding and attending the event on board the Indomitable, and in light of the martial code whereby it was formally to be judged, innocence and guilt personified in Claggart and Budd in effect changed places” (Melville 72). Transformations in nature within Melville’s characters suggest his uncertainty about the existence of absolutes. As the story progresses from beginning to end, Claggart’s nature changes from bully to victim. The transformation from evil to innocence implies that Melville’s intentions in writing his novel were to show not only that absolutes cannot exist, but also the idea that those possessing flaws cannot live together. The hypocrisy shown through Claggart’s actions also serves as a sign of doubt within Melville about his beliefs of the roles of good and evil. Hypocrisy becomes present after Claggart’s desires for Billy begin to frustrate him; until he eventually “meets his downfall when he attempts to master the arbitrariness of the sign for his own ends by falsely accusing Billy of harboring arbitrariness [by] hiding of a mutineer beneath the appearance of a baby” (Johnson 53). Melville’s message becomes clear at the point of the accusation, that “in fact, it is Billy’s beauty that instigates Claggart’s instinctive dislike because Claggart realizes that such beauty is the manifestation of a truly innocent and essentially good spirit –in utter contrast to Claggart’s own.” Claggart, in truth, wants the beautiful nature that Billy has for his own, yet throughout the story, he constantly strategizes a way to remove that beauty from the ship. From the beginning of the novel, the natures of the characters of Billy and Claggart lead the reader to predict a drastically different ending than the innocent figure becoming the killer, and the accusatory figure becoming the victim. Many readers feel that “No consideration of the characters can fail to take into account the fact that the fate of each of the characters is the direct reverse of what one is led to expect from his ‘nature’” (50). Billy’s innocence, so perfectly apparent, shows that Billy cannot handle lies, but his flaw of stuttering does not allow him to control his emotions. When asked about his actions towards Claggart at the scene of his accusation, Billy responds, “he blatantly lied to my face and in the presence of my Captain, and I had to say something, and I could only say it with a blow, God help me” (Melville 75). Although Billy obviously cannot cope with lies, when confronted earlier in the novel by Claggart’s partner in crime, Squeak, Billy “neglects to report the questionable proposition, [to perform a mutiny aboard the ship], even though ‘it was his duty as a loyal blue-jacket’ (Johnson 57). The constant hypocrisy clearly visible throughout the characters in Billy Budd tells us that Melville wish to emphasize his confusion of the existence of absolutes. He first creates an illusionary image of absolutes, then afterward presents those characters with flaws to make them non-absolutes, and eventually switches his personalities to become opponents in nature. Therefore, Melville’s foils kill each other not because of their absolute good and evil natures, but because of the flaws in emotions that made them non-absolutes. The fact that these two non-absolutes could not exist together advocates more of Melville’s existential confusion by stating that absolutes as well as non-absolutes have the capability for downfall. The extraordinary impact that Melville’s writing has on his readers of Billy Budd remains constant, however, the ambiguous plot line of the novel remains ever changing, likewise to Melville’s beliefs on existentialism. Initially Melville’s childlike Billy and sinister Claggart resemble what the existentialists call absolute personalities. Nevertheless, the growing contradiction in the actions of both characters skewed the initial opinion of most readers. With the presence of flaws Melville’s characters do not qualify as absolutes, figures that cannot live together according to existentialism. Yet, Billy and Claggart still have fatal downfalls, permeating the idea that non-absolutes cannot exist together either. The ever-changing nature of Melville’s characters provides proof of Melville’s confusion about the existential belief that absolutes cannot exist. If Melville understands this absolute claim to be true, why does he include flaws that create tears in his character’s absolute good and evil natures' Melville’s decision to illustrate seemingly perfect absolutes, then to transform them into non-absolutes by giving them a flaw, but still writing those flaws to be the reasons for their fatal downfall delineates Melville’s uncertainty about the absolute existential belief that absolutes cannot exist. Works Cited Johnson, Barbara. “Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Budd.” Herman Melville’s Billy Budd, Benito Cereno, Bartleby the Scrivener, and Other Tales. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. 47-71. Print. Marovitz, Sanfor E. “Billy Budd, Sailor.” Facts on File Companion to the American Novel. Ed. Abby H.P. Werlock. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2006. Web. Melville, Herman. “Billy Budd.” Billy Budd and Other Tales. New York: New American Reference Library, 2009. 5-105. Print. Rollyson, Carl, Lisa Padock, and April Gentry. “Billy Budd, Sailor.” Critical Companion to Herman Melville: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work, Critical Companion. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2007. Web. Sterling, Laurie A. “Billy Budd, Sailor.” Bloom’s How to Write About Herman Melville. New York: Chelsea House, 2008. Web. Yannella, Donald, Ed. New Essays on Billy Budd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. 4-121. Web.