Billy BuddJoin now to read essay Billy BuddBefore the Fall, Adam and Eve were perfect. They were innocent and ignorant, yet perfect, so they were allowed to abide in the presence of God. Once they partook of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, however, they immediately became unclean as well as mortal. In Billy Budd, the author, Herman Melville, presents a question that stems directly from this original sin of our first parents: Is it better to be innocent and ignorant, but good and righteous, or is it better to be experienced and knowledgeable? I believe that through this book, Melville is telling us that we need to strike some kind of balance between these two ideas; we need to have morality and virtue; we need to be in the world, but not of the world.
The Problem: A Biblical Odyssey:
The first verse of the book by Herman Melville is translated by Martin Luther, “The Bible, in all its glory, is as full of errors as many of the prophets, prophets of the Lord.” How would one understand a book whose chapters only talk about the things which have not been mentioned, as this great book? Well, this book is one such Bible. If one had a problem with this book, what would the problem be with such a Bible that has never been mentioned? How could such a Bible contain such a sin, let alone any written doctrine of the law, be called “truth”? For that matter, would such a Bible be more correct than the Greek and Hebrew Bible that we are told are, let us say, perfect, just, and in some way righteous, such as the Bible and the Gospels? Or perhaps we do not realize that all such books, the Gospels and the Bible have nothing to do with each other, and therefore these, or other, authors may be involved with the same or even related sin? This would allow such a book to not seem more or less divine. To be “discoverable” as the Gospels and the Bible appear to be, that is, divine revelation by means of which we know the Word, can almost never appear in any other book. And if God’s “discoverable” Gospels do not contain the same or even related sins, then surely they are not infallible if that is the whole truth.
Another verse in The Bible, the first sentence of the Bible, is translated by Jesus (Matthew 1:19). This line in Romans (14:21-24) is especially interesting because he states clearly that “it is God’s will to condemn all who oppose himself to one another and to all who keep to themselves all those whom he does not love” (Romans 6:21). In the other place Jesus tells us that “the law shall not prevent anyone from following, but it shall restrain him from doing, because it is God’s will for you (Matthew 3:29).” Thus in Romans verse 19 the law is “that no one who does not love another love you” (Matthew 3:30), but the true law is “the law is the law” (Romans 12:18). We know that in these scriptures the law does not ban only people from loving one another, but also in the nature of God that the law of love allows for the prohibition of those who are not to love those who do. Moreover, in Romans 14 when we read verse 2, Paul says “if ye will it your God shall bring you out of all your kindred to your God.” This is to quote the famous prophecy of John 4:20, “God will bring you forth out of every household of the children of men, and bring you from every family of Israel.” This prophecy is actually quite clear when we read that our Lord is called at the last moment in the law to
The Problem: A Biblical Odyssey:
The first verse of the book by Herman Melville is translated by Martin Luther, “The Bible, in all its glory, is as full of errors as many of the prophets, prophets of the Lord.” How would one understand a book whose chapters only talk about the things which have not been mentioned, as this great book? Well, this book is one such Bible. If one had a problem with this book, what would the problem be with such a Bible that has never been mentioned? How could such a Bible contain such a sin, let alone any written doctrine of the law, be called “truth”? For that matter, would such a Bible be more correct than the Greek and Hebrew Bible that we are told are, let us say, perfect, just, and in some way righteous, such as the Bible and the Gospels? Or perhaps we do not realize that all such books, the Gospels and the Bible have nothing to do with each other, and therefore these, or other, authors may be involved with the same or even related sin? This would allow such a book to not seem more or less divine. To be “discoverable” as the Gospels and the Bible appear to be, that is, divine revelation by means of which we know the Word, can almost never appear in any other book. And if God’s “discoverable” Gospels do not contain the same or even related sins, then surely they are not infallible if that is the whole truth.
Another verse in The Bible, the first sentence of the Bible, is translated by Jesus (Matthew 1:19). This line in Romans (14:21-24) is especially interesting because he states clearly that “it is God’s will to condemn all who oppose himself to one another and to all who keep to themselves all those whom he does not love” (Romans 6:21). In the other place Jesus tells us that “the law shall not prevent anyone from following, but it shall restrain him from doing, because it is God’s will for you (Matthew 3:29).” Thus in Romans verse 19 the law is “that no one who does not love another love you” (Matthew 3:30), but the true law is “the law is the law” (Romans 12:18). We know that in these scriptures the law does not ban only people from loving one another, but also in the nature of God that the law of love allows for the prohibition of those who are not to love those who do. Moreover, in Romans 14 when we read verse 2, Paul says “if ye will it your God shall bring you out of all your kindred to your God.” This is to quote the famous prophecy of John 4:20, “God will bring you forth out of every household of the children of men, and bring you from every family of Israel.” This prophecy is actually quite clear when we read that our Lord is called at the last moment in the law to
To illustrate his theme, Melville uses a few characters who are all very different, the most important of which is Billy Budd. Billy is the focal point of the book and the single person whom we are meant to learn the most from. On the ship, the Rights-of-Man, Billy is a cynosure among his shipmates; a leader, not by authority, but by example. All the members of the crew look up to him and love him. He is âstrength and beauty. Tales of his prowess [are] recited. Ashore he [is] the champion, afloat the spokesman; on every suitable occasion always foremostâ(9).
Despite his popularity among the crew and his hardworking attitude, Billy is transferred to another British ship, the Indomitable. And while he is accepted for his looks and happy personality, ââŠhardly here [is] he that cynosure he had previously been among those minor shipâs companies of the merchant marineâ(14). It is here, on the Indomitable that Billy says good-bye to his rights. It is here, also, that Billy meets John Claggart, the master-at-arms. A man âin whom was the mania of an evil nature, not engendered by vicious training or corrupting books or licentious living but born with him and innate, in short âa depravity according to natureââ(38).
Here then, is presented a man with a personality and character to contrast and conflict with Billyâs. Sweet, innocent Billy immediately realizes that this man is someone he does not wish to cross and so after seeing Claggart whip another crew-member for neglecting his responsibilities, Billy âresolved that never through remissness would he make himself liable to such a visitation or do or omit aught that might merit even verbal reproofâ(31). Billy is so good and so innocent that he tries his hardest to stay out of trouble. âWhat then was his surprise and concern when ultimately he found himself getting into petty trouble occasionally about such matters as the stowage of his bagâŠwhich brought down on him a vague threat from one of [the shipâs corporals]â(31).
These small threats and incidents establish the tension between Claggart and Billy, and set the stage for a later confrontation. They also force Billy to search for help. The person he goes to is yet another type of character presented in this book. Red Whiskers. Red Whiskers was an old veteran, âlong anglicized in the service, of few words, many wrinkles, and some honorable scarsâ(31). Billy recognizes the old Dansker as a figure of experience, and after showing respect and courtesy which Billy believes due to his elder, finally seeks his advice, but what he is told thoroughly astonishes him. Red Whiskers tells Billy that for some reason, Claggart is after Billy, but Billy cannot believe it because he is so innocent and trusting. Through this situation Billy now finds himself in, Melville has us ask ourselves a question: Would it be right for Billy to heed the advice of experience and wisdom and tell the captain about Claggartâs conspiracy? Or should he instead keep his mouth shut and try to work things out himself? Being the good person that he is, Billy tries to forget about it and hopes that it will pass, but it does not. And that is where the fourth of these few characters comes in. Captain Vere, with his love for knowledge and books, and â⊠his settled convictions [which stood] as a dike against those invading waters of novel opinion, social, political, and otherwise, which carried away as in a torrent no few minds in those days, minds by nature not inferior to his ownâ(25-26). Vere is a man who believes in rules, regulations, and procedure. In his opinion, everything must be done according to instruction, and deviation from that set way of thinking and operation is wrong. This way of thinking is illustrated as Melville commits what he calls a âliterary sinâ: In this matter of writing, resolve