Word Choices - AP English Literature - Blog

semi parallel: like the euphrates and tigris or a river runs through it or some fruity comparison

On the surface Dead Man may seem like pointless weirdness, or in high school terms "super random." And although I find the symbolism loose and confusing, I do think that there is still a very clear message to the work. This is one of many times I have seen the film but i think it made more sense this time because of the work we had done with, Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse now. 

Besides all of them having a symbolic river in it (as I cleverly alluded to in the title), these three works have many parallel motifs and they all serve similar purposes as works of art in their respective culture. It was because of the close relationship Dead Man had to more explicit work like Heart of Darkness that I could figure out these Purposes. 

All three of these movies form a powerful message on a couple or more different levels. At least two or more levels. One level being sociological or a criticism of actual tangible events in a culture (imperialism, savage wars, western bruteness) and the next a more ontological or 'deep' meaning. It happens that we may be blessed with several 'deep' meanings in each work.

I personally I have noticed allusions to intellectual discovery and universal development as an allegorical theme in each.  to be continued for the extra points...

Why Prospero?!

As I read the end of the play, I could not understand why Prospero wanted to give up so much of his power when he talks about giving up his magic, "I'll break my staff, bury it certain fathoms in the earth, and deeper than did ever plummet sound. I"ll drown my book." pg 149 lines 63-66

How is it that a man who boasted of all his power and plan to take revenge is suddenly forgiving everyone and giving up what distinguishes him from every one else. Prospero is the only man who can control the spirits and convince them to do what he pleases, he uses his spells and charms to fool others and uses his magic on Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo to stop their plot to kill him. He tells Ariel how sorry he feels and instead of satisfying his desire to kill them, he says he must feel compassion, forgive them and he lets them go. I wonder if his magic was ever a burden to him, otherwise, why would he want to give it up all of a sudden?

Preservation of Order or Justice

Billy Budd, Sailor begins with an emphasis on the absolute goodness and innocence of Billy Budd contrasted with the evil Claggart. This dichotomous contrast of good and evil sets up the more important aspect of the story which is society's ability to treat the accused fairly.

Rather than the contrast of good and evil, the contrast of order and justice is a superior embodiment of the meaning of the story. The emphasis on order begins with Billy's impressment, an act which seems unfair but is done in the name of order and the success of England.

The greatest emphasis on order arises after Billy kills Claggart and Captain Vere is forced to make a decision on how to respond. As a result of the possible mutiny on board during the year of the Great Mutiny, Vere is forced to act swiftly and harshly. This decision to execute Billy is a direct result of mutinous pressure, and is not fair to the accused party. Billy should have been entitled to a more professional court on land, where he would have been able to explain his actions to a more unbiased and qualified court. While Vere does not want to execute Billy, he is forced to do so immediately to preserve order on the Bellipotent. Vere even admits that he believes Billy had no intent to mutiny, but this does not prevent him from his brash decision to hang Billy.

Portrayals of War

I thought it was interesting  how well Paths of Glory corresponded to Billy Budd.

In both the movie and the book the men tried are innocent. In both works the trials are completely unfair. In both works the main characters come off as likable competent men. In both works there is a honest and honorable captain who tries only to do the right thing for everyone.

Paths of Glory also brings in religion and if someone can truly be redeemed. Lastly, in the end of both stories all of the men die. No one is spared from the unfair brutality.

I was wondering what other parallels others saw and if anyone knew if Paths of Glory had any direct connection to Billy Budd.

No Real Winner in Internal Battle

Claggart's sole goal in life was to corrupt Billy, or so it seemed to me. He accomplished that goal. He risked his life just to watch Billy be consumed by evil. It would seem to me, though, that Melville would have stopped the novel there, with evil victorious. He continues on for many chapters after the death of both Billy and Claggart, I think, to show how there is actually no clear cut winner in the internal battle between good and evil. Vere is truly the only one who suffers. He knew Billy's potential. He needed Claggart as a master-at-arms. Melville continued the story in order to truly depict how Vere suffered from the loss of his "son" and his crew. He, unfortunately, had the "tragic" ability to see both sides of a situation. He had to sentence Billy to death, yet without his knowledge, and the knowledge the reader is able to infer from the chapters after Billy's execution as presented by Melville, the reader is able to truly grasp the ambiguities and complexities within the battle of good v. evil.

I hope that The Tempest has as much to offer as Billy Budd, Sailor.

Melville v. Rousseau?

One thing that really stuck with me throughout Billy Budd is that it presents two conflicting ideas of justice.  Vere is the character Melville uses to identify the two types of justice. In one way there is justice as defined by society. This is the justice that Vere refers to when he talks about being loyal to the king who has outlined justice in the Articles of War. Vere explains that as sailors they are bound to this definition of justice and must forego natural justice when deciding Billy’s case. Vere’s natural sense of justice tells him to “convict yet mitigate” Billy of his crimes. However, Vere is a man of honor as well as a scholar and he understands his obligation to punish Billy for his crime. In this case natural or individual justice is in conflict with societal justice.

This conflict is a paradox; individuals make up society and as a whole they determine justice, yet their natural sense of justice is not the same as their collective definition of justice. Melville adapts Rousseau’s idea of a General Will but turns it on its head.  Rousseau argues that because the individuals as whole decide what is right there will be no conflict, however, as evidenced by Billy Budd and the conflict over justice, Melville is showing the opposite. Could it be that the essential purpose of “Billy Budd” is to refute the concept of a General Will? 

A Bone to Pick in Eden

I think that some issues have to be settled as a starting point for making further conclusions about Billy Budd. The question of whether Billy's innocence is retained after killing Claggart is key to understanding the magnetically opposite characters of evil and innocence, and their interactions. Is Claggart a martyr for his cause of killing Billy? is Claggart a foil to Billy? And is the biblical parallel remain true throughout the novel, or merely a tool that Melville uses bring Christianity into the mix? All of these questions lie on the issure of Billy's innocence, after 'the fall'

Some Evidence for Billy losing his innocence is that Billy is the uncivilized Adam, who when he finally understands the nature of evil, is doomed to suffer. But this argument fails to address that Billy had a violent encounter with Red Whiskers, and that strike of violence did not cause him to lose his innocence. So I think if Billy were corrupted, it would be based on the understanding that Billy gets from Claggart's accuation. So, is Billy's realization truly a bite from the apple of Eden?

Angel on the Right and Devil on the Left

Billy Budd overall seems to be a classic tale of Good vs. Evil and as I sit here blogging I thought up a new twist. If Captain Vere is our most human character and every human suffers from debates within their conscience; I believe Melville could have created Vere with an external conscience. What do I mean?

I mean that Billy is pure good, an angel he's been called, and Claggart is the epitome of natural evil. What if these two characters represented Vere's conscience? He's caught in this constant struggle between good and evil, something we all debate internally, but his debate is between Billy and Claggart.

Billy represents good and is the angel on Vere's right shoulder, while Claggart is the evil devil on his left shoulder.This idea definately supports the idea of an evil victory in Billy Budd. Feel free to disagree, but do you think this could be another valid approach to the novel?

A Noose, a Guillotine, and a Firing Squad

Now having got a little taste of what to expect in our College English class, I think we've all come to notice the pervading theme in the material we've covered. Why is everyone being executed?

So far, Meursault has fallen victim to the guillotine, Billy to a noose, and the three soldiers in Paths of Glory to a firing squard. What do they all have in common? What do they offer towards the meaning of the story? At first glance to me, a tragic execution of the protagonist seems to be a clever trick that the author employs to raise controversy. When thinking about the issue further, I started to think that it is instead an excellent use of people's fear of death to communicate the theme of each work more thoroughly.

In The Stranger, only by Meursault being given the sentence of death does one truly understand the possible consequences of living an existentialist lifestyle. In Billy Budd, the theme of good versus evil is put in a harsh light with Billy's execution as his innocent nature succumbs to Claggarts depravity of nature. Finally, the three soldiers face a firing squad, illuminating the theme of order versus justice in a particularly disturbing sense. I think each author purposefully used the powerful reality of death to drive home their purpose in composing each work.

Might there be any other reasons that the authors of these three pieces find it necessary to end their works with an execution? What does this add to the meaning or theme of the novel?

Is Claggart Bizarro-Billy?

I find it interesting that in dying, Claggart accomplished to corrupt Billy, his goal since encountering him. (If you accept that Billy lost his innocence by killing him) That would make Claggart a martyr. But Billy is seen likewise as a martyr for "killing evil". Maybe Claggart is not just Billy's opposite or enemy. Claggart is Billy's foil. The natures of both are derived from nature and both die from their natures. They are the same person, only on different sides of the spectrum.

Claggart is the evil version of Billy.

A Debatable Debate (?)

In addition to the confusion in the debate of both sides arguing a different question, I believe Marcus's conclusion, while in itself a very good argument, added another layer of confusion because of its inconsistency with his group's argument. The con side opened with and focused on the argument that Vere should not have made the decision, for the reasons that it was the admiral's authority, Vere was biased, and Vere's sanity was questionable. This was then established as the issue that both sides debated. The morality of the decision was not brought up until the conclusion.

And so the debaters presented three arguments to the judges. The con side addressed the question: "Should Vere have made the decision to execute Billy?" The pro side addressed the question: "Was Vere's decision the right one (in accordance with the laws and circumstances)?" And Marcus addressed the question: "Was Vere's decision morally right?" 

All three of those questions are separate debates. The pro's question is almost not debatable. In accordance to the Mutiny Acts and the circumstances (both of the crime and of the ship's environment), Billy should have been executed. The con's question is slightly more debatable. Sanity and bias are not as easy to interpret as law. But the morality question is truly debatable, and should have been the core of our debate.

Viewed as a whole, you can see that this question of "was it right?" is rather irrelevant. Vere and Billy thought so, and the ship's crew seemed to accept it. The world did what it wanted with this issue in its interpretation of the execution. After the execution, no one seemed to question it. You can believe it was immoral or a manifestation of insanity, but it will still remain a belief. Ultimately, any question of "rightness", in its vague construction, transcends debate or truth. We cannot truly know what is right and what is not.

This debate is rather meaningless outside of the understanding of the text it requires, because rightness cannot be resolved. Rightness is too vague and all-encompassing of a word. A better question would be "Is it moral?" or "Is it ethical?" or "Is it lawful?". Or maybe by asking "Was it right?", Heidkamp expected us to address all aspects of this weighted question.

Death by Atheism

Considering just the sheer number of biblical allusions that dot Billy Budd, the fact that Captain Vere is killed by the Athee (The Atheist) seems to be significant (129).  I have a possible explanation as to why Melville chose to name this ship The Atheist.

First, we have Vere's exclamation, "Struck dead by an angel of God!  Yet the angel must hang!" (101).  Of course, this begs the question, if Billy is still an angel, why hang him?  To answer this, we can look at the allusion that Max mentioned in the debate--Melville's comparison of Vere to Abraham and Billy to Isaac.  Just as Abraham is ready to sacrifice Isaac according to God's commands, Vere sacrifices Billy to a higher power: the King and his laws.  Vere is caught between God and God's stand-in, the King.

Vere's unrelenting rationality makes this dilemma easy for him to solve: he chooses the King's laws over God's.  Vere's slaughter of Billy is sacrilegious, and it is this pseudo-atheism that, as Colonel Dax would say, haunts him to the day that he dies (for this interpretation to hold true, of course, it is necessary that Vere's last words of "Billy Budd, Billy Budd" are indeed said in remorse, contrary to the attendant's report (129).  This is very debatable).  Vere's decision to sentence God's angel to death kills Vere on the inside, and it is only fitting that The Atheist kills him on the outside.

Murmurs of the Crew

Looking back on my notes from Billy Budd as well as the text itself, I noticed a recurring action in the novel that I don't think we have addressed in class. When the crew is told information regarding Billy, a murmur is heard throughout the ship. As soon as it starts, it is repressed by "shrill whistles of the boatswain and his mates", and the crew is told "to about ship" (117). This single instance does not seem significant in any way, but when I read two very similar instances later in the book, I wondered if I was missing something.

Again, on page 128, the crew is emotionally coping with the burial of Billy, and the officers dismiss the sailors and tell them to get back to work. On page 124 as Billy is hanging, the same instance occurs. What could the significance of these situations be?

I suppose that it is possibly showing the reader that the sympathy and goodness that is displayed for Billy by the sailors is repressed and forgotten about eventually... The newspaper article that summarizes the story of Billy and Claggart is inaccurate, and that could be a result of the officials covering up the story and meddling with the concept of evil and good. Is Melville simply displaying the supression of goodness?

Religious criticism

There is little stipulation as to whether or not Melville compares Billy Budd to Jesus and Captain Vere to  God. After all, the sailors regard chips from the spar from which Billy Budd was hung as "a piece of the Cross" (131) and Claggart's false testimony to Vere is compared to 'the divine judgment on Ananias'(100).  But one cannot be acquiesced by this mere association; Melville would not have painstakingly taken time to saturate his story with so many biblical references with no specific purpose in mind. I believe that Melville adds a religious tint to his story in order to question the dogma and validity of Christianity.

To me, the biggest discrepancy of any character lies between Captain Vere's enlightened image and his adherence to man-made restrictions. He is supposed to be the beacon of reason on the ship, yet his firm application of military discipline for the good of the ship judges only surface values. He leaves the ultimate judgement of the souls of both Billy Budd and Claggart up to God. But the very fact that readers can question the prudency of Captain Vere's decision to condemn Billy Budd raises the question of why Melville compares Vere to God if Vere may have done wrong?

 Moreover, the night before Billy Budd's execution, the chaplain pronounced his feeling 'that innocence was even a better thing than religion wherewith to go to Judgement'. But Billy Budd does not expect to go to Judgement when he dies, as "he felt he could never convert to a dogma"(121). Thus, Melville establishes an incompatibility between innocence and Judgement, for if Billy Budd has no knowledge of sin, he lacks the awareness for a need to be judged. Furthermore, the chaplain's role on the ship is an ironic vilification of religion, he 'is the minister of the Prince of Peace serving in the host of the God of War' (122).

Finally, near the end of the novel, one cannot help but ask whether or not Vere's death by the 'Athee' (the Atheist) is a significant reproach of religion. Or whether or not the entire chapter devoted to denouncing the faulty reporting of Billy Budd's death and the fact that it is 'all that hitherto has stood in human record to attest what manner of men respectively were John Claggart and Billy Budd" (131) questions the reliability of the Bible.

Dealing With Evil

I was just remembering how when Billy witnessed a lashing of one of the ship's crew members. Afterwards Billy tries extremely hard to be a perfect crew member. He is fearful he will be punished like the crew member he saw. Though he is trying to stay out of trouble he still gets punished for little things he does wrong. Billy and the reader later find out it is because of Claggart's illwill against him. What I was wondering is if Melville is trying to say that no matter how hard someone tries to be perfect that evil will always be around and effect them? Is Melville trying to say that the important thing is responsibly handeling evil? Is the real problem Billy was faced with was learning about evil and how to handle? If so I would say Billy certainly failed at handeling the situation.

Good, Evil, and Free Will

In the novel "Billy Budd", by Herman Melville, the narrator states many facts quite clearly. He states that Billy Budd is inherently good and thus always acts in ways agreeing with that characteristic. He says slightly different facts about Claggart. Melville states that Claggart is inherently evil, yet sometimes wishes he could go against his nature and be more like Billy Budd. However, Claggart's malicious nature is strong and he is not able to defy it. Thus Claggart's actions will always be performed with bad intentions. This statement may be going a bit off topic but it seems as though Melville believes that nature will always conquer nurture. Melville seems to believe in the strength of nature to the point where humans do not have real free will. Perhaps his views of humanity are low because there is really only one character in the book who displays a great amount of intelligence and that man, Captain Vere, must kill the sailor of light, Billy Budd. When Billy Budd's execution is carried out while it seems that no one wants to see him die but the are all powerless to stop it, as if no one on the ship had a choice to begin with.

Screw Innocence

Dear Herman Melville,

You win. You have convinced me, contrary to everything that I've been told by my parents, monotheistic religions and the Lifetime Channel, that innocence is the root of all evil.

The character of Billy Budd, sailor is compared to Adam"before the fall" several times throughout the novel. "Billy in many respects was little more than a sort of upright barbarian, much such perhaps as Adam presumably mighthave been ere the urbane Serpent wriggled himself into his company (pg. 52)."

Adam's fall from grace was a result of the serpent's ability to manipulate Adam and Eve's innocence. Billy Budd's execution was a direct result of his innocence as well. If Billy Budd had been a cynic, hardened to world he wouldn't have had the same flustered, violent reaction to Claggart's reaction. Yes, his innocence makes him something of a martyr for all goodness, but it also makes him dead.

Herman Mellville, I appreciate this lesson. It has taught me to continue to expand my cynical outlook on life. Thank you.

His ultimate downfall

Captain Vere, who was supposed to portray god in the story, ultimately failed at his task by choosing to execute Billy Budd. This could prove that Vere was not a true god, or that he was not qualified to be a god.

After Billy killed Claggart, unintentionally, Vere appeared to side with Billy during the trial. However, when Billy left for the judges to make thier desicion, Captain Vere betrays Billy by then making his statement about military discipline. I believe that this shows Captain Vere's true feelings about Billy, probably influenced when he killed Claggart.

In the end of the story, Vere lies dying from a bullet wound, his last words "Billy Budd, Billy Budd" are a remembrance to the man he sentenced to death. While we do not know what Vere was thinking of at that time, I think that even though the book states it was not remorse that Vere chose to remember Billy, his death alone, proves that there was some fault in his desicion.

Billy Budd Debate and Compassion in The Stranger

Once I figured out that the debate wasn't purely about wether Vere's decision was right or wrong but about wether morality or justice is more important, it got a lot more interesting. I ended up siding with morality, but I'm not entirely satisfied with simply casting my vote because each side obviously has its merits.

And that's my shout out to Sarah Garvey, who argued her point admirably, but I whom I didn't vote for.

The main reason for my ambivalence is my desire to believe that justice and morality are on the same side. I think that's one of the most important themes in Billy Budd, that justice and morality aren't inherently the same.

It reminded me of my Stranger essay, in which I argued that justice and morality go hand in hand because they are centered around compassion for others. Justice systems are organized to prevent and punish the harming of others because it is immoral. They seem to go hand in hand. But now because of Billy Budd I can see that is not always the case.

I am inclined to believe that they aren't always in accordance because the justice system is flawed, but I would be interested to hear other people's comments on why justice and morality can conflict, either in Billy Budd specifically or just in general.

God Bless Captain Vere!

An especially confusing part of the novel occurs when Billy utters this phrase immediately preceding his execution. At first glance it may seem to be a merely sarcastic remark made to provoke guilt in Vere, but a contradiction exists in that analysis. It is understood that Billy never possessed any malice towards another character in the novel, so it does not fit that he would hope to curse Vere in his final words. What might this exclamation mean then?

Faced with his death, I believe that Billy is showing a remarkable amount of fortitude in his ability to compliment Vere at this juncture. He recognizes that Vere favored him, and is astounded by his resolution in condemning him to avoid further mutiny. Billy maintains his image as an honorable character by remaining steadfast in his innocence until his end.

A sort of similar case I connected this scene with occurs in the movie 300. Immediately preceding King Leonidas' suicide attack, he says to the man who condemned him "May you live forever". I found this to be relevant in that there is a surprising amount of honesty in both cases, with a meaning behind it that is difficult to derive.

Has anyone seen this movie and remembers this quote? If you have, what do you think about the parallel between what Leonidas says to Ephialtes (the man who condemned him) and what Billy says to Vere? If you haven't seen it, I'd like to know what people think about the meaning of Billy's words in greater detail.

Two aspects of innocence

   A few days ago in class we discussed the idea of Billy's loss of innocence, and while I listened to the rest of the class respond, I realized that most of the class only addressed one sense of the word "innocence". People thought about Billy's innocence more along his actions, whereas I considered his thoughts and perceptions instead.

Most of the class agreed that Billy didn't truly lose his innocence when he slapped Claggart. He didn't intend on seriously injuring Claggart, let alone murder him. His actions may have made the rest of society view him differently, but Billy himself did not act in an extremely unruly manner.

In my opinion, Billy's innocence is reflected in his thoughts rather than his actions, and through his perception of his surroundings Billy has lost his innocence. He is no longer naive and has been exposed to the corrupt ideas of humanity that he did not recognize before. Billy has, in this sense, lost his innocence.

I find it interesting that I thought about one losing their innocence in a completely different way than the rest of the class did, and again noticed that people interpret questions and ideas differently. In class today the pro group responded to one side of the question "was Captain Vere's decision to execute Billy the right decision?", while the con group adressed a different aspect of the very same question. It amazes me that people's perceptions of abstract concepts such as innocence and morals are so vastly different. 

Billy's Tragedy

During the class debate someone brought up the belief that Billy's death was a tragedy. I started thinking about what it is that Billy represents and what Melville was trying to say through his execution. Is it that society is so provoked by the unknown, that when we are confronted with the atypical we turn away?

Then I thought about the false newspaper article about Billy and how the entire story portrayed Billy as an insane monster out for revenge, and how no one will ever know what Billy was really thinking. We will never really understand why it is that Vere executed Billy besides preventing mutiny when he knew Claggart was not good. I guess death is not something that simply ties the knot, instead it leaves those few strands hanging.

Billy's Lack of Passion

"Passion, and passion in its profoundest, is not a thing demanding a palatial stage whereon to play its part. Down among the groundling, among the beggars and rakers of the garbage, profound passion is enacted." (Page 78, Section 143)

As I read this quote at the beginning of Chapter 13, I was really struck by it. I think it is a great statement about human nature and is true... with the exception of Billy. I feel that Billy does not exhibit any examples of passion throughout the novel.  He works hard yes, but that is because it's all he knows. He never hosts a strong passion similar Claggart's, never even dislikes the guy until right before he throws the fatal punch.

The punch, some might say, is the perfect example of passion. I have to disagree and say that I think it was Billy's childlike reaction to a situation he had never encountered before.  So if everyone is capable of passion why isn't Billy?

Billy Budd is a Goldfinch

After finishing a novel, I always like to reread the first chapter and pick up subtle hints dropped by the narrator which I was previously unaware of. This was harder to do in Billy Budd, but Melville didnt dissapoint. When Billy Budd had just been informed that he was going to be changing ships, he does not protest, " any demur would have been as idle as the protest of a goldfinch popped into a cage" (Melville 45). This quote compares Billy Budd to the goldfinch in different ways. A goldfinch is a very beautiful and appealing animal, just as Billy is. A goldfinch also has a sense of innocene to it as well, which the reader is well aware of Billy's moral integrity also. But it is not the bird that is the only importatnt factor, the quote really gains dept when the bird is paired with the cage. This suggest towards Billy, that his beauty and morals are a fate for him. It demonstates that even with protest and uproar, that does not change his situaton.

Billy vs. Meursault.

Within class, we are doing a formal debate discussing whether Billy Budd deserves to be executed. This debate made me consider The Stranger again and I began debating within my head over whether Billy deserved to be executed in comparison to whether Meursault deserved to be executed within The Stranger. While obviously, the novels are extremely different, they are similar in that both of their protagonist characters are executed in the end.

Meursault, in my opinion, was not good, but he was also not bad. By saying this, I am not stating that he is a bland character, I simply don't define him in that way. He was more of a viewer of the world, rather than an active participant. While Billy Budd is a completely different character. He is inherently good, he is described as being as close to perfect as a human can possibly be, with the exception that he had a stutter when he became nervous. If a stutter is his only negative trait in life, he obviously has to be very close to perfect. I don't think anyone who reads The Stranger can argue that Meursault was anywhere close to perfect, an interesting character, yes, a perfect human being, no. Also, in the differences between the two of them, Meursault fired a gun with full knowledge of the power of the gun and what he was doing, Billy punched Claggart because he could not speak with proper words to describe how he was feeling, he did not intend to kill. Should they both have been executed? I don't know. 

However, I believe that both characters are so different from the rest of the world that they were unable to continue to be a part of it. Meursault was strange in that he would not be a part of societal norms. Instead, he was a stranger to many parts of the human societal world. However, Billy was strange in a different way, he was almost too perfect. He was well-liked by almost everyone that at a certain point there had to be someone who became angry and jealous at this, unfortunately for Billy that happened to be a person who was high up in ship hierarchy. Both of them were different from the rest of the world, and both of them were executed in the end, coincidence, who knows. 

The Great Inquisitor and Captain Vere

As the title suggests, I noted an interesting comparison between Billy Budd, especially the decision Captain must make concerning Billy's execution, and the chapter of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov entitled "The Great Inquisitor". I'll explain, don't worry, you don't necessarily have to have read that impossibly long book in order to understand this.

"The Great Inquisitor" is an outline of an epic poem written by one of the main characters of The Brothers K. in which a Cardinal during the Spanish Inquisition encounters Christ himself during the height of the daily persecutions in Seville during 15th century. Christ returns to earth during this time and is encountered by the priesthood in a chapel, reviving a couple's young daughter from death in a poignant demonstration of his Godhood. The Cardinal witnesses this act and orders his arrest; immediately the people flee from Christ in fear of the Cardinal's power. The Cardinal visits Christ in his cell by night and explains to him that the next day He will burn at the stake. He tells Christ that the day he died at the cross instead of giving the people a miracle to beleive in, he gave them freedom of beleif and moral choice, and that was the day that the people sold their freedom to the church for order and "bread". He argues that in order to maintain order and keep the people under the power of the church's "bread" Christ must die. he argues that happiness comes from dogma and structure, and that His second coming will only bring unhappiness and chaos, a state in which Humanity will not be able to thrive. Christ responds by kissing him on the forehead, which evokes such a powerful response from The Cardinal that he lets Christ free on the terms He will never return to earth again.

In Billy Budd, Vere must choose between allowing Billy to live, which would threaten his authority and the stability of the British Navy in the the of the Great mutiny, or executing Billy in the name of martial law. The axiom which states that mankind cannot have both its "Freedom" and "bread" is as apparent in both texts, and the choices of the two disillusioned figures of authority are almost identical. Perhaps the most potent comparison lies between the understanding kiss that Christ leaves on The Cardinal's head and the "wholly unobstructed" words Billy cries out just before his death: "Good bless Captain Vere!".

 I think I just had a literary orgasm--anyways, I find the comparison to be incredibly enlightening as to Vere's thought process during this decision, as well as what that paralysis must have felt like: watching as the Christ we don't deserve (as opposed to miserable little Meursault, who we apparently do deserve) "ascended" from this earth and Vere's own noose murdered what little innocence was left in the world of the late 18th century.

Billy loses his Innocence.

We had an interesting discussion in class on friday talking about Billy and where he lost his innocence.  We had previously deduced that Billy;s character was supposed to relate to Adam, as in Adam and Eve from the Bible.  Billy is naive and innocent, just like Adam was before he was corrupted by the serpent. We figured out that Billy lost his innocence somewhere along the line in his dealings with Claggart.  But was it lost after he struck Claggart and killed him, or was it sometime before that?

I think that Billy truly lost his innocence when the true nature of the world was revealed to him.  Claggart shows Billy that evil and malice exist in people, and that sometimes people have no real reason for doing horrible things.  Claggart's accusal of Billy trying to start a mutiny, opened Billy's eyes.  He no longer saw the world as good, and he lost that innocent view that he previously had of the world.  Billy's inability to comprehend such hate leads him to strike out, and ends with Claggart's death and ultimately his own.

If A Billy Falls In A Forest, And Nobody's There To Hear It, Does It Really Happen?

Is the murder of Claggart the fall of Billy Budd? While reading, I found that he hadn’t really changed, which would be symptomatic of a “fall.” Are we actually awaiting his fall from innocence until the termination of his life?  It seems to me as though Billy can’t change just as Claggart couldn’t avoid his role as the seductive serpent.  The fall of Billy and the success of Claggart will only be realized upon Billy’s death, and the resulting loss of innocence from the ship and their community.

 

One other motif that seems to reoccur in the text is the relevance of the social contract.  Billy obviously was thrust onto the ship against his will and impressed into naval service for the British Empire. Billy ironically was stolen from a ship named the Rights of Man. Claggart’s sacrifice is to instigate mutiny against the system he is trapped in.  His actions and Billy’s execution will bring down the Bellipotent.  People should not be governed without their consent, and I think that this story is an example of this belief. 

The Biblical Theme In Billy Budd

The biblical theme seemed to come up a lot in Billy Budd. The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden especially.

The narrator relates Billy with Adam multiple times. One specific time was on page 52, "Billy in many respects was a little more that a sort of upright barbarian, much more perhaps as Adam presumably might have been ere the urbane Serpent wriggled himself into his company."

I think that Adam represents Billy while the Serpent represents Claggart. Billy is innocent, naive, and simple from the start of the book. Claggart, while appearing to have a good heart, turns out to actually be rather evil. The Serpent is described as urbane, meaning polite. Yet the Serpent  in the Bible is often referred to evil.

What I took this as was that Claggart appears to be polite but below the surface, he in actuality is evil.

Another smaller connection to support the biblical theme in the Bible and in Billy Budd could be that Claggert communicates to Vere who in turn speaks to Billy which eventually will lead to his fall. While in the Bible it starts with the Sepent speaking to Eve, and continuing on to Adam which leads to his fall.

.....Only human

The reason Billy Budd killed Claggart was that Billy could not see himself as someone who would hoodwink another, in this case, Captain Vere. The reason that Claggart wanted to accuse Billy of mutiny was because he wanted to prove Billy Budd's one true flaw: his vanity.

    Billy's oversimplistic mind makes it impossible for him to see himself as anything but perfect. This is the reason that he killed Claggart because he was struck with fear of not being punished for mutiny, but at the thought that he may be no better than the other men on the ship. Billy's loss of words, combined with is speech impairment makes it impossible for him to express these strong feelings he has in words. He then strikes down Claggart because his lesser instinct of violence kicks in.