19A. "Moby Dick" (1851), Chs. 72-86

 

"Altered Visions: The Monkey Rope" (2019) by Peter Michael Martin
In this image, blood, represented by a red cloth, provides the only color in the entire series of photographs by the author, Martin. The stump that stands in for the whale’s carcass recalls Ahab’s words, “it was Moby Dick that dismasted me; Moby Dick that brought me to this dead stump I stand on now” (Ch. 36).

Question: What's wrong with Ginger?

Something . . .  that bothered me, was Stubb’s condemnation of ginger, and subsequent tossing ofAunt Charity's gift: “and when Stubb reappeared, he came with a dark flask in one hand, and a sort of tea-caddy in the other. The first contained strong spirits, and was handed to Queequeg; the second was Aunt Charity’s gift, and that was freely given to the waves” (Melville). What was the point of this? What is wrong with ginger? Is there an association with poison I am unaware of? I would love to understand this scene better.

Editorial Note by Herschel Parker in Norton 3rd Critical Edition:  "Stubb scorns Aunt Charity's nonalcoholic ginger-jub (ginger and water) as not 'hot' enough to warm up poor Queequeg, unlike the sea coal, firewood, lucifer matches (newly invented striking matches), tinder, and gunpowder mentioned at the end of the chapter."

Ideology: The Monkey Rope
Chapter 72 begins with Ishmael describing the monkey-rope, a length of rope connecting a harpooner hacking away at a whale to another sailor onboard the Pequod keeping him steady. In the chapter, Ishmael is tied to Queequeg, and makes many remarks about how the two are tied together physically and emotionally, saying that they are united by a “Siamese ligature,” were “inseparable twin brother[s],” and were “wedded” (ch. 72). Two of these statements imply that Ishmael and Queequeg share a relationship akin to brotherhood, while the other suggests a romantic relationship. (Note that this is not the first time Ishmael has implied that he and Queequeg had a romantic relationship. This isn’t even the first time he’s used the word “wedded”.) No matter the specifics, Ishmael is using the monkey-rope analogy to reaffirm that he and Queequeg are very close. (And in the Dover Thrift edition the footnote for this section says that the monkey-rope was used on many whale ships, but only connected two sailors on the Pequod, and that this arrangement in the book was ordered by Stubb. This implies that Melville went out of his way to use this metaphor for his characters.)

"On the occasion in question, Queequeg figured in the Highland costume--a skirt and socks--in which to my eyes, at least, the appeared to uncommon advantage; and no one had a better chance to observe him . . ." (Ch. 72)

Editorial Note by Herschel Parker in Norton 3rd Critical Edition:  "Not an actual Scottish kilt but something like a butcher's skirtlike apron, no patns, and (for traction) coarse socks and no shoes. 'Skirt' is an emednation for shirt. Melville was recalling a passage in Sir Walter Scott's Waverly on a kilt's showing off a man's sinewy limbs, with the additional joke that in his rolling and swaying on the whale and in Ishmael's jerking him with the rope Queequeg shows off more than his legs" (244).
Consider this as an instance of "the male gaze" or "the queer gaze"?

"Well, well, my dear comrade and twin-brother, thought I, as I drew in and then slacked off the rope to every swell of the sea--what matters it, after all? Are you not the precious image of each and all of us men in this whaling world? That unsounded ocean you gasp in, is Life; those sharks, your foes; those spades, your friends; and what between sharks and spades you are in a sad pickle and peril, poor lad" (Ch. 72)
Consider how Ishmael reframes this issue as an image of the human condition.
Compare with Emerson's vision of the human condition.

Ideology: Fedallah as "other"

Stubb and Flask trade their theories of Fedallah and why he is untrustworthy. Flask tells Stubb that he “don’t like that chap [Fedallah]” because he believes that Fedallah will “charm the ship to no good” (ch. 73). Stubb agrees with Flask because Fedallah must be “the devil in disguise” who hides his animalistic features under clothing (ch. 73). The dialogue between Stubb and Flask demonstrates how dehumanized Fedallah is, as many of the men aboard view him as a demonic creature rather than a person. Stubb even mentions to Flask that he believes Fedallah made a deal with Ahab because the captain is too “hard bent after that White Whale” and probably sold his soul to capture the animal (265). Even Ishmael shows his reluctance when he notices how Fedallah’s shadow “[blends] with and lengths Ahab’s” own shadow (ch. 73).

Melville also wrote that when Fedallah stood next to Captain Ahab, his shadow seemed “to blend with, and lengthen Ahab’s” (ch. 73). I wonder if this is implying that Fedallah is an extension of Ahab’s monomaniacal nature, or if it is commenting of the relationship of Moby Dick and Ahab. Because the white whale can be seen as a symbol for God, it is possible that the melding of Ahab’s and Fedallah’s shadows is evidence that Ahab is synonymous with the devil, hence his hunt for the whale.

Aesthetics: Characterizing the Two Whales

In the last three chapters of our reading in [Moby-Dick], Ishmael, summoning most macabre image, invites us to look upon the detached “venerable hooded heads” of the two whales the Pequod has successfully captured and butchered, as they “yet lie together” upon the opposing sides of the whaler (Ch. 75). He then, among many other observatory ventures, enjoys the freedom of figuratively guiding the reader through each whale's mouth; and in the right whale’s mouth, he describes the atmosphere in an almost homely manner, taking note of its “Indian wigwam” shape and its accompanying baleen acting as “Venetian blinds”. This imagery displays the right whale as rustic and safe; its mouth holds so little danger that Ishmael almost insinuates that Jonah might have had some comfort within his devouring whale. The sperm whale, on the other hand, is referred to as “beautiful and chaste”, with its “floor to ceiling” covered in a “glistening white membrane, glossy as bridal satins” (Ch. 74). This view, alongside the noticeably poetic nature of the membrane’s description, brings to mind the imagery of a church, or marble temple. It is as if it is within the maw of whale a sailor may undergo a kind a wedding, launching a new beginning . . . contrasting to the perhaps more common expectation that entering a whale's maw is preliminary to a funeral .

Aesthetics: Irony
"It was in Queen Anne's time* that the bone was in its glory, the farthingale [a hooped support for a skirt; here, whalebone hoops], being then all the fashion. And as those ancient dames moved about gaily, though in the jaws of the whale, as you may say; even so, in a shower, with the like thoughtlessness, do we nowadays fly under the same jaws for protection; the umbrella being a tent spread over the same bone" (Ch. 75). *Anne reigned as queen of England from 1702 to 1714.

Consider: society's dependence on the labor associated with whaling and other punishing industries

Aesthetics and Ideolology: Description of the Whale's Vision
I think he is interested in how such a mighty creature has such flawed vision, and this may be one of the few weaknesses of the creature, according to Melville: “In a word, the position of the whale’s eyes corresponds to that of a man’s ears; and you may fancy, for yourself, how it would fare with you, did you sideways survey objects through your ears.”

". . . any one's experience will teach him, that though [a man] can take in an undiscriminating sweep of things at one glance, it is quite impossible for him, attentively, and completely, to examine any two things--however large or however small--at one and the same instant of time; never mind if they lie side by side and touch each other. But if you now come to separate these two objects, and surround each by a circle of profound darkness; then, in order to see one of them, in such a manner as to bring your mind to bear on it, the other will be utterly excluded from your contemporary consciousness. How is it, then, with the whale? . . . is his brain so much more comprehensive, combining, and subtle than man's, that he can at the same moment of time attentively aexamine two distinct prospects, one on one side of him, and the other in an exactly oppostie direction? If he can, then is it as marvellous a thing in him, as if a man were able simultaneously to go through the demonstrations of two distinct problems in Euclid" (Ch. 74).
Compare with F. Scott Fitzgerald's definition of human intelligence (1936):  "the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function."
Compare with John Keats's 1817 endorsement of "negative capability"

Ideology: Faith and Doubt

" . . . all have doubts; many deny; but doubts or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye" (Ch. 85).

Ideology: The Fox and the Hedgehog
". . . if his eyes were broad as the lens of Herschel's great telescope, and his ears capacious as the porches of cathedrals; would that make him any longer of sight or sharper of hearing? Not at all.-Why then do you try to 'enlarge' your mind? Subtilize it" (252)
Compare with the concept of a literary survey course.

Herman Melville's Moby Dick: A Kinderguides Illustrated Learning Guide (2018)
 illustrated by Stef Rymenants

Consider: Would Moby-Dick make good source material for a children's book?

Ideology: Queequeg as Obstetrician

. . . [the] action scene where we see [...] “obstetrics of Queequeg, the deliverance, or rather, delivery of Tashtego, was successfully accomplished [...] ”(329) . . . suggests that Queequeg has given birth or life to Tashtego.

Ideology: Education and Intellect  
. . . Ishmael's knowledge of the word of "pysiognomy" . . . , shows that Ishmael is more educated than he lets on i . . . [And] when he talks about . . . knowing a man through their spine [rather than] their brains[, I] think he says that because a person['s] backbone reveals a person['s] character while their brain means they can just talk and talk.

Note: Melville did not receive a formal education after the age of 12.

Sperm Whale Oil and Sperm Whale Oil Lamp (ca. 1840)

Aesthetics: Humor

"Seldom have I known any profound being that had anything to say to this world, unless forced to stammer out something by way of getting a living" (Ch. 85).
A bit of ironic self-criticism?

Ideology: The More We Know, The Less We Understand

Ishmael in these chapters displays frustration with his lack of profound understanding of the whale. He specifically states that “Dissect him how I may, then, I but go skin deep; I know him not, and never will” (Ch. 86). This dejection is caused by his “inability to express [the tail of the whale]”, and in this statement helps clarify that Ishmael’s observations of the whale never have been comprehensive but have been an effort to condense it into something he can easily understand (514 Ch. 86).But the whale, though an easy victim to the crew’s experienced harpooneers, lies eternally elusive to the minds of any sailor like Ishmael who wishes to capture their transcendence.

Ideology: Killing Something you "Love" and "Revere"

I thought chapter 81 was really interesting. In it, the Pequod hunts and kills an older-than-dirt sperm whale, but they aren’t able to bring the whale into port and make a profit because it sinks, nearly capsizing the boat. During the chapter Starbuck and Ishmael feel bad for killing the whale, with Starbuck attempting to stop Stubb from piercing the whale while it is dying and Ishmael going into detail about how much the whale suffered as it died. He still notes that this death is “necessary” for the whale must “die the death and be murdered, in order to light the gay bridals and other merry-makings of men, and also to illuminate the solemn churches that preach unconditional inoffensiveness by all to all" (Ch. 81) I think Ishmael sees the irony in whaling when he practices a religion that preaches not to kill, and I think he feels bad seeing the whale suffer such a miserable death, knowing that even before he took up the profession of whaling, he benefited from their murder. He even implies in the following chapter that he is bitter about killing whales to “fill man’s lamp-feeders” as opposed to killing whales for self-defense, a practice done back in the “knightly days” of whaling. (Ch. 82). The whale in chapter 81 is vindicated later in the chapter; rather than being taken to port and stripped for parts, the whale is so heavy it sinks, making the ocean its final resting place.

I feel like Ishmael has an almost spiritual reverence for whales – he is incredibly knowledgeable about them, but more than that, he holds them higher than any force on this planet. He tells the reader that he believes that the dragon in the St. George story is a whale and that whales are much more prodigious than dragons. There are so many chapters extolling the wonders of the species, such as chapter 85, where Ishmael info-dumps about how cool it is that whales can hold their breath for an hour, and these chapters feel reverent. I think this attitude towards whales may be another reason why Ishmael feels bad for hunting the whales.