How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
In fact he was one of those sea dogs in whom all the hardship and peril of naval life in the great prolonged wars of his time never impaired the natural instinct for sensuous enjoyment. (1.7)
Is hardship unnatural? Is the drive to "sensuous enjoyment" a natural instinct? Think of different species of animals. What types of journeys do they undergo that might be comparable to human voyages on the sea? In short, is the sailor's life going against nature or is it a natural life to lead?
Quote #2
You are aware that I am the adherent of no organized religion, much less of any philosophy built into a system. Well, for all that, I think that to try and get into X---, enter his labyrinth and get out again, without a clue derived from some source other than what is known as "knowledge of the world" – that were hardly possible, at least for me. (11.5)
Here, the narrator admits that he can't help but philosophize upon the events as they took place even though he doesn't understand them. It turns out, however, that his philosophy is mainly a fatalistic naturalistic one. If he really believes that so many men act without thinking and that their behavior can't be explained, then what is the point of philosophizing on it?
Quote #3
But for anything deeper, I am not certain whether to know the world and to know human nature be not two distinct branches of knowledge, which while they coexist in the same heart, yet either may exist with little or nothing of the other. (11.7)
Let's quickly play a game of Jeopardy where we take the above quotation and re-phrase it in terms of a question. As the narrative moves on, does it seem that knowing the world and knowing human nature constitute two distinct branches of knowledge? Is part of understanding human nature also understanding how humans are a part of the world and are inseparable from it?
Quote #4
Now something such an one was Claggart, in 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 "a depravity according to nature." (11.11)
From a narrative point of view, what is the difference between leaving Claggart's behavior unexplained and suggesting that his is "the mania of an evil nature"? How does it affect the way that we perceive and think of Claggart? Is there anything natural about this type of description? Remember that the narrator is only speculating on Claggart's nature, that none of the above is actual fact.
Quote #5
The more he turned the matter over, the more he was nonplussed, and made uneasy and discomfited. In his disgustful recoil from an overture which, though he but ill comprehended, he instinctively knew must involve evil of some sort, Billy Budd was like a young horse fresh from the pasture suddenly inhaling a vile whiff from some chemical factory, and by repeated snorting trying to get it out of his nostrils and lungs. (15.2)
Here is another description (this one after Billy has been asked to take part in a mutiny) that compares Billy to a horse. Why is Billy so often compared to animals? Secondly, how can you explain something like disgust, a "gut feeling" that someone or something is wrong? How much of the action in this book is a result of gut feelings and how much of it is a result of reflection?
Quote #6
Though in general not very demonstrative to his officers, he had congratulated Lieutenant Ratcliffe upon his good fortune in lighting on such a fine specimen of the genus homo, who in the nude might have posed for a statue of a young Adam before the Fall. (18.17)
Notice the extent to which Billy's naturalness is being idealized (that is to say, made unnatural). What might motivate such descriptions other than a desire for accuracy? Why is the narrator so determined to make Billy seem unfathomably good and pure?
Quote #7
Contrary to the effect intended, these words so fatherly in tone, doubtless touching Billy's heart to the quick, prompted yet more violent efforts at utterance – efforts soon ending for the time in confirming the paralysis, and bringing to his face an expression which was as a crucifixion to behold. (19.6)
Billy is unable to respond to Claggart's accusation at a couple of different levels here. One is at the level of understanding; he is so astonished that Claggart would falsely accuse him of treason that he doesn't know what to say. Another is at the level of natural impediment; his stutter prevents him from saying anything in reply. How do these two levels relate to one another? In what ways does nature constrain how characters act and think in the novel?
Quote #8
This utterance, the full significance of which it was not at all likely that Billy took in, nevertheless caused him to turn a wistful interrogative look toward the speaker, a look in its dumb expressiveness not unlike that which a dog of generous breed might turn upon his master, seeking in his face some elucidation of a previous gesture ambiguous to the canine intelligence. (21.20)
What is the narrator revealing about his own nature when he refers to Billy as having "canine intelligence"? What exactly does he mean by canine intelligence? Does it seem to be something that he values or something that he denigrates?
Quote #9
Turning, he to-and-fro paced the cabin athwart; in the returning ascent to windward climbing the slant deck in the ship's lee roll, without knowing it symbolizing thus in his action a mind resolute to surmount difficulties even if against primitive instincts strong as the wind and the sea. (21.25)
As Captain Vere prepares to speak to the drumhead court, the narrator notes that his physical actions begin to express his mental actions. He begins pacing because he is mentally preparing energy to give a speech. How and why do the characters physical actions often imitate their states of mind? What is the relationship between the physical and the mental? Is it possible to surmount primitive instincts?
Quote #10
"But the exceptional in the matter moves the hearts within you. Even so too is mine moved. But let not warm hearts betray heads that should be cool." (21.29)
Here is a bit of Captain Vere's counsel to the drumhead court. We often tend to think of rationality and sophistication as being opposed to that which is natural within us. Is there any room for the word should in man's existence as a natural being? Is there any such thing as a cool head?