How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #1
The will to it and the sinister dexterity were alike wanting. To deal in double meanings and insinuations of any sort was quite foreign to his nature. (1.15)
Here, the narrator seems to be trying to paint a portrait of Billy as a simple, honest creature. But does not seeing the possibility of double meanings really mean that Billy is honest? Is he honest or just sincere? What's the difference?
Quote #2
The mysteriousness here became less mysterious through a matter of fact elicited when Billy at the capstan was being formally mustered into the service. Asked by the officer, a small, brisk little gentleman as it chanced, among other questions, his place of birth, he replied, "Please, sir, I don't know." (2.4)
Why are the men so curious about Billy's origins? How does knowing a man's background, knowing where he's from, make people feel that they know the man? How might things be different if the men knew the truth about where Billy and Claggart came from?
Quote #3
He possessed that kind and degree of intelligence going along with the unconventional rectitude of a sound human creature, one to whom not yet has been proffered the questionable apple of knowledge. (2.10)
This quote, another characterization of Billy, relates back to the first. Here his honesty is classified as "unconventional rectitude." To what degree can Billy be called intelligent if the narrator wants to compare him to Adam before the Fall, to "one to whom not yet has been proffered the questionable apple of knowledge"? If Billy is really this simple, then do truth and falsity even exist for him? Does he know the difference?
Quote #4
Now to invent something touching the more private career of Claggart, something involving Billy Budd, of which something the latter should be wholly ignorant, some romantic incident implying that Claggart's knowledge of the young bluejacket began at some period anterior to catching sight of him on board the seventy-four – all this, not so difficult to do, might avail in a way more or less interesting to account for whatever of enigma may appear to lurk in the case. But in fact there was nothing of the sort. (11.2)
Here the narrator is telling us the truth. He admits that, if he could give more back story on John Claggart, Claggart's actions might be more readily comprehensible. Yet he tells us, in all honesty, that such a background does not exist. Claggart, like Billy, is largely an "enigma." Try to find places where the narrator is not so straightforward about what he does and doesn't know. Is he consistently trying to give us a true relation of events or is he constantly putting his own spin on things?
Quote #5
Who in the rainbow can draw the line where the violet tint ends and the orange tint begins? Distinctly we see the difference of the colors, but where exactly does the one first blendingly enter into the other? So with sanity and insanity. (21.1)
The narrator here argues that it cannot be definitively said whether Vere is sane or insane. In other words, as far as human knowledge is concerned, there is no truth of the matter. How would you try to decide whether or not Vere is insane? Do you actually have to determine whether or not he is sane, or do you just have to determine whether or not his behavior is rational? Is that any easier?
Quote #6
In response came syllable not so much impeded in the utterance as might have been anticipated. They were these: "Captain Vere tells the truth. It is just as Captain Vere says, but it is not as the master-at-arms said. I have eaten the King's bread and I am true to the King." (21.12)
In front of the drumhead court, Billy confirms the truth of Vere's accusation while simultaneously denying Claggart's false accusation. What does it mean for Billy to be "true to the King," especially considering that he has never met the King? How would you characterize Billy's relationship to the King in the story? Has he actually been true to the King throughout?
Quote #7
[Captain Vere:] "War looks but to the frontage, the appearance. And the Mutiny Act, War's child, takes after the father. Budd's intent or non-intent is nothing to the purpose." (21.35)
Vere's argument here is that the law is concerned with what happened. It is not concerned with intentions. Is this true? Doesn't the law try to assign guilt or innocence? Is it just assigning guilt or innocence in actions? Can it help but get entangled in people's intentions?
Quote #8
Says a writer whom few know, "Forty years after a battle it is easy for a noncombatant to reason about how it ought to have been fought. It is another thing personally and under fire to have to direct the fighting while involved in the obscuring smoke of it." (21.41)
The narrator offers this quote in defense of Vere's actions. Does the quote suggest that reasoning cannot actually get to the truth of an event? Is the "obscuring smoke" really "obscuring" or is it just a series of complicated circumstances that have to be taken into account in order to make a decision?
Quote #9
Stooping over, he kissed on the fair cheek his fellow man, a felon in martial law, one whom though on the confines of death he felt he could never convert to a dogma; nor for all that did he fear for his future. (24.8)
Why doesn't the chaplain fear for Billy's future? If he himself is dedicated to teaching dogma and trying to convert others to it, why is he satisfied even though Billy won't convert? Does the chaplain perceive some truth even deeper than dogma in Billy's attitude?
Quote #10
The symmetry of form attainable in pure fiction cannot so readily be achieved in a narration essentially having less to do with fable than with fact. Truth uncompromisingly told will always have its ragged edges; hence the conclusion of such a narration is apt to be less finished than an architectural finial. (28.1)
Let us remind you that Billy Budd is a work of fiction. What do you make of Melville's narrator posing as one who is relating true events? In one way, the quote is an act of realism: "truth uncompromisingly told will always have its ragged edges." But what do you make of a fictitious narrator appealing to "real events" to justify the poor form of his fictitious story? Hint: there are more than a few double meanings to this passage. In other words, Billy Budd would not have understood it.