Camp 1
Mechel Camp
Dr. Camp
World Literature II
21 October 2004
Sins of Omission in Billy Budd
Herman Melville's Billy Budd, Sailor relates the tale of a young man trapped by forces he
does not understand, caught in a web of deceit and evil that ultimately places his own fate
beyond his control. Despite Melville’s vivid depictions of the setting, the ship, and its crew,
many blanks remain in the text that prevent the reader from fully comprehending the events that
occur. In many ways, Melville's story is one of gaps in which vital information necessary to
determine causality and blame, if any, remains unspoken. The reader is left to grapple with
results for which there is no clear motivation by either Billy Budd or John Claggart. These
omissions curiously link the two characters in the fight of good versus evil that we expect yet
also deny them clearly good or evil status. Though we want to identify Budd as our angel and
Claggart as his relentless demon tormentor, we are ultimately unable to do so. Because of the
information Melville does not give, both Budd and Claggart remain enigmatic, resisting the
reader's attempts to categorize Billy as clearly good and Claggart as clearly evil.
This gap in knowledge first becomes apparent in the descriptions of these two characters'
backgrounds, particularly Claggart's. Though Melville describes Claggart's "more than average
intellect," his "silken jet curls," and his "spare and tall" frame (1008), he also suggests much
more about his appearance that is never made quite clear. Melville notes the "pallor" of
Claggart's complexion that "hint[s] of something defective or abnormal in the constitution and
blood," a man who looks like he is "keeping icognito," who "might be an Englishman" except
Camp 2
that "there lurk[s] a bit of accent in his speech suggesting that possibly he was not such by birth"
(1008). Melville then sums up the crew's knowledge of Claggart: "Nothing was known of his
former life" (1008). Throughout the descriptions of the master-at-arms, there are vague
insinuations that something is wrong about him, even in his appearance, but the reader is
ultimately left to determine such deficiencies without the assistance of the author. Though one
can suspect Claggart of all sorts of moral inadequacies, such as that suggested by the "mysterious
swindle" (1008), ultimately there is no clear representation of Claggart that allows for a
summation of his virtue or lack thereof.
Similarly, Billy Budd's outward appearance seems clear enough at first. He is
consistently referred to throughout the text as the "Handsome Sailor," a child born of a "mother
eminently favored by Love and the Graces" and in whom "[n]oble descent [is] as evident [ . . . ]
as in a blood horse" (1000). Few descriptions in the text point toward anything other than a
purity of both body and soul. However, though one expects the lack of "any trace of the wisdom
of the serpent," the author adds as counter to the statement that Billy is also not "quite a dove"
(1000). This casts some doubt as to the absolute purity of his soul, despite the reader's desire to
categorize him in this way. Of course, there is also "one thing amiss in him," the "occasional
liability to a vocal defect" (1001). When the author initially describes the "defect," the reader is
unaware of the drastic consequences that will ensue. However, once again, what Melville omits
will eventually cause problems both for the characters and for the reader.
In addition to the omitted backgrounds of the characters, Melville also ignores the
reader's need to have adequate motivation for his characters' actions. Claggart's hatred of Billy,
for example, though it causes the deaths of two men, is never fully explained. Melville writes
that "what had first moved [Claggart] against Billy" is "his significant personal beauty" (1016).
Camp 3
Despite the author's description of the magnitude of emotions, of the passion stirred by "envy
and antipathy" (1016), such justifications hardly explain sufficient motivation to accuse a man of
so serious a crime as treason, one that would be punishable by death, if proved. Just as in
Melville's description of the "authentic translation of Plato" (1015), so does the author give the
reader a deterministic representation of Claggart:
With no power to annul the elemental evil in him, though readily enough he could hide it;
apprehending the good, but powerless to be it; a nature like Claggart's, surcharged with
energy as such natures almost invariably are, what recourse is left to it but to recoil upon
itself and, like the scorpion for which the Creator alone is responsible, act out to the end
the part allotted to it. (1016)
Like the scorpion, Claggart exists, just as evil does, but there is a problem. Whereas the
scorpion, one might argue, attacks in self-defense, the Creator here, Melville himself, gives
Claggart no clear justification or motive for his actions. Our scorpion seemingly attacks without
motivation; in the Calvinistic world that Melville alludes to (1015), a man like Claggart injects
evil into the world only because that is the role he must play. Melville rejects the tidy world of
cause and effect that would explain Claggart, opting instead for a murky arena in which
characters seem oblivious to their pitiable, pawn-like conditions.
Though we as readers would prefer not to see our hero in a light similar to Claggart, Billy
Budd, too, is without clear motivation in his reaction to his accuser. Though he cannot defend
himself against Claggart's actions because of his stutter, no preparation is made for the blow that
Billy gives to the master-at-arms: "The next instant, quick as the flame from a discharged
cannon at night, his right arm shot out, and Claggart dropped to the deck" (1029). This is the
entire description of the murder of John Claggart. Leading up to it, Melville offers no precedent;
indeed, there is no mention that his stutter is even necessarily troublesome to Billy, only that it is
"an occasional liability" (1001). Thus, the reader is wholly unprepared for the fury that erupts
Camp 4
from Billy Budd, a rage that causes him to strike and kill John Claggart. Once again, the author's
omission of sufficient motivation prevents the reader from being able to easily categorize Billy's
intentions or assess his guilt.
Lastly, the lack of words spoken by either Claggart or Billy regarding their crimes
prevents the reader from clearly assessing the rightness or wrongness of their actions. Claggart's
accusation of Billy's supposed treason is not actually stated by the character but only described
by the narrator: "What he said, conveyed in the language of no uneducated man, was to the
effect [ . . . ] that during the chase and preparations for possible encounter he had seen enough to
convince him that at least one sailor aboard was a dangerous character" (1024-5). Not only are
his words described rather than stated directly, but even his manner is depicted as indirect. At
his mention of a sailor who "had entered His Majesty's service under another form than
enlistment," Vere berates him, stating, "Be direct, man; say impressed men" (emphasis in
original) (1025). Though Vere's actual words are written on the page, Claggart's words never
appear until Vere demands that he "[n]ame him," that he name the man he accuses of treason.
Finally, Claggart's actual words appear: "William Budd, a foretopman, your honor" (1026). Just
as there appears to be little motivation for the intense hatred Claggart feels for Budd, so are there
few words spoken by the accuser. Again, the reader is left on unsteady ground, unsure why the
events that are so unceasingly progressing toward disastrous consequences must occur.
Of course, in response to Claggart's utterance of his name, Billy is completely mute. In a
scene reminiscent of the one in which Claggart makes the accusation, Vere demands of Billy,
"Speak, man! [ . . . ] Speak! Defend yourself" (1028). Unfortunately, Billy is able to say
nothing. He cannot defend himself against accusations that are so unlikely and indefensible that
few words would even need to be spoken. All that the reader sees is the mute boy whose face
Camp 5
manifests "an expression which [is] a crucifixion to behold" (1029). There are no words to
accuse Claggart's innocent victim, only the name of the "fated boy" whose downfall even the
author seems powerless to stop, nor are there any words preceding the blow that transforms Billy
from innocent into murderer.
Ultimately, then, the reader is left unsure why the events transpire as they do, why both
Claggart and Billy must die in the end. More importantly, no clear labels can be placed on either
of the characters. Though we may want to condemn Claggart and exonerate Billy, Melville's text
forbids such an easy fix. Instead, the reader is left to ponder the enormity of the consequences of
a world in which causality is nonexistent. The world that Melville creates in Billy Budd, Sailor,
is one in which right and wrong, good and evil, are not clearly delineated. Instead, like Claggart
and Billy Budd, they are inseparable, each fulfilling a necessary role to allow for the existence of
the other. Ultimately, like the characters of Billy and Claggart, our understanding of good and
evil in this novel is unclear, and we are left to ponder those same paradoxes that exist in our
everyday lives.