Billy Budd, Sailor (Foretopman)
An Introduction
". . . a semi-final draft"
In all, the manuscript of Billy Budd presents a
unique set of problems. Not only do editors
disagree on how to organize the text, they often
disagree on what actually comprises "the text."
Each editor -- with differing levels of success -has sought to make the novel as accessible as
possible. Still, the often contradictory results has
forced Billy Budd in to a more or less perpetual
state of flux.
Raymond Weaver, 1924 & 1928
• Over three decades after Melville's death, the first edition of Billy
Budd was published in London as part of a series entitled The
Standard Edition of Melville's Complete Works. The following is
Raymond Weaver's introductory statement from that 1924 Constable
Edition in full. The very language Weaver chooses suggests a
sureness of which he could hardly have been certain. Only the
second paragraph contains a hint at the reservation with which
Weaver produced this version of the novel. In a move meant surely
to serve as a disclaimer, he attempts to substantiate his editorial
adjustments as merely "slight adjustments in the interest of interest
of grammar or style." In fact, Weaver's changes were more
substantial than he would have the reader believe. As Hayford and
Sealts note in their thorough examination of the manuscript nearly
four decades later, Weaver's misreadings range from those that are
indeed 'slight' to others of much greater significance.
Raymond Weaver (cont.)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
BILLY BUDD, the title-piece of this volume, is a novel finished by Melville
five months before his death in 1891, and never before published. 'Daniel
Orme ' is a sketch 'omitted from Billy Budd.' The fourth piece-'The Two
Temples'-was on May 12, I854, refused by Publisher's Monthly Magazine out
of a fear of offending the religious sensibilities of the congregation of Grace
Church, New York. This volume concludes with eight sketches surviving in
manuscript, written, in all probability, after Melville's retirement in 1886, at
the age of sixty-seven, from his post as Inspector of Customs in New York
City. Except for his letters, journals, and the juvenile 'Fragments from a
Writing Desk,' this closes the count of Melville as a writer of prose. The rest
of the volume comprises all Melville's contributions to magazines that he
acknowledged but never reprinted. The text of matter hitherto unpublished
has, so far as possible, been printed verbatim from Melville's manuscript.
Here and there, however, owing to the heavily corrected condition of many
of the papers, slight adjustments in the interests of grammar or of style have
been made in Melville's wording.
F. Barron Freeman, 1948
• In 1948, F. Barron Freeman undertook a revision of sorts of
Weaver's earlier work. Unlike Weaver, who was interested in
producing a "reading" text, Freeman consciously tried to produce a
more "scholarly" edition. While he attempted to produce "an exact
edition of these manuscripts" and to "present the first accurate
transcription, with all variant readings, of the manuscripts of Billy
Budd," something "necessary for a full understanding of his
significance," he actually ended up reproducing many of the same
errors Weaver had made. Hayford and Sealts provide a full
commentary on Freeman's work pointing out that his mistakes grew
from his dependence on Weaver's text largely as the basis for his
own work. Still, this is not to undermine completely Freeman's
work. For example, he recognized that Weaver had produced "a
markedly inaccurate transcription of the novel."
• The result of Freeman's work is a text that, by and large, mirrors that
of Weaver. Below are selections of his "Preface" which present his
own commentary on his work. Editorial commentary, when
included, appears in brackets and in a different color.
F. Barron Freeman (cont.)
Preface
The almost illegible manuscripts of Melville's last novel, Billy Budd, Foretopman , provide the only
sustained example of his creative method in unproofed form. For the direct evidence which they
give of how Melville wrote his novels, at the end of his life at least, they justify a complete
transcription and analysis . . . [A]n exact edition of these manuscripts is necessary for a full
understanding of his significance.(vii) This book, therefore, is an attempt to present the first
accurate transcription, with all variant readings, of the manuscripts of Billy Budd, the first
publication of Melville's previously undiscovered short story, "Baby Budd, Sailor," out of which he
wrote his last novel: the first extended analysis of the novel and short story, together with a
biographical account of the neglected last years of his life-the years in which he wrote these
works.(vii)
In my research on Billy Budd, I discovered the short story "Baby Budd, Sailor," embedded in the
manuscripts of the novel, a discovery which was unexpected and gratifying. From the cut pinned
or pasted pages of the manuscripts, from the smudged cancellations and confused pagination, a
twelve-thousand-word short story appeared, buried in the thirty-six-thousand-word novel. The
novel is an analytical presentation of the characters and problems concerned. The short story is
an excellent example of Melville's ability to write a miniature tragedy.(vii)
A correct reading of the manuscripts showed that Melville's final prose and the last years of his
life have been misunderstood. (viii)
Freeman (cont.)
Fortunately, the manuscripts of Melville's final short story and novel have been well
preserved. Soon after Melville's death his wife, Elizabeth, sorted out [and changed and
edited, though Freeman failed to recognize this] his many papers and, tying them into
neat bundles, put them for safekeeping into a small trunk. (vii)
[T]he pressure of time made it impossible for Mr. Weaver to decipher accurately the
crabbed penmanship and the confused pagination of the manuscripts, to uncover the
hidden short story, or to record more than seven of the hundreds of variant readings.
My transcription of the novel and short story is an effort to establish a definitive text,
through the presentation of all variant readings.(viii)
The penciled notes at the beginning and end of the manuscripts [which Freeman
assumed were all Herman Melville's notations] show that Melville began the tale of
Billy Budd on or before November 16, 1888. He finished the revised version of the
short story before March 2, 1889, when he began to expand it into the novel, the
revision of which he completed on April 19, 1891. (ix)
I have, in excising and transcribing the short story, considered all additions or changes
which Melville made in expanding the short story into the novel as parts of one long
revision.(x)
Hayford and Sealts, 1962
• The 1962 work of Harrison Hayford and Merton Sealts, Jr., on Billy
Budd has come largely to be accepted as the standard against which
later editors of the work must measure. The significance of their
work lies not merely in their close reading of the manuscript itself,
but rather in the care they took in collecting the significant work
done on the text since its initial 1924 publication. Included are
several selections from the introductory material to that 1962
material. The selections are not meant to be exhaustive; rather, they
merely introduce some of the central tenets which guided Hayford
and Sealts as they prepared the reading text of the novel. Although
the material has been cut down in order to capture the central
claims, tnothing has been added or changed without noting it. Any
external comments, when included, appear in a separate font color.
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
GROWTH OF THE MANUSCRIPT
The manuscript of Billy Budd as Melville left it at his death in 1891 may be
most accurately described as a semi-final draft, not a final fair copy ready for
publication. After his death Mrs. Melville, indeed, called the story
"unfinished." She had used exactly the same word in December of 1885
when reporting Melville's retirement from his nineteen years of
employment, as a customs inspector: "He has a great deal [of] unfinished
work at his desk which will give him occupation." The "unfinished work" of
1885 may have included the short poem of three or four leaves on which he
was working early in 1886, the poem that ultimately became the ballad
"Billy in the Darbies" with which the novel concludes. The novel itself
developed out of a brief prose headnote setting the scene and introducing
the speaker of this poem. . . . [Our study] has established the fact that more
than once, believing his work to be essentially complete, he undertook to
put his manuscript into fair-copy form, but each time he was led into further
revision and elaboration; what still further changes he might have made had
he lived to continue work on the manuscript are of course conjectural. (1)
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
• Thus, in the period of over five years between his retirement
from the Custom House and his death, Melville had carried
the work through a series of developments intricate in detail
but clear in their general lines of growth. In three main
phases he had introduced in turn the three main characters:
first Billy, then Claggart, and finally Vere. As the focus of
his attention shifted from one to another of these three
principals, the plot and thematic emphasis of the expanding
novel underwent consequent modifications within each
main phase. Just where the emphasis finally lay in the not
altogether finished story as he left it is, in essence, the issue
that has engaged and divided the critics of Billy Budd.(3)
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
On Weaver’s Work…
• But other, unintentional departures that Weaver made from
the manuscript were less excusable. He committed many
plain errors. Through oversight, it appears, he added or
dropped words by the dozen, and he misread perfectly
legible ones by the score. Most of these mistakes even a
cursory collation of his transcription with the original
mantiscript should have revealed and corrected. The signs
are plain enough that his text was prepared hurriedly.(15)
• The major crippling weakness from which Weaver's text
suffered, however, was a prior editorial lapse: he had not
studied the manuscript sufficiently.(15)
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
On Freeman’s Work
• All three of the major errors arose primarily
because Freeman failed to recognize the
handwriting of Mrs. Melville, which appears at
various points in Billy Budd and other late
manuscripts of her husband; like Weaver,
Freeman mistook all the handwriting for
Melville's own (see Freeman, pp. 66-67). . . [and]
followed Weaver in accepting and printing the
discarded leaves as the "Preface."(18)
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
• A second major error in Freeman's (as in Weaver's) text
was the inclusion of two more superseded leaves,
headed "Lawyers, Experts, Clergy." This error arose in
the same way, from another of Mrs. Melville's
notations. . . . Again Freeman followed Weaver in
mistaking her notation for Melville's own. Weaver
placed the two leaves about where they had originally
stood, though this meant interrupting Melville's later
leaf-number sequence and ignoring another, and
correct, notation by Mrs. Melville. Freeman adhered to
Weaver's placing but, honoring the chapter division and
title which Weaver had ignored, printed the leaves as
Ch. 19. in his edition.
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
• The third major error concerns the title of the work. No
version has been given just the final title which its
author gave it. Here again ,the failure of its editors to
recognize Mrs. Melville's hand in the manuscript is in
large part to blame. For the title of the story two
versions survive. One occurs in pencil draft on a slip
attached to a separate leaf: "Billy Budd / Foretopman /
What befell him / in the year of the / Great Mutiny /
&c". The other occurs as a penciled addition at the top
of the first leaf of the story proper: "Billy Budd / Sailor
/ (An inside narrative.)". . . . That the second of these
was in fact Melville's final intention for the title is made
clear by all genetic evidence.
Hayford and Sealts (cont.)
• In one further textual matter of another class -- that of
editorial judgment -- we believe that Freeman erred in
following Weaver. This concerns the name of Captain
Vere's ship. Some twenty-five times throughout the
manuscript the name Indomitable occurs, but in six
instances, found in two widely separated chapters well
along in the story, the name given is Bellipotent. Our
analysis of the manuscript has revealed that Melville, at
the late stage when he was composing his chapter (28
in this edition) on the engagement between Vere's
seventy-four and the French line-of-battle ship, decided
to change Indomitable to Bellipotent.
Setting of the narrative…
• 1797
• The Napoleanic Wars
• A ship in the Royal British Navy (a microcosm
of society?)
• How does the early narrative characterize the
state and condition of the British Navy at this
time???
The Era of Billy Budd
• A time of war & mutiny. It’s EXTREME!!!
• Impressment is commonplace…what effect does this have
on the climate of a ship?
• Georgian Code (AKA The Bloody Code)
– Often characterized as the most merciless approach to capital
punishment in the history of civilized society… “barbaric and
anachronistic”
– 60 offenses were added to death penalty statutes
– The function of the code was control through fear of
consequence. By prescribing specific penalties for specific
actions, it often left little room for interpretation for those who
had to exact penalties.
– E.G. “striking an officer of superior grade”
Can law/order and justice co-exist?
Symbolic Boats..
Billy transitions from a merchant vessel to a naval
vessel…
• The Rights of Man (alludes to tract by Thomas
Paine, a champion of individual freedom)
• The Indomitable (cannot be defeated) or
Bellipotent (powerful in war)…does it make a
difference which is used?
Where authorial intention is concerned, WHY
would Melville set his moral tale in such an
EXTREME military environment as opposed to a
civilian one?
Authorial Intention….
• The traditional reading of this story is for the
reader to determine if he/she admires or
condemns Captain Vere for his decision to
hang Billy.
• Essentially, this reduces to “should one shun
private conscience in favor of institutional
order?”
• However, there are alternative approaches…
Coming up with a reading for this text..
• The first useful and necessary way to start to
define an approach to the text is to draw
conclusions about the plot structure.
• Activity #1: Make a case for what events
signal the key plot elements of the narrative?
– What events signify the rising action?
– What event constitutes the climax (WHY)???
– What event(s) represent the resolution of the
narrative (WHY)?
Mr. Wood’s plot synopsis…
Rising Action:
• Billy taken from The Rights of Man
• Billy witnesses a lashing
• The soup incident / Billy on report (chapter 10)
• The mutinous/indecent proposal (14)
• Claggart’s attempts to pollute Billy’s reputation
with fellow minor officers (17)
• The betrayal to Vere… a desperate play for Claggart?
(18)
The Climax
Chapter 19
The confrontation scene between Claggart and
Billy as staged by Captain Vere, resulting in the
blow that fells Claggart. Why???
“It is the divine judgment of Ananias! Look!”
God has judged Claggart.
Climax cont.
Vere draws a definitive, paradoxical conclusion
at the scene of the fatal blow:
“Struck dead by an angel of God!
Yet the angel must hang!”
Why this conclusion?
Climax cont.
• He has “struck” (and killed!) an officer of
superior grade. The code prescribes the
punishment clearly. Vere appears to
instinctively draw this conclusion. Vere
irrevocably judges Billy as an agent of the
king’s law. Everything that follows is pro
forma and subsequently resolution…
Resolution…
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Drumhead Court scene (kangaroo court)
The Vere verdict
The (missing) interview between Vere & Billy
The execution of Billy
The death of Vere
“Billy of the Darbies” (AKA the gospel of
Billy)
Your reading….
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Do you admire or condemn Vere for his conduct?
Was he punished by the author?
WHO is the real victim and/or villain of the narrative?
WHAT ideas about human nature emerge from the text?
Is the work didactic, morally speaking?
Is the allegorical reading worth pursuing?
Is there an overt commentary on capital punishment?
• Is the author disillusioned or at peace given the outcome of
this work? (Yes…scholars have argued both!)