When and where did Ahab lose his leg?

[Phil Walsh]

In Moby-Dick Chapter 28 the old Gay-Head Indian tells us that Ahab was
dis-masted "off Japan," but one-hundred chapters later we are told that
Ahab lost his leg near the equator (by Chapter 130 the Pequod has
entered the Season-on-the-Line, and we read that Ahab finds himself
"hard by the very latitude and longitude where his tormenting wound had
been inflicted.")

Since Japan can't be reasonably construed as "hard by" the equator, it
seems we don't really know where Ahab lost his leg.

If our author can't reliably tell us _where_ such a significant event
occurred, how can we feel confident in extraopolating precisely _when_
it occurred?

Phil

[Hardeman]

Dear Phil,

Thanks for the added evidence of authorial fantasy. As you correctly pointed out earlier, the Pequod's track is no voyage of the Beagle and attempts to follow the Pequod's track are complicated by Melville's carelessness. I have no solution for the contradiction you brought up other than to point out other Navigational errors in MD. Melville seems more interested in the affect on Ahab of his loss than where it happened.

Navigators and close reading translators like Fernando have observed the departure of the Pequod was said to be to the "southward" on leaving Nantucket yet Melville claimed the vessel to have "swept across .  .  . cruising-grounds; off the Azores." The course to the Azores is in reality "eastward." That voyage in winter in the north Altantic to the Azoezs would be rough and cold not as he describes in Ahab's coming on deck for the first time. 

"For several days after leaving Nantucket .  .  .   for a space we

had biting Polar weather, though all the time running away from it

to the southward; and by every degree and minute of latitude which

we sailed, gradually leaving that merciless winter, and all its

intolerable weather behind us.  .  . It was one of those less lowering,

but still grey and gloomy enough mornings of the transition, when with

a fair wind the ship was rushing through the water with a vindictive

sort of leaping and melancholy rapidity  .  .  . Captain Ahab stood upon his quarter-deck." Ch 28

"Days, weeks passed, and under easy sail, the ivory Pequod had slowly

swept across four several cruising-grounds; off the Azores; off the

Cape de Verdes; on the Plate (so called), being off the mouth of the

Rio de la Plata; and the Carrol Ground."  Chapter 51

Hardeman

[Phil Walsh]

Dear Hardeman,

I agree completely with your statement that Melville is much more interested in the affect on Ahab of his loss than where (or when) it happened. I had a very similar thought when you quoted someone as saying that "most of all Ishmael wants to be believed": Ishamel very much does want to be believed, but he doesn't try to make himself believable through recitation of facts or careful attention to detail, but rather tone of voice and psychological and emotional truth-telling.

Phil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ishmailites" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ishmailites...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to ishma...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ishmailites.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Hardeman]

Dear Phil?

Your point on Ishmael's "truth-telling" is well stated and taken. I did notice you used the term "author" instead of narrator/Ishmael in your posting of where Ahab lost his leg. Do you see an evolution/change in Melville's manner of truth-telling from the the Typee days to the Billy Budd time that may shed light on his often cavalier use of facts? 

Going back to your description of Ishmael's truth-telling in order to site a specific example to clarify your view of his "tone of voice."

Considering the general perspective of 1851 Americans toward Christianity how would you rate Ishmael's following tone of voice for its psychological and emotional affect.

" that the magnanimous God of heaven and

earth--pagans and all included--can possibly be jealous of an

insignificant bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship?-

to do the will of God? that is worship. And what is the will of

God?--to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man to do

to me--that is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And

what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me

in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must

then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator."

I apprecate your comments more than you may realize,

Hardeman

[Phil Walsh]

Dear Hardeman,

Regarding the narrator of Moby-Dick: when I first encountered Moby-Dick
and for many years after I only heard Melville's voice. It was only when
I started reading Melville criticism that I was introduced to and
seriously considered the idea that all of Moby-Dick is told by Ishmael
and that there is real distance between Ishmael and Melville. And so, to
force myself to always consider that viewpoint, I try to adhere to
saying "Ishmael tells us" whenever I'm speaking of the narrator. But
it's a forced thing. In my heart I'm still hearing Melville most of the
time in MD. (As opposed to, e.g., the narrator of Bartleby, who is
clearly not Melville.)

Phil

On 12/15/2013 10:04 AM, Hardeman wrote:
> Dear Phil?
>

[Hardeman]

Thanks Phil. I understand your separation of author and narrator but the question of what to believe coming from Ishmael colors much more than the Pequod's navigation.

You brought up the subject of Ishmael's tone of voice so I was hoping for your perspective on the quoted example. Since I perceive Ishmael as finding his voice in satire and gradual self awareness, his voice seems to challenge his readers to find their truth within. Your distinction of psychology and emotions over facts in truth-telling appears to agree.

The tone of that voice in the idol  worshiping example might seem arrogant, blasphemous, or even heresy to an 1851 American. For modern readers seeking facts in the text to find meaningful structure,might be a heresy to Ishmael (if not Melville). Today he might disdain the mincing of Moby Dick into “bible leaves” and illustrate it with the image of someone in a whale penis skin fulfilling the role of archbishopric. [MD The Cassock]

Thanks for the insights

Hardeman

[Phil Walsh]

Dear Hardeman,

Regarding Ishmael's tone in the passage below--he's delivering a sermon,
right? The syntax, the rhetorical structure, come straight from the
pulpit, don't they? He's acknowledging the magnanimous, omnipotent,
omniscient creator, he's quoting the golden rule, he's referencing what
any good Christian would agree is true ("What is worship? Why, to do the
will of God, of course!"), and then he concludes that turning idolator
is the obviously Christian thing to do.

Ishmaels jocular and agreeable and smiling all the way up to the end
when he pokes a stick in the eye of the hypocrisy he sees around him.

I could be wrong about hearing a trace of anger at the end of the
passage, but when you consider the abuse Melville took for his depiction
of "good Christian missionaries" in his earlier works it's not to
imagine a note of disgust (or at least exasperation) in passages like
the one here.

But maybe that's just me.

Phil


On 12/15/2013 10:04 AM, Hardeman wrote:
>

[Phil Walsh]

Dear Hardeman and all,

I went back and re-read this chapter (Chapter X, A Bosom Friend); the
tone is more complex than my first response indicates, and I think I can
also make a case for seeing some separation between author Melville and
narrator Ishmael here.

Melville is being openly contentious, even blasphemous, while Ishmael is
puzzling his way through things, 'feeling his way' as he goes.

It's worth noting that this chapter follows immediately after Chapter
IX, The Sermon, so the reader (and Ishmael) has just gotten a strong
dose of 19th century Protestantism. Melville now returns Queequeg and
Ishmael to the more private and intimate confines of the inn (and
eventually their bedroom). Ishmael studies Queequeg awhile and while in
contemplation of his (Queequeg's) serenity Ishmael notes a change in his
own mood: "I began to be sensible of strange feelings. I felt a melting
in me. No more my splintered heart and maddened hand were turned against
the wolfish world. This soothing savage had redeemed it." Now we have
Ishmael talking softly and thoughtfully, but Melville has him saying
things that are sure to rankle some (being 'redeemed' by a savage is
certainly not proper orthodox talk).

Next Melville has his two would-be worshipers divide up thirty silver
pieces (warning the reader of betrayal to come, though to the characters
the silver pieces seem no more significant than grains of sand), then
Melville has Ishmael actually consent to take part in worship of Yojo
(black idol of a black idolator). And though Ishmael's language and tone
is reflective and non-confrontational, the import is a direct challenge
to adherents of the commandments: "Can the magnanimous God of heaven and
earth possibly be jealous of an insignificant bit of black wood?" Why of
course not, concludes Ishmael, in direct contradiction of the
commandment to not worship false gods.

My own sense of all this is that Ishmael is trying to sort out the
difference between being an adherent of Jehovah vs. a follower of Jesus.
Do you follow the rules, adhere to the commandments? Or do you trust
yourself to be guided by the golden rule (and the beatitudes?), lead
where that might?

One other thought occurs to me as I ramble on here: Ishmael's on-the-fly
decision to plunge into idol worship with Queequeg echoes at least two
other places in the book - one at the end of Chapter XXII, Christmas,
where "we gave three heavy-hearted cheers and blindly plunged like fate
into the lone Atlantic," and the other at the end of Chapter XLI, Moby
Dick: "I gave myself up to the abandonment of the time and the place;
but while yet all a-rush to encounter the whale, could see naught in
that brute but the deadliest ill."

Hope I haven't tried anyone's patience too much here--

Phil W.

On 12/15/2013 10:04 AM, Hardeman wrote:
>