Chapter 11
CHAPTER 11
What was the matter with the master-at-arms? And, be the matter what it might, how could it have direct relation to Billy Budd with whom prior to the affair of the spilled soup he had never come into any special contact official or otherwise? What indeed could the trouble have to do with one so little inclined to give offence as the merchant-ship's peacemaker, even him who in Claggart's own phrase was "the sweet and pleasant young fellow? (no quote in MS)fellow"? Yes, why should Jemmy Legs, to borrow the Dansker's expression, be down on the Handsome Sailor? But, at heart and not for nothing, as the late chance encounter may indicate to the discerning, down on him, secretly down on him, he assuredly was.
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 blue-jacket 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. And yet the cause, necessarily to be assumed as the sole one assignable, is in its very realism as much charged with that prime element of RadclifianRadcliffian romance, the mysterious, as any that the ingenuity of the author of the Mysteries of Udolpho could devise. For what can more partake of the mysterious than an antipathy spontaniousspontaneous and profound such as is evoked in certain exceptional mortals by the mere aspect of some other mortal, however harmless he may be, if not called forth by this very harmlessness itselfif not called forth by this very harmlessness itself] Melville originally ended his sentence with a question mark after "he may be." By inserting in pencil this if-clause, he neglected to re-punctuate. MEL adds a comma after "he may be" and a question mark after "itself."?
Now there can exist no irritating juxtaposition of dissimilar personalities comparable to that which is possible abordaboard a great war-ship fully manned and at sea. There, every day among all ranks almost every man comes into more or less of contact with almost every other man. Wholly there to avoid even the sight of an aggravating object one must needs give it Jonah's toss or jump overboard himself. Imagine how all this might eventually operate on some peculiar human creature the direct reverse of a saint?
But for the adequate comprehending of Claggart by a normal nature these hints are insufficient. To pass from a normal nature to him one must cross "the deadly space between." And this is best done by indirection.
Long ago an honest scholar (no comma in MS)scholar, my senior, said to me in reference to one who like himself is now no more, a man so unimpeachably respectable that against him nothing was ever openly said tho'though among the few something was whispered, "Yes X— is a nut not to be cracked by the tap of a lady's fan. [quote]YouYou are aware that I am the adherent of no organized religion much less of any philosophy built into a systimsystem. Well, for all that, (no comma in MS)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."
[quote]Why[quote] (no comma in MS)"Why," said I, "X— however singular a study to some, is yet human, and knowledge of the world assuredly implies the knowledge of human nature, and in most of its varieties."
"Yes, but a superficial knowledge of it, serving ordinary purposes. 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 may coexist in the same heart, yet either may exist with little or nothing of the other. Nay, in an average man of the world, his constant rubbing with it blunts that finer spiritual insight indispensable to the understanding of the essential in certain exceptional characters, whether evelevil ones or good. In a matter of some importance I have seen a girl wind an old lawyer about her little finger. Nor was it the dotage of senile love. Nothing of the sort. But he knew law better than he knew the girl's heart. Coke and Blackstone hardly shed so much light into obscure spiritual places as the Hebrew prophets. And who were they? Mostly recluses."
At the time (no comma in MS)time, my inexperience was such that I did not quite see the drift of all this. It may be that I see it now. And, indeed, if that lexicon which is based on Holy Writ were any longer popular, one might with less difficulty define and denominate certain phenomenal men. As it is, one must turn to some authority not liable to the charge of being tinctured with the Biblical element.
In a list of definitions included in the authentic translation of Plato, a list attributed to him, occurs this: "Natural Depravity: a depravity according to nature." A definition which tho'though savoring of Calvinism, by no means involves Calvin's dogma as to total mankind. Evidently its intent makes it applicable but to individuals. Not many are the examples of this depravity which the gallows and jail supply. At any rate for notable instances, since these have no vulgar alloy of the brute in them, but invariably are dominated by intellectuality, one must go elsewhere. Civilization, especially if of the austerer sort, is auspicious to it. It folds itself in the mantle of respectability. It has its certain negative virtues serving as silent auxiliaries. It never allows wine to get within inwithin its guard. It is not going too far to say that it is without vices or small sins. There is a phenomenal pride in it that excludes them from anythingfrom anything] This phrase, in pencil, was inserted in Elizabeth Shaw Melville's hand, presumably at Melville's instruction. HS and NN do not include it.. Never mercenary or avaricious.Never mercenary or avaricious.] Melville originally wrote, in ink, "Never mercenary or avaricious and so forth." The last three words were deleted, in pencil, and probably by Elizabeth Shaw Melville in coordination with her insertion of "from anything" in the previous sentence. HS converts this fragment into a complete sentence by adding "It is" at the beginning. NN and MEL retain the fragment as it appears in the document. In short the depravity here meant partakes nothing of the sordid or sensual. It is serious, but free from acerbity. Though no flatterer of mankind it never speaks ill of it.
But the thing which in eminent instances signalizes so exceptional a nature is this: Though the man's even temper and discreet bearing would seem to intimate a mind peculiarly subject to the law of reason, not the less in heart he would seem to riot in complete exemption from that law having apparently little to do with reason further than to employ it as an ambidexter implement for effecting the irrational. That is to say: Toward the accomplishment of an aim which in wantonness of malignity / atrocityatrocityatrocity] Originally, Melville wrote "atrocity" in ink. Later, he deleted "atrocity" in pencil and wrote "malignity" above. He then restored "atrocity" but neglected to delete "malignity," creating an uncompleted and oscillating revision. MEL emends by restoring "atrocity." would seem to partake of the insane, he will direct a cool judgement sagacious and sound. These men are madmen, and of the most dangerous sort, for their lunacy is not continuousfor their lunacy is not continuous] Melville revised and re-composed this sentence considerably. Originally, on leaf image 317 (leaf 133), he wrote: "Such men are madmen, and of the most dangerous sort for their lunacy", and he continued, in ink, on to the top portion of his next leaf, which is now lost. Then on a separate slip of paper—see leaf image 315—that he attached to the bottom of the leaf, he rough-drafted new language in pencil, which reads "not continuous & persisting but occasional, and special in the outward proceding not to be distinguished from their sanity." However, on a separate leaf (image 321, leaf 134) and also in rough-draft pencil, Melville re-composed the sentence entirely, expanding it to the present length and almost doubling the paragraph., but occasional (no comma in MS)occasional, evoked by some special object; it is protectively secretive, which is as much to say it is self-controled self-controlledself-controlled] An alternate reading is "self-contained," as in HS and NN., so that when moreover, most active it is to the average mind not distinguishable from sanity, and for the reason above suggested (no comma in MS)suggested, that whatever its aims may be (comma and no dash in MS)be—and the aim never declared—the method the outward proceding is are always perfectly rational.the method and the outward proceeding are always perfectly rationalthe method and the outward proceeding are always perfectly rational.] Melville's rough drafting, in pencil, results in an uncompleted revision. Perhaps with Hamlet's "method in madness" quip in mind, he had initially written "the method is always perfectly rational." In revision, between "method" and "is," he then added "and the outward proceding are," with the idea of pluralizing his subject. But he neglected to delete "is" in order to confirm "are" as his new plural predicate. However, he also deleted "and," which suggests he might have returned to the idea of a singular subject. MEL emends this oscillating revision in favor of the plural option, by restoring "and" and removing "is. MEL also corrects Melville's misspelling of "proceeding.".
Now Somethingsomething 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."
Dark sayings are these, some will say. But why? Is it because they somewhat savor of of (doubled in MS)of Holy Writ in its phrase "mystery of iniquity"? If they do, such savor was far enough from being intended for little will it commend these pages to many a reader of to-day.
The point of the present story turning on the hidden nature of the Master at Arms has necessitated this chapter. With an added hint or two in connection with the incident at the mess, the resumed narrative must be left to vindicate, as it may, its own credibility.