Melville’s Moby-Dick can be interpreted as a forward thinking piece of
literature in the field of classification of species and in the early field of
evolution. From this perspective, Melville
presents opinions that represent a more scientific way of considering species
as did Linnaeus when coming up with his classification system. The consideration of whales in Moby-Dick also shows the type of
thinking that Darwin employed to reach the logical conclusions of survival of
the fittest and evolution in On the
Origin of Species, published eight years later. Melville, Linnaeus, and
Darwin, as Ishmael in Moby-Dick, may be seen as prophets spreading information
and a new way of thinking, but rather than this mentality coming from God,
stemming from direct observation and rationality.
Cetology is the first chapter in Moby-Dick with the purpose of
classification of the whales as a species.
This is the first chapter when the issues of species are presented and
the chapter is presented in a text book like fashion. Classification of species as a science during
this period in history was booming with the high rate of discovery of new
species through the acquisition and exploration of new lands. In this chapter, major scientists in the
field who created the theoretical environment possible for Darwin to make his
discoveries are mentioned including Linnaeus, Beale, Lyell, and Cuvier. Darwin himself wrote later in life “Linnaeus
and Cuvier have been my two gods”(Young 47). Even though they did not exactly
present ideas that would agree with evolution, they provided pieces to the puzzle
for Darwin to put together (Young 47). When discussing the classification of animals,
one cannot ignore Linnaeus as he created the system of division, classification
and nomenclature of animal and plant species beginning in the 1730’s that has
been used for over two hundred years (Young 48). Linnaeus set out to create a classification
system that reflected the natural ordained order and the result was a convoluted
tree-like system of all the species.
When created, it was seen as a clean way to organize god’s creations,
however Linnaeus stumbled upon many difficulties which led to the doubt in the
belief that species were distinct entities.
The constant influx of previously unknown organisms with the discovery
of new lands during the colonial period provided a mess of the job of creating
order and bringing together species upon deciding which similarities to
classify based on and which differences to ignore. Melville presents this issue in Cetology in the
problem with classifying the numerous species of whales. In discussing which part to use to classify
as “whale” it is stated “in various sorts of whales, they form such irregular
combinations (of characteristics); or, in the case of any one of them detached,
such an irregular isolation; as utterly to defy all general methodization formed
upon such a basis”(Melville 176). The
solution to this as presented by Ishmael is to then “boldly sort them”(176). And in Cetology, these distinctions are
crudely shown by comparing some whales features to the others and creating
three vague groups in which to organize the species. While Ishmael goes on to describe twelve
types of whales in detail, he concludes by presenting a list of uncertain
whales of which he does not know enough about to classify and states that
perhaps they can be fitted into the already loose arbitrary system of
classification. This difficulty with
distinguishing the types of whales shows the problem of classification and the
problem with the traditional concept of a species. As Ishmael stumbles across the difficulty in Cetology,
so did Linnaeus in defining what are supposed to be separate entities yet when
looking at all the differences and similarities, defining a species is done by
drawing a crude line for organizational purposes rather than reflecting god’s
perfect order. A species, and the species that Linnaeus set about to define was
one that was distinct and perfect, made by God during the seven days of
creation. Yet all this variation
provided a complicated picture of creation and a more complicated picture of
other biblical events such as the story of the flood and fitting two of every
animal onto a ship. In a time when the
Bible was to be considered fact, discovery thousands of new species provided
logistical problems. Linnaeus’ tree of
classification then became more a suggestion of a “family tree, a genealogy”(Weiner,
23).
Linnaeus is directly mentioned in Cetology
in regards to the classification of whales as being distinct from fish. Ishmael states in a critical way “of my own
knowledge, I know that down to the year 1850, sharks and shads, alewires and
herring, against Linnaeus’s edict were still found dividing the possession of
the same seas with the Leviathan”(Melville 171). He then further goes so far as to hint that
this classification is “humbug” and then glosses over the difference between
whales and fish as “lungs and warm blood” (Melville 172). This is a very interesting place for Melville
to mention and disagree with Linnaeus, as even though it may seem counterintuitive
place water dwelling animals on a similar level as warm blooded mammals like deer
and even humans, Linnaeus is correct in distinguishing based on similar
heredity in isolating whales. Where
this point may seem to be a step backwards in representing a forward thinking
evolutionary text, the whale is classically a puzzling organism in evolutionary
study and it may be enough that this issue is brought up in the text. Why it would make sense from an evolution
standpoint for an organism with lungs to develop through being better suited to
the environment to live underwater, is a wonder, but the question can be
flipped to ask why an all knowing god would create a creature with lungs to
live in the sea, which is a question answered in the asking. While perhaps it is easier to see a link between
species such as dogs and wolves when beginning to understand inheritance and
evolution, it is understandably more if not the most difficult to comprehend
whales into this scheme. Additionally
Ishmael is not Melville. Linnaeus in the
process of study would be much more able to make claims about whales from a
library. Ishmael a fictional character in the whale industry working with
fisherman would be laughed at if he gave this assumption. In this way perhaps Ishmael can be excused
for his comments against Linnaeus as being a fisherman and given the strange
nature of whales as creatures of evolution in general. After leaving the point in Cetology
concerning the whale being warm-blooded, more forward thinking on the matter is
present in later passages on the subject.
In addition to the classification
problem presented, the way in which the whale is described first by the
function of its features makes Moby-Dick
a forward thinking evolutionary text. Understanding
the function of features of animals is essential to evolutionary study as a
feature that is better for performing a function for passing on genes is the
mechanism by which species developed.
Function is less important to the fixed Biblical understanding of
species because function was not the sole determining factor in their
creation. It is one thing to wonder at
how god created such intricate animals that are perfect for their
environments. But understanding function
and small differences between those of a similar species leads to understanding
that species are suited for their environments because those environments of
their ancestors created their genetic history.
When discussing the tail of a whale after commenting on its “appalling
beauty” and “titanism of power”, Ishmael proceeds to outline in great detail
the five motions of the whale’s tail: “First
when used as a fin when used as a fin for progression; second, when used as a
mace in battle; Third, in sweeping; Fourth in lobtailing; Fifth in peaking
flukes”(Melville 438). Interpreting this
from an evolutionary way, the five specific and important motions of the whale’s
tail can be seen as a testament for how this sort of appendage would be
advantageous for a creature like the whale to develop including as mentioned by
Ishmael, for protection and for fights over mates. In evolutionary theory, all features serve
some survival or reproductive purpose.
The outline given of all of the intricate uses the whale has for its tail
and how essential it is for survival brings together again the idea of function
being directly tied with the creation and definition of a particular species.
Another interesting passage to consider when
discussing form and function is when Ishmael is describing the Right Whale and
the Sperm whale and their differences as they are being suspended from the
ship. This sort of comparison of similar
species is interesting because it is along the same lines of what led Darwin to
write On the Origin of Species (Weiner 27).
In the chapters The Sperm Whale’s Head – Contrasted View and The Right
Whale’s Head – Contrasted View, Ishmael presents the differing features of the two
types of whales including their size, jaws, and the presence of lack of oil and
teeth. When describing the Right Whale,
Ishmael discusses a possible purpose to the hairy fibers that are present in
this type of whale rather than teeth as being “through which [it] strains the
water, and in whose intricacies he retains the small fish”(Melville 392). While the purpose of the teeth in the sperm
whale are not considered in these chapters, it could be speculated as defensive
would is mentioned briefly in the passage with the squid. The fact though, that the function and
differences between the two species is considered shows and the depth in which
they are considered represents an objective way of approaching the study of
species. Listing the facts and minute
details through observation and previous knowledge shows a scientific approach
to the study of species. This is
different from the crude classification system employed earlier as it is more
detailed oriented and is similar to way that Darwin was able to come to his
conclusions through careful reason and tedious observations (Weiner 27). While going back and forth on the ship, it
wouldn’t be out of the realm of possibilities to imagine Ishmael having similar
thoughts concerning the differences between these two types of whales as Darwin
did when comparing finches.
A final, and perhaps the most
prophetic, way in which Moby-Dick represents a progressive text
in the field of evolution is the way in which understanding the characteristics
of whales, allows Ishmael to criticize texts from the Old Testament. The chapter Jonah Historically Regarded
presents criticism of the biblical passage as historical fact. First Ishmael presents confusion as to the
type of whale that could possibly have swallowed Jonah and the problems with
the anatomical description given in the Bible.
Then he asks “Jonah was swallowed by the whale in the Mediterranean Sea,
and after three days he was vomited up somewhere within three day’s journey of
Nineveh, a city on the Tigris, very much more than three days’ journey across
from the nearest point of the Mediterranean coast. How is that”(Melville 427). This question is a direct criticism to the
facts in the Bible and is a bold one to ask.
Yet this criticism is based on the logical knowledge of whales from
objective observation of those in the whaling business. The answer to this question Ishmael gives by saying “For by a Portuguese
Catholic priest, this very idea of Jonah’s going to Nineveh via the Cape of Good
Hope was advanced as a signal magnification of the general miracle”(Melville
428). This incredible voyage of the
whale, though not presented as the real miracle in the Bible can be explained
as part of the miracle. Ishmael
correctly states that in religion, when things cannot be objectively understood
or when they conflict with known facts, a god can still be the answer as by most
religions’ definitions, god is all powerful.
Through classification and study, Linnaeus and Darwin came across
similar more serious conflicts with religion.
Trying to tie in religion with new scientific knowledge was
difficult. Linnaeus in particular strove
to keep the two together by becoming imaginative. His picture of the great flood became one
with the creation story in which there was a mountain with all of the climates
necessary for the different types of species (Young 53). The
answer to the conflicts of the system of classification and later evolution with
the Bible became more miracles. Though to
the scientific minds of Linnaeus, Darwin and arguably Melville, the miracle
explanation cannot have been a satisfying one.
A scientific mind requires doubt and observation and a miracle requires
the suppression of both. In that way,
the chapter about Jonah in Moby-Dick
mirrors the problem that was beginning and hasn’t ended with evolution and
science and religion.
Melville,
Herman. Moby-Dick. New York: Barnes
& Noble Classics, 2003.
Weiner,
Jonathan. The Beak of the Finch. New
York: Vintage Books, 1994.
Young,
David. The Discovery of Evolution. Cambridge:University Press,
2007.
As an aside, I have middle-range plans of writing on something very close to this topic myself, so you have my full attention from the start. The conceptual pairing between M, L, and D is especially interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe huge second paragraph has lots of relevant material, but suffers from poor organization. At a basic level, I want to understand a little more about how you understand Melville in relationship with Linnaeus - an imitator, a satirist, someone working in the same vein, or something else? I agree that there is parallelism here - but I'd like you to handle it more analytically.
The paragraph re: Melville's citation of Linnaeus is interesting. Question: do you think that there is an element of humor here? I think the attack on L. is somewhat tongue in cheek. *However*, your point that Ishmael/Melville is engaged seriously with the puzzling nature of the whale is important. I would have suggested picking this moment to begin engaging with the chapter on fossil (!) whales, where Ishmael/Melville explicitly sides with an understanding of history rooted in Lyell's *Principles of Geology* rather than the Bible.
I like the discussion of function a lot. You're really delving into significant details here, which help to establish Melville's relationship with science in a really concrete way. I don't think the earlier paragraphs were bad - but I would have liked to see the whole essay be like this paragraph.
The discussion of Jonah has merit, although your structure would have been improved by splitting this paragraph into a couple.
Overall: In terms of structure, this remains troubled. Your argument is somewhat shifting or unclear - by the end, it seems that you're arguing that Melville is making a sustained scientific critique of the Hebrew Bible (which is all the more interesting given his obvious obsessive interest in the Hebrew Bible). That's a fine approach, but it develops a little slowly - you could have productively *begun* with this very idea.
I also think that the argument that Melville was a forward-thinking (or proleptic) evolutionary thinker is excellent. Doing both together is a little much, though, because they require somewhat different evidence.
If you're arguing that Melville is making a sustained critique of religion, the obvious question is why do we have the stunning profusion of religious imagery? I think that you could argue that Ahab (and maybe Starbuck) are identified with flawed religious thinking, and that Ishmael and Queequeg (see the end of the chapter "Squid") are identified with science - this makes your reading into a lever to understand the whole novel.
Or, if you're writing about Melville as forward thinking, I'd like to see more about his interests, e.g., in the role of function, or perhaps on animal intelligence/emotion (a subject that Darwin wrote a whole book on).
Anyway, there's a lot of great material here, but it has too many organizational issues to realize its full potential.