Judging the Judge:Billy Buddand “Proof to All Sophistries”

Abstract

In The Failure of Word, Richard Weisberg addressed most controversial question in critical history of Melville's Billy Budd: How should we judge Captain Vere's decision hang Handsome Sailor?1 Weisberg develops his answer further in his paper for this symposium, Accepting Inside Narrator's Challenge: Billy Budd and 'Legalistic' Reader. In both book and paper, Weisberg quotes what he calls the central for understanding Billy Budd. It reads in part: Such events [as Great Mutiny] cannot be ignored, but there is a way of historically treating them.2 Weisberg claims that in this passage narrator hopes to educate us on theories of and he goes on use one such theory as basis for his re-interpretation of Melville's story. In following response Professor Weisberg's paper, I address his two main points in using this theory of communication: first, I discuss theory as part of his specific reading of Vere's actions; and then I briefly examine theory as part of a foundation alist project for grounding literary and legal interpretation in general. i By considerate communication, Weisberg thinks that Melville means communication characterized by covertness and deception. For Melville, this covertness is sometimes necessary, as when he suggests that certain truths can be told unwilling readers only covertly, and by snatches.3 But in Billy Budd, such covertness is most often unnecessary and reprehensible, as in Clag gart's dealings with Billy. Weisberg accuses Vere of this negative form of communication and argues that Melville wants us see through Vere's distortions and lies in condemning Billy in court scene. He goes on show in great detail how Vere egregiously mis reads military law, and he claims Vere does this intentionally in order justify7 hanging Billy. Weisberg argues further that there is a clear motive for Vere's unjust and illegal act: by executing Billy Budd, a