textual authority. I would like to follow that lead, but the textual authority to which I refer in this article is not theirs; rather it is the fiction of textuality within the text. The history of the text both doubles and covers the fiction that I would like to consider, and I want, at the outset, to put it aside. Like the tale itself, this network of fictive textuality is an inside narrative, and it is largely a narrative about history. Billy Budd explicates and involves both the signifier and the referent of history: both the various reliabilities of sources, historiographical perception, the historical intellect and imagination, the scope and form of historical structure, and language itself, as well as the presence of history, the living event. In this last work, history is always already written and, therefore, corrupted in the making, and all arguments that invoke what was and what might have been are helplessly refracted in the web of their originating culture. With very few exceptions, critics of Melville's tale have taken its expressibility for granted. Once the outside question of the text is mooted, they have treated Billy Budd as if it possessed a narrative selfevidence upon which arguments as to sincerity or irony or even
Read full abstract