It is the truth itself that is basic to religion. The formulation of it is secondary and is justified only to the extent to which it enhances and promotes the truth. The task of religion is to get people to live and to be the truth, rather than to utter it. In this respect our preoccupation with intellectualizing truth is potentially little better than the orthodox repetitions of dogma and prayer.
It is the primacy of truth rather than its formulation that is characteristic of the great religions and prophets of all times. Jesus, for example, never wrote anything and spoke almost entirely in parables that conveyed the spirit rather than the literal truth he lived. Lao-Tse, the Chinese sage, never found it necessary to write anything until he was about to leave his country and the gatekeeper required that he write a book before departing. Indeed, this anti-intellectualism is prominent in Eastern religions. If you interrupt a Zen Buddhist who is deep in contemplation by asking, “What is the truth?” he will allegedly throw you through the window, not in contempt, but so you will have some experience of what is real. Then, too, we have the silent worship of Quakers, and we have a man like Albert Schweitzer leaving a life of study and writing for a life of devotion to what he believes is true.
So, too, what is the greatest of these lies beyond anything we could say here today. It will always be so, that here in this hour we can try only to formulate what is true; it remains for us the rest of the week to find the real truth in our lives. As Gibran has said, “If you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles. Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children” (Gibran 1942, 89). We will often speak as if we what we say here is the truth, but at least once at the beginning of this ministry we have acknowledged that we know better.
So, I commend each of you to the silence of this other realm. I commend each of you to the experience of what is the greatest of these. The truth awaits. Nay, it is about us already. And as you venture forth, one last word: Do not be troubled if there is that which you cannot explain. There will be that which is so inscrutable that it must remain as you find it, a mystery.
. . . whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. . . . For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face. (1 Cor 13: KJV)
3. Sermon delivered by the author at the Church of the Reconciliation Unitarian Universalist, Utica, New York on November 12, 1961.
4
Billy Budd: Adam or Christ?4
Melville’s immortal Moby Dick ends with the destruction of the whaler Pequod and the loss of all hands save one, Ishmael. His lesser-known novel, Billy Budd, concludes its main action with the sacrifice of only one and the survival of all others. This significant difference has suggested a new, more hopeful aspect of Herman Melville. Billy Budd has therefore been enjoying a re-discovery, or properly speaking a process of discovery since it was not published in America until 1928. The Ustinov film production, released in the Fall of 1962, is most successful and impressive.
The unmistakable religious symbolism in Billy Budd suggests the need for a study of its theological themes and the meanings that they hold for religious liberals. Melville’s character, Billy Budd, represents both the mythological Adam and the figure of the Christ. Before taking up these themes it will be helpful to recount briefly the history of the story and to summarize its contents.
I
Almost all of Melville’s prose fiction was written between 1845 and 1857, a period of only twelve years. From 1857 to 1888 Melville devoted himself almost exclusively to poetry. Then, on November 16, 1888 he began Billy Budd. Although much shorter than his early novels Billy Budd took three years in the writing. It was finished on April 19, 1891. Five months later Melville died.
Thus, Billy Budd occupies a singular position in Melville’s writings. It is the last and apparently most carefully written of his works. As Ronald Mason says in his book, The Spirit Above the Dust, Melville “seems to have taken far more pains with the detailed construction of this story than he ever did with any of his previous writings. . . .” (Mason 1951, 246). It was almost as if he had something very important to say.
In 1949 Billy Budd became the basis of the play “Uniform of Flesh,” written by Louis O. Coxe and Robert Chapman. This play ran for seven performances at the Lenox Hill Playhouse. The play was then re-written and opened at the Biltmore Theatre under the title “Billy Budd.” Here it narrowly missed the Drama Critics Award for the best play in the 1950–951 season.
II
Such is the history of Billy Budd. Before proceeding with an interpretation of its themes, it might be best to summarize the contents of the novel. The action takes place in 1798 on the high seas when England and France are at war. This is the year of the naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore when English sailors, infected by the spirit of revolution, protest such abuses as impressment, flogging and capital punishment.
Billy Budd, a slim, handsome boy of nineteen is impressed from the merchantman, The Rights of Man, to serve on the man-of-war, H.M.S. Indomitable, commanded by Captain Vere. Of a cheerful, cooperative nature, Budd quickly adapts to navy life. His frank, trusting disposition makes him well-liked by his shipmates.
His very presence seems to create a sense of good-will and confidence—with all except one, the ship’s Master-at-Arms, John Claggart. The spiritual antithesis of Budd, Claggart’s nature is sinister and evil. As Melville wrote: “[in Claggart was] 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” (Melville 1952, 843).
Claggart becomes obsessed by the need to hurt Billy Budd. He plots with his assistant, Squeak, to discredit Budd by sabotaging his gear. He insults him and tries to provoke him, but to no avail. Soon it becomes clear that Claggart will not rest until he has destroyed Budd. One night he has Squeak try to tempt Budd into mutinous behavior by offering the young seaman two gold guineas. When this fails, Claggart executes his masterstroke. He goes to Captain Vere and accuses Budd of mutiny. Captain Vere knows Budd is not guilty and has long suspected Claggart of improprieties, so he sees this as an opportunity to catch Claggart on a perjury charge, which is a capital offense.
Summoning Billy to his cabin Vere has Claggart repeat the charges. Standing falsely accused, Billy is shocked, tongue-tied, enraged. Although he had been known to stammer when under stress, this is the first time he completely loses control of himself. Billy is choked with anger, his face twisted, his body almost convulsed. Not able to answer in any other way, his arm strikes out and catches Claggart squarely on the temple. There is a groan and Claggart topples over dead.
Suddenly the plot turns, violently the roles are reversed. Now Budd is guilty of deed if not of intent. A court martial ensues and we cannot believe that Budd will be convicted. But there is no choice for the tormented Captain Vere: Budd has killed a ship’s officer; it is time of war; he must hang. Before we can fully grasp what has happened, the crew is summoned to witness punishment, Budd is marched forward and executed. The crew stands by, fixed in horror. Just before Billy is lifted from the deck he shouts—for he has trusted Captain Vere implicitly and bears him no malice—”God bless Captain Vere!”
The story then follows the history of the H.M.S. Indomitable and Captain Vere, who is soon killed in a naval engagement, but concludes shortly thereafter.
III
Throughout the story certain themes and religious symbolism emerge which we are now in a position to interpret. Two minor images suggested are David felling Goliath and Abraham being called upon to sacrifice his