What comes first into one’s mind when the name Moby-Dick is brought up?
“Call me Ishmael?” Respect for nature? Epistemology? Humanity? Or, perhaps, the similar movie In the Heart of the Sea by “Thor” Chris Hemsworth?
Indeed, renowned in the world for being one of the cornerstones in American literature, 19th century writer Herman Melville’s novel Moby-Dick, which consists of two closely intertwined storylines, one regarding the narrator Ishmael’s critical explorations of the topic “whales” and the other unravelling a compelling maritime voyage hunting an albino sperm whale known to sailors as Moby Dick, has been continuously interpreted and reinterpreted for centuries. Nonetheless, though somehow diverged from the traditional and highly regarded theories, I argue that Moby-Dick is also a literary expression of atheism, or the rejection of the existence of deities.
Let us consider the subject by first approaching the context. Throughout the story, the theme of atheism is suggested from two aspects: one, the latent sameness between the nature of the sailors’ collective fear and wrath for Moby Dick and that of religious worship; two, the continuous implication of the whale Moby Dick as a deity.
Now, to establish the link between Moby Dick and religion, first consider this question: how did Moby Dick gain its fame amongst the sailors? The answer lies evident in the text—through the mythical tales regarding encounters with it, or, “the wild rumors…which sometimes circulate here [on the sea] (p.197).” The reason given for the circulation of such rumors is that “whalemen as a body [is] unexempt from that ignorance and superstitiousness hereditary to all sailors; but of all sailors, they are by all odds the most directly brought into contact with whatever is appallingly astonishing in the sea…(p.198)” In other words, fear of the unknown, or the innate limitation in knowledge and perception of the world—the sea, specifically—gave birth to the myths of Moby Dick, which thenceforth spread further among the sailors so as to create a general system of belief that claims Moby Dick as “ubiquitous (p.200)” and “immortal (p.201).” Astonishingly, the construction of such a belief system corresponds with some of the most prominent Western philosophical theories regarding the origin of religions in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. For example, consider the theory proposed by English philosopher Thomas Hobbes: “Whatever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude, nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power … And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive him (for he is incomprehensible, and his greatness and power are inconceivable), but that we may honour him…(Hobbes, Leviathan, 3.12)” The idea that God is used by people because of the limited conception of things and the finiteness inherent in perception coincides with Ishmael’s analysis of the tales of Moby Dick. (Not to mention that the classification of Moby Dick as a whale and the reiteration of it being a leviathan echo with the title of Hobbes’ book already.) Philosopher David Hume’s explanation, that “[the] idea of God, as meaning an infinitely intelligent, wise, and good Being, arises from reflecting on the operations of our own mind, and augmenting, without limit, those qualities of goodness and wisdom(EU, 2.6/19; and cp. TA, 26/656; EU, 7.25/72)”, suggests further underlying consistency. Regarding the rumors, Ishmael mentioned that “nor did the wild rumors of all sorts fail to exaggerate…for not only do fabulous rumors naturally grow out of the very body of all surprising terrible events…but, in maritime life…wild rumors abound, wherever there is any adequate reality for them to cling to…(p. 197)” Conspicuously, the rumors of Moby Dick share the same property with the necessary component of the construction of religion—the unlimited augmentation of operations in human minds. The only difference is that the former augments all fear and evilness while the latter all goodness and wisdom. Even more closely resembling the Moby Dick belief system is the nature-worship theory proposed by Max Muller. The theory claims that because of the existence of unknown phenomena in nature, religion was created for the purpose of explaining: “Gods are personified phenomena of nature and no more (Parrinder, 1966).” In addition to the theoretical evidence, certain repetitions that was used by Melville while describing Father Mapple’s sermon and Captain Ahab’s frantic introduction of Moby Dick to the staff of Pequod might also be implying the link between preaching of religion and “preaching” of Moby Dick. For instance, the reoccurring description of both men tossing their arms up and heavily heaving their chests while preaching (p. 51; p. 179), not to mention the same fanaticism displayed by them.
Taking Moby Dick itself into account, it can be easily noticed that Moby Dick is frequently labeled as being “ubiquitous” and “immortal” by the sailors. These two words suggest plenty already: corresponding with two typically acknowledged traits of deities, “omnipresent” and “omnipotent”, they seem to imply that in maritime tales, Moby Dick plays the role as god. We can find plenty of buffering evidence suggesting the analogy between Moby Dick and deity by looking more specifically into the text. When first stepping into the Spouter-Inn, Ishmael was grasped by a peculiar painting. The content of the painting is thus described: “In fact, the artist’s design seemed this…the picture represents a Cape-Horner in a great hurricane; the half-foundered ship weltering there with its three dismantled masts alone visible; and an exasperated whale, purposing to spring clean over the craft, is in the enormous act of impaling himself upon the three mast-heads (p. 12).” The whale’s vital exasperation, unaffected by the violent tantrums of nature, compared with the vulnerability of the ships, tokens its powerfulness in comparison with the mortals. Despite the said, the painting, which is to a large degree similar to a scene in the Book of Jonah in which great waves were fumbling on the surface of the sea, threatening the lone ship, while a great whale surfaces to swallow Jonah, seems also to imply the biblical story of Jonah—the sermon that was later preached by Father Mapple. In the Book of Jonah, because of Jonah’s disobedience to the Lord, the Lord produced fatal waves on the sea while Jonah was on board of a ship seeking refuge from Him. Hence, the shared ability of dominating the sea highlights a certain degree of omnipotence whales possesses, strengthening the resemblance of Moby Dick as a deity.
Considering from the two aforementioned aspects, the belief system regarding Moby Dick can be considered as a direct reflection of the fundamental nature of religions. However, such a connection is not meant to praise. By assimilating the creation of the fear and wrath shared by sailors for Moby Dick to theoretical processes of creating a religion and emphasizing Moby Dick’s godly “traits”, the author is simultaneously raising Moby Dick to a parallel position with deities. Such a parallelism hints that deities, like Moby Dick, are possibly mere creations of human imagination, thus reducing religion to a more primitive position that is more easily exposed to repudiation (Parrinder, 1966; Evans-Pritchard, 2004). At the same time, through the parallel relationship established, the evilness and ruthlessness attributed to Moby Dick by the tales might indicate the belief that God, likewise, is evil—a typical atheist opinion. In addition, through depicting Ahab’s combat with Moby Dick, especially his stabbing it, the belief claiming that Moby Dick is “immortal” is effectively rebutted. Considering the connection between Moby Dick and deities, this largely rejects even the existence of gods, suggesting that what was considered “immortal” could end up being proved just “mortal” as well.
Jumping out of the plot, we can also discover signs of atheism in the author’s attitude towards religion, which seeped out from his composition and left traces in the text.
The most conspicuous outburst of Melville’s attitude occurred in the parts describing the Whaleman’s Chapel and Father Mapple’s sermon. Said in the text, in the Whaleman’s Chapel, “each silent worshipper seemed purposely sitting apart from the other, as if each silent grief were insular and incommunicable (p. 37).” Notice what this implies about the purpose of the people’s going to church. Here, the combination of “silent worshipper” and “silent grief” indicates that, according to the author, the reason why these people came to the chapel is not religious zeal, but simply “grief”. Combined with the proceedings in this chapter, it can be inferred that this “grief” is merely the commemoration of the loss of their family to the sea. What lies underneath is the fact the author is trying to hint: the locals go to the chapel only out of etiquette—ironic enough. Father Mapple’s sermon is even richer in sarcasm. While preaching the Book of Jonah, he burst out a sentence as such: “As with all sinner’s among men, the sin of this son of Amittai was in his willful disobedience of the command of God—never mind now what that command was, or how conveyed-which he found a hard command (p. 46).” Typically, what follows “never mind” is associated with relatively small significance. However, as a preacher, Father Mapple deliberately emphasized the insignificance of God’s commands. Instead, considering the context, it is “the hardness of obeying God” that he actually wants to preach. This largely dogmatized his preaching and indicates Melville’s dissatisfaction with the inflexibility and indoctrination of religion. The rest of the sermon finished telling the first chapter of the Book of Jonah and ended with the verse “and God had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah (p. 45).” However, throughout his sermon, Father Mapple stressed not the purpose of religion, but the illogical, unreasoned worship of God. And the deliberate cutting off at the first chapter subtly avoids the depiction of God as a merciful, compassionate Father in the following chapters of the Book of Jonah, therefore garbling the original purpose of praising the compassion of God, and twists it into an extremely indoctrinated command for all people to obey God. Such a design critiques religion by portraying it as mechanical and compulsive.
With the analysis of context and author’s attitude backing up, though as a critical component of the American Renaissance it is not conventionally viewed as an atheist novel, Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick actually includes a large amount of design that seems to connect the story with atheist beliefs, suggesting atheism as one of the various possible themes of this profound, meaningful novel.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Evans-Pritchard, Edward Evan. Theories of Primitive Religion. Repr. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004
Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan. London, 1651; edited with an introduction by E. Curley, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1994.
Hume, David, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, edited by Tom L. Beauchamp. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd edition, revised by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Hume, David, Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, in Enquiries concerning Human Understanding and concerning the Principles of Morals, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 3rd edition revised by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Parrinder, E. G. “The Origins of Religion.” Religious Studies 1, no. 2 (1966): 257-61. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20004628.
Alice in Wonderland 