Gavin Siegel
Teacher Brandon
English 11
12/16/15
The hanging of Billy, in Melville's Billy Budd, was a faulty and complex choice made by Captain Vere, or "starry Vere," who valued justice rather than sparing Billy. The hanging of Billy was vital for equity to prevail. Billy Budd, also known as the "great looking mariner," was on trial for executing the expert at-arms, Claggart. The crew longed for Billy's life to be saved; however, Captain Vere’s vow to the Ruler cause him to hang Billy. Billy Budd's demise was the result of extremely faulty circumstances. In spite of the fact that he was loved by everybody, he was accused of causing an uprising aboard the Bellipotent, and for the murder of the expert at arms Claggart. Claggart’s passing
…show more content…
was looked at as a disaster by all aboard the ship, even Captain Vere, who settled on the choice to hang Billy. However, it was the right choice which could have been made to keep the boat and the ship's men from revolting and murdering each one of those individuals of higher summon. Everybody on the boat makes the most of Billy's vicinity, aside from Claggart.
He is portrayed to be a "sweet, pleasant fellow" (295). Captain Vere preferred Billy more than the others, "… they all cherished him!" (296) As a result of this, he pondered what the best decision was: spare Billy, or hang him? The choice to hang Billy was, by and large, the right one. In the event that Captain Vere chose not to hang Billy, nobody would have gained from his missteps, including Billy himself. The absence of discipline can prompt serious issues; Billy was so loved by everybody, Captain Vere was in an extremely troublesome circumstance. It was extremely unlike Billy to ever accomplish something so ill-advised; he drew out the best in everybody. Captain Vere felt in his heart that Billy's activities were a misstep, yet he couldn't make certain. The allegation Claggart made was a rebellion, an uprising was a genuine wrongdoing. Vere had no verification that Billy was not liable, so for the security of himself and his team, he relinquished Billy's …show more content…
life. Hobbesian intention is also focused on the whole support of the sovereignty of the King as long as it doesn’t conflict with one’s natural right of life, liberty, and property. Since laws are made by the King and are the only arbiter of justice, people must obey them. Once Billy enters the boat (the social contract), he handed over his rights and agreed to obey the laws presented. Billy was granted his natural rights of liberty by defending himself in the trial, but was still found guilty. In this case, the reason why Captain Vere executed Billy was for the sole purpose of principle. Hobbes did not believe that a man’s conscience should play a factor in justice; therefore, the killing of a commanding officer is always punishable by death under all circumstances. In his choice making, Captain Vere reminded himself he was under the rules of the Lord, rather than humans.
On the off chance that Captain Vere had cherished human values, Billy may have lived. This was not the genuine explanation behind altering his opinion. The genuine reason was on the grounds that others would have followed in Billy's affirmed strides in the event that he was not rebuffed. Billy Budd's life was yielded for an unjust reason, and the circumstances encompassing his demise were certainly faulty. In any case, Vere settled on the choice that he needed to condemn billy, by coming to the decision that, “the essential right and wrong involved in the matter, the clearer that might be, so much the worse for the responsibility of a loyal sea commander, inasmuch as he was not authorized to determine the matter on that primitive basis” (354). Vere was torn in this decision because he had a moral dilemma with his relationship with billy and his upholding of the law. despite the fact that it wasn't ethically a good fit for Captain Vere. It was not the decision that he wanted to make.The results of what may have happened if his life had been saved were far more prominent than those of pain for Billy's passing. Billy's demise was really important for things to stay together on the boat because it is important for the crew members not to fight with one another or begin a revolt. The narrator at the end of the book quotes a “writer whom few know,” saying that “"Forty years
after a battle it is easy for a noncombatant to reason about how it ought to have been fought. It is another thing personally and under fire to have to direct the fighting while involved in the obscuring smoke of it" (365). This quote reminds us of how easy is is for the reader to condemn vere for his actions. It is difficult for the reader to relate to Vere and envision the moral dilemma taking place in his mind. The hanging of Billy Budd demonstrates the need for discipline in order for equity to triumph, not heeding to the circumstances encompassing the issue. Billy Budd's life was lost in light of the fact that Claggart did not care for him, his acquisition of Billy conferring rebellion was too much for Billy to withstand. His less than ideal time to free his temper cost him his life. He was erroneously blamed for all accusations, yet when he struck Claggart over the head and slaughtered him, he created his own particular demise. His activities of uprising couldn't be demonstrated, however when he struck Claggart and slaughtered him, his activities were demonstrated and didn't really could be disregarded. Nobody loved Claggart and he constrained Billy into his forceful activities. He never would have struck Claggart on the off chance that he had not of lied about Billy and the allegation of an uprising. Claggart was jealous of Billy and needed Billy executed, he got his wish, yet he likewise got what was coming to him by Billy slaughtering him.
When Captain Vere says “Struck dead by an angel of God! Yet the angel must hang!” his attitude towards Billy Budd changes from one of paternal concern and personal respect to one in which he has set aside his personal thoughts and feelings for the sake of his nation. Each sentence represents this dichotomy by indicating his sentiment towards Billy. In the first, Billy is “an angel of God” who has “struck” Claggart dead, in a righteous manner. In the second sentence, “the angel must hang,” indicates that no matter Billy’s intentions or nature, his act is a crime against his country.
In George Orwell’s essay, “A Hanging,” and Michael Lake’s article, “Michael Lake Describes What The Executioner Actually Faces,” a hardened truth about capital punishment is exposed through influence drawn from both authors’ firsthand encounters with government- supported execution. After witnessing the execution of Walter James Bolton, Lake describes leaving with a lingering, “sense of loss and corruption that [he has] never quite shed” (Lake. Paragraph 16). Lake’s use of this line as a conclusion to his article solidifies the article’s tone regarding the mental turmoil that capital execution can have on those involved. Likewise, Orwell describes a disturbed state of mind present even in the moments leading up to the execution, where the thought, “oh, kill him quickly, get it over, stop that abominable noise!” crossed his mind (Orwell.
to it because his fate did not lead him there. Billy applied the fact that he had to accept
In this paper I will explain and discuss the historical events that took place in a small rural town in early Massachusetts. The setting for which is Irene Quenzler Brown's and Richard D. Brown's, The Hanging of Ephraim Wheeler. I will explain the actions and motives of Hannah and Betsy Wheeler in seeking legal retribution of husband and father Ephraim Wheeler. I will also discuss the large scope of patriarchal power allowed by the law and that given to husbands and masters of households. Of course, this will also lead to discussions of what was considered abuse of these powers by society and the motivation for upholding the Supreme Court's decision to hang Ephraim Wheeler.
Many of the interpretations that people have developed while analyzing the book have been formed at least partially through the narrator's description of Captain Vere. Captain Edward Vere is the captain of the H.M.S. Bellipotent, which is the ship that Billy Budd is impressed into. Although portrayed as a good, strong leader by Melville, Captain Vere and his seemingly "admirable" traits are not so. These traits prove to be undesirable as the plot of the story unravels. As explained by Shaw, "Melville presents him as a man of admirable balance: brave but modest, firmly in control of his men without being overbearing..." (592). Furthermore, Melville mentions that Vere has an element of rigidity to him and that, although he is always aware of his crew's welfare, he does not tolerate any misbehavior or disciplinary infractions (Calhoun 2). Despite the portrayal of this rigidity as good, it proves to have a negative effect on Vere later in the story. According to Herman Melville, Captain Vere was an intellectual man who enjoyed reading (Melville 45). Once again, Melville portrays this trait as a good characteristic, but it proves to serve him poorly when he attempted to come to a decision regarding the death of Claggart at the hands of Billy Budd. Calhoun explains the negativity of these traits by adding that Vere's peers "detect a 'queer streak of pedantic running through him'" (Calhoun 2). He continues that this pedantic "connotes pride, narrowness, formality, and lack of imagination-- all qualities that serve Vere poorly when he is faced with a knotty ethical question" (Calhoun 2). Melville's description of Captain Edward Vere's character is not objective and is certainly open to various interpretations, including the ironist
In conclusion, this essay analyzes the similarities and differences of the two stories written by Herman Melville, Billy Budd and Bartleby. The settings, characters, and endings in the two stories reveal very interesting comparisons and contrasts. The comparison and contrast also includes the interpretation of the symbolism that Melville used in his two stories. The characters, Billy and Bartleby, could even be considered autobiographical representatives of Herman Melville.
While it could be argued that the climactic conclusion should have been different, and those that believe this would be partially correct, the painful truth persists: nothing better could happen in the year the story takes place. Had this tale transpired one century later, the crime committed would amount to unintentional manslaughter, and Billy’s punishment would not be as severe. Unfortunately, this did not happen, and the consequences coordinate with the laws of that day. But if the decision lingers an immoral act due to the laws, why doesn’t Vere stand against the establishment of that time and err on the side of what is right? The reason is that Vere should have no actual loyalty to Billy in the first place. The duty of the captain should be to uphold the law, not to venture off on a humanitarian mission. Even if he decided to unrealistically portray the hero in this story, the captain’s luck would ultimately run out, and he would be trapped in the same boat as Billy Budd. In retrospect, the decision stays acceptable for that place and time, but fails in regards to the decision that would truly be
The plane crashes and everyone dies, including his father-in-law. Th only other survivor is the co-pilot. This gives the impression that although Billy knew the plane was going to crash, he also knew that he was going to survive.Billy is taken to the hospital and operated on. He is unconscious for 2 days. It is not until Chapter 9, that we see his wife trying to get to the hospital to see him and has a terrible accident that ultimately kills her.
The “Bring Back Foolishness” Jeff Jacobys’ essay, entitled “Bring Back Flogging” was, in my sincere opinion, poorly constructed. There are numerous instances where I felt that he had either not supported his premises with valid information or had negated his support in later sentences. The essay begins by drawing forth images of Puritan punishment. He cites two instances of punishment, which were particularly torturous and radical in nature. He then draws a comparison between this inhumane punishment and imprisonment by stating with irony that, “Now we practice a more enlightened, more humane way of disciplining wrong doers: we lock them up in cages.”
In “The Death Penalty” (1985), David Bruck argues that the death penalty is injustice and that it is fury rather than justice that compels others to “demand that murderers be punished” by death. Bruck relies on varies cases of death row inmates to persuade the readers against capital punishment. His purpose is to persuade readers against the death penalty in order for them to realize that it is inhuman, irrational, and that “neither justice nor self-preservation demands that we kill men whom we have already imprisoned.” Bruck does not employ an array of devices but he does employ some such as juxtaposition, rhetorical questions, and appeals to strengthen his argument. He establishes an informal relationship with his audience of supporters of capital punishment such as Mayor Koch.
“The third bullet was for the filthy flamingo, who stopped dead center in the road when the lethal bee buzzed past his ear. Billy stood there politely, giving the marksman another chance.” This clearly illustrated the child-like person Billy is. Instead of duck and cover, Billy stands there as if he were playing a board game he didn’t want to play and in protest did not move his player. He doesn’t truly grasp the distraught situation he is in and he most certainly doesn’t comprehend it. By not looking out for his own interest he becomes an infantile creature depending on the civil duties of others.
Herman Melville wrote some of the most widely read works in the history of literature during the late nineteenth century. He has become a writer with whom the romantic era is associated and a man whose works have become a standard by which modern literature is judged. One of his most well-known and widely studied short pieces of fiction is a story entitled, simply, Billy Budd. In this short story, Melville tells the tale of Billy Budd, a somewhat out-of-place stuttering sailor who is too innocent for his own good. This enchanting tale, while inevitably entertaining, holds beneath it many layers of interpretive depth and among these layers of interpretation, an idea that has been entertained in the literature of many other romantic writers. Melville uses a literary technique of developing two characters that are complete opposites in all aspects and contrasting them throughout the narrative, thus allowing their own personalities to adversely compliment each other. Melville also uses this tactic in another well-known short story, Bartleby the Scrivener. Much like Melville's two stories, another romantic writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne, uses this tactic in his short story, The Artist of the Beautiful when he creates two completely different characters who vie for the same woman's love. Both writers use the contrary characters to represent the different facets of the human personality. Using this idea and many others, these romantic writers, Melville and Hawthorne, created works with depth of meaning that were both interesting to read and even more intriguing to interpret.
It is known Billy's innocence was his down fall by hiding the true evil from his eyes. But why was John Claggart out to destroy Billy?. There are several reasons why John Claggart attempts to destroy Billy Budd. John Claggart wants to destroy Billy because he is extremely wary of Billy's intentions. He has come to believe that Billy is planning a mutiny and wants to take over the ship. Claggart reports this to captain Vere saying," During today's chase and possible encounter I had seen enough to convince him that at least one sailor aboard was dangerous." Meaning that he felt Billy was against them. Claggart felt that Billy's big plan was to get in favor of all the men on the ship and then turn them against the captain. Captain Vere responds by having Billy and Claggart meet in private where Claggart can openly accuse Billy of this crime. Fortunately, Claggarts attempt to destroy Billy for mutiny fails because he is struck down by Billy in one blow, ending the matter, but opening a much more serious one.
... Budd, Claggart went to Captain Vere and accused Budd of being apart of a mutiny. Unable to respond due to his "vocal impediment," Budd hit Claggart in his head, and instantly killed him (Melville 61). Captain Vere gathered the drumhead court, and from the narrator's reflection of the viewpoint of the men, they believed Budd was "the last man they would have suspected" of mutiny or murder (Melville 67). Budd admitted he "did not mean to kill [Claggart]," and Captain Vere declared, ""I believe you, my man" (Melville 68). However, Captain Vere decided to follow the Mutiny Act and announce Budd's punishment of death by hanging. Illustrating the events throughout the novel, the narrator represents the conflicting views of the characters from a third-person perspective. Through this depiction, Billy's innonence as well as society's destruction of innocence are revealed.
Some have misinterpreted Melville's Billy Budd as a story about the distinction between divine justice, on the one hand, and human justice, on the other. Here's a summary of the "incorrect" reading that leads to this conclusion: When John Claggart falsely accuses Billy Budd of inciting mutiny, Captain Vere (whose name suggests "truth") arranges a confrontation between the accuser and the accused. When Claggart shamelessly repeats the lie to Budd's face and when Captain Vere insists that Budd defend himself and when Budd is struck speechless (if you like) and, therefore, STRIKES Claggart who falls down dead, Captain Vere suddenly has a problem on his hands, a problem he did not bargain for. You see, he feels that Budd is innocent but he also knows that he has killed a superior officer, an offense punishable by death. Here's how Melville presents Captain Vere's argument at the drumhead court: