In war and in times of crisis, it has often been said that liberty must be sacrificed to further security (2443).
In short, during times of crisis, our leaders have made profound sacrifices in the name of security, ones that we later realized need not have been made (2443).
The novella is more than a critique of adherence to the rule of law—in fact, it is just the opposite. Vere does not adhere to the law. Therefore, the law is not the culprit—it is something in Vere that causes his failure (2444).
A prevailing interpretation of Billy Budd understands the novella as a condemnation of legal formalism (2446).
Instead of Vere being a victim caught in an intractable jurisprudential dilemma, Weisberg tells another story: Vere is a manipulator of the law, orchestrating the trial to ensure that Billy is convicted and executed (2449).
Weisberg’s reading of Billy Budd suggests that it is not just about a person caught up in the tension between the rule of law and equity, but about a person who sets things up so that it appears he is forced into the choice (2450).
Weisberg observes: “Melville carefully suggests that one who calls loudest for a purely formal analysis of a phenomenon may be one who must subtly conceals some private animus.”50 Vere uses the law as a tool. He is not constrained by it but uses its appearance of constraint to justify his actions and absolve himself of responsibility (2450).
In light of this theme, Billy Budd suggests that we must be suspicious of law’s outward appearances. Indeed, the very law condemning Billy Budd to death refuses to look inside at Billy’s mental state. Only the outside—the actual acts—are considered. Yet everybody who judges him knows that he lacked a malicious intent. They know that focusing merely on Billy’s acts is not sufficient to judge him justly. But Vere declares: “War looks but to the frontage, the appearance. And the Mutiny Act, War’s child, takes after the father. Budd’s intent or non-intent is nothing to the purpose.” (2453).
Well before the legal realists, Melville recognized one of their central insights—that formalistic adherence to rules may mask other aims (2453).
legal realist Judge Jerome Frank noted that the judges who are most prejudiced by their emotions are often those “who elaborately wrap about themselves the pretense of merely discovering and carrying out existing rules.” (2453).
Once we focus on the theme of appearances, the novella can be seen in a different light. The rule of law does not lead to Billy’s execution. Indeed, the law is not even strictly followed. The locus of the problem is Vere. Why does Vere actively try to orchestrate Billy’s execution? (2454).
- Wartime Necessity (2454).
Thus, when his legal argument fails, Vere retools his argument to appeal to policy. (2454).
Instead of being torn between the rule of law and equity, perhaps Vere is caught between the competing demands of security and justice in a time of crisis (2454).
He is sacrificed for the sake of appearances. The sacrifice of Billy Budd has the quality of a ritual slaughter. Since ancient times, people have offered up objects of value (including animals and human beings) as a way to appease the gods, to protect against catastrophes, and to stem epidemics. Often, the thing sacrificed was a symbol of innocence or was an object of great beauty (2455-56).
Chief Justice Rehnquist argues that the “laws will thus not be silent in times of war, but they will speak with a somewhat different voice.”93 In times of war, the argument goes, law must yield to security needs (2457).
Vere is not operating entirely outside of the law—rather, he is operating in its shadows (2457).
Billy Budd can be read as a powerful demonstration of why we should resist our tendency to readily accept arguments by our leaders that we must make certain sacrifices in times of crisis (2462).
Billy Budd demonstrates that the law is often compromised or manipulated to legitimize severe sacrifices in times of crisis, which are often unnecessary. The novella also suggests that these actions are often justified by the argument that leaders must make hard decisions in times of crisis, and that it is difficult to second-guess these choices. However, Billy Budd also indicates that those making these decisions may be “unhinged.” Although Melville seems to excuse the drumhead judges, he does not allow us to excuse Vere. Instead, the text invites us to judge him. How should we judge Vere? The answer to this question is one of the most challenging and provocative aspects of Billy Budd (2462).
The events in the book take place shortly after the French Revolution, and the times during which Melville wrote were quite turbulent. Melville began writing Billy Budd in 1886 and left it unfinished at his death in 1891.134 During this time, the Civil War was not long past; the nation was undergoing an industrial revolution; and there was significant labor unrest. Between 1870 and 1900, there were thousands of strikes and demonstrations, many of which were violent.135 Perhaps Melville was evoking the end of the eighteenth century as a parallel to the end of the nineteenth (2463).
Vere’s apparent lack of malice complicates our ability to judge him. This is what makes Vere such a challenging character. Once we know Claggart’s simplistic nature, it is easy to judge him. Likewise, it is easy to judge Billy Budd given his simplistic nature. But Vere is far more complex. Unlike Billy Budd and Claggart, Vere is not described according to his nature. He is much too nuanced to be a character type (2465).
Richard Fogle describes Vere as composed of “balanced oppositions.”155 Vere is “allied to the higher nobility,” yet achieved his success through merit and was always “mindful of the welfare of his men.”156 He was courageous—“intrepid to the verge of temerity”—but “never injudiciously so.”157 Were was modest and “undemonstrative.”158 Although Vere was “practical enough,” he also had a “certain dreaminess of mood.”159 Vere, Fogle observes, “represents a golden mean.”160 Vere is described as a perfectly balanced commander, a mix of courage and prudence, practicality and pensiveness (2466).
Although Claggart and Billy Budd are black-and-white, Vere’s character is shaded in hues of gray (2467).
During the trial of Billy Budd, Vere states to the adjudicators that the mystery of Claggart’s iniquity is for “psychologic theologians.”171 The narrator does not provide us with access to Claggart’s thoughts or motives—or Vere’s. The narrator merely reports on outward appearances (2468).
The irony in Billy Budd is that the inside narrative does not give us answers; it raises more questions. The external accounts make the case open-and-shut, but the inside narrative is enigmatic. We get a closer view, but we do not learn Vere’s “actuating motives.” (2468).
Why does the text refuse to tell us more of Vere’s motives? Why are Vere’s thought processes concealed from us? Why does the crucial meeting with Billy Budd occur off stage? We are deliberately shown the surface of things, but the narrator suggests to us that the truth exists beneath the surface (2468).
The scholar’s focus on lawyers, jurists, and legal philosophers in this passage is particularly interesting. The scholar suggests that the study of law does not help us in shedding light into human nature. The law fails in Billy Budd because it does not have a deep enough understanding of human nature. It is no match for the crafty Vere, and Billy Budd suggests that turning to the law will not prevent our leaders from sacrificing Billy Budd in times of crisis (2469).
When we examine Vere, however, we do not see an evil man. To see Vere as evil would certainly be more comforting, as we could dismiss his actions as those of deranged tyrant. Instead, Vere, a well-educated and temperate person, the most highly-civilized person on the ship, succumbs to an unshakeable impulse to engage in a primitive and brutal ritual of human sacrifice (2470).