A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Calvinism in Melville’s Moby-Dick or, The Whale

A Theoretical Analysis of the Impact of Calvinism in Melville’s Moby-Dick or, The Whale

Although the transcendentalist movement of the mid to late-nineteenth century garnered popularity among its contemporaries, there were many scholars and artists who vehemently opposed and rejected much of its founding principles. Such opposition was most fervently seen in the dark romantic writers of the same period—including Herman Melville. Melville viewed the world in constant conflict with the transcendental ideals of man living in a harmonious relationship with God and the natural world. Melville primarily attributes childhood auto-biographical circumstances as defining factors in his rage against a benevolent and supreme power. Melville railed against a Calvinistic upbringing writing tales of terror and misfortune in order to juxtapose the evil and hopelessness of a dark and sinister world with the idea of a benevolent and merciful creator.

For centuries, man has studied and written about the belief and existence of God. From an autobiographical interpretation, it has long been argued that Melville’s literature provides a collapsing darkness that directly attempts to convey the lack of God in the hopeless tragedies that assail his characters—most notably, in the Godless Captain Ahab from his mid-century masterpiece, Moby-Dick. However, the tenants and nature of Christian suffering naturally mesh themselves into the plot of Moby-Dick, and the question of whether or not Ahab’s actions serve as acts of defiance against God, or do they suggest a pre-destined, Calvinistic Christian interpretation can be raised. This paper will argue that despite Melville’s attempts to present Calvinistic principles in a derogatory nature, Melville’s Ahab leads the crew into an inevitable and pre-determined end, ironically making the text a paramount allegory on the validity of Calvinism and a manifesto on Melville’s inability to escape his own Calvinistic upbringing.

In seeking to encapsulate Melville’s overall theological ideology, scholar James Townsend suggests that “certain distinctions must be clarified at the outset (which Melville does not necessarily clarify in his novels” (68). Townsend suggests there are at least three types of theological references made within the text: first, those made by characters aligning with what individuals of one given persuasion might believe; secondly, dialogue by characters which are a mask for Melville’s own views; and finally Melville’s own theological reflections (68). The theological arguments extrapolated from his novels for this discourse will fall into the first of the three categories mainly, and will briefly analyze autobiographical implications that impacted Melville’s ideology within the book. Ultimately, this approach will help this scholar make a more subjective argument of his own, while acknowledging Melville’s own philosophies. This paper will examine passages of the novel that contain references to Christianity specifically—and God more broadly—in order to determine if the references can be interpreted as Calvinist.

Much literature of the nineteenth-century possessed an abundance of spiritual dogma that pervaded the academic and mainstream culture. Many nineteenth-century writers, American and European, inherited much of this from the Reformation evangelist John Calvin. As a young man Melville was heavily influenced by Calvinism. According to scholar Lawrence Thompson, Melville was raised believing he was “innately depraved and predestinately damned to eternal Hell” (4), unless he asked for mercy from Christ. This religious disillusionment gradually began to wear on Melville, especially after he began to work regularly as a sailor in his early adult life. Thompson argues that Melville’s concept of a Calvinistic God “became so repulsive that he might have moved through doubt and skepticism to a denial of the existence of God” (5). Scholar Paul Hurh makes a similar assertion in his essay “American Terror”, that Melville’s effective implementation of manifested terror within Moby Dick was heavily influenced by his understanding of his “Calvinistic sense of Innate Depravity and Original Sin” (3).

A brief biographical study here might help frame Melville’s views toward Calvinism formulated through his personal experiences. The Calvinistic church in which he grew up “placed particular emphasis on [accepting] the cause of man’s misery, the method of redemption, and the gratitude which is due to God therefore” (Thompson 19). In other words, God was in charge of everything that happened and there was no choice in the matter for Melville. Melville was taught that “no man can trust in his own power to achieve the good” (Thompson 19). Melville became less and less fervent over time seeing the Calvinistic God as inherently tyrannical after the death of his father, Allan, in 1832. Melville began to question the existence of a Calvinist God whose pre-determined plan for man was suffering and death, and Melville brings this discussion into the forefront of Moby-Dick, through the thoughts and actions of his subjectively-interpreted main character, Captain Ahab.

Although subjective about his final convictions, there no doubt remains a dichotomous battle of theism and atheism that plays out in the novel. Scholar Walter Herbert suggests that this dichotomy is illuminated in a two-part message within the novel: the apparent belief in Calvinistic idealism early in the novel and the impact of how those ideals manifest themselves in the latter half of the novel as suggested in the abstract of this discourse (1). This paper will first look at a general understanding of Calvinistic ideals within the text in order to make the argument that Ahab’s actions reflect pre-determined, Calvinistic views.

It is first important to establish an understanding of Melville’s Calvinism within the text. Melville’s views were indicative of a philosophically-turbulent nineteenth century. Philosopher Edward Beecher emphasized that Melville’s work “richly illustrates the analogies between his intellectual investigations and the philosophical schemes that displaced the theocentric system” (Herbert 9). This theocentric system stemmed from the five points of Calvinism set forth by the order’s founder, John Calvin. In his book Institutes of the Christian Religion (1564), Calvin argues that his faith “adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that “God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation” (Calvin 17). It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: “That God, by His sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to lose their salvation” (19-20).

Understanding the basic philosophical precepts of Calvinism, Melville presents Ahab with these philosophies in mind. We receive our first impressions of Ahab from Bildad and Peleg. Bildad is characterized as Peleg’s foil early in the novel, and could also be interpreted as Ahab’s foil as we become aware of Ahab’s monomaniacal tendencies. According to Herbert, “Bildad’s name recalls the pious “comforter” who sought to bully Job into confessions of sins he had not committed” (117). Bildad is seen righteously condemning Peleg in this scene, trying to persuade him into penitence by accusing Peleg of being “an impenitent man,” (117) and that he will “sink thee (Peleg) foundering down to the fiery pit” (117). This quote suggests a strong Calvinistic Christian motif in two ways: the dialogue implies that, although Peleg—at least to the reader’s knowledge—has done nothing, is already been damned to hell. Melville, then, is illustrating similarities between Peleg and Ahab. From a Calvinistic interpretation, Ahab exemplifies this same fatal righteousness in his quest to seek Moby-Dick, which will ultimately send him to his destruction like Peleg mentioned above. In chapter thirty-six, Ahab’s views on his quest against the whale parallel the Calvinist view that God has pre-destined him to hunt and kill Moby-Dick—“Death to Moby-Dick! God hunt us all, if we do not hunt Moby-Dick to his death” (Melville 181)! This passage echoes the Calvinistic idea “that God will do whatever He wants with his creation” (Calvin 19). Secondly, the passage further supports Bildad’s Calvinistic warnings of damnation mentioned earlier in that Ahab accepts his death as God’s pre-determined plan, and fundamentally rejects the idea of “regeneration” God provides those who choose Him. However, an important distinction in Ahab’s ideology and an inherently healthy Calvinistic ideology needs to be addressed here. Ahab has placed hope in his alleged “pre-determined mission” to kill Moby-Dick. However, it is ironic that Ahab’s rejection of God subsequently foreshadows the mortal fate that he and the crew meet at the end. Scholar Ilana Pardes asserts that Ahab “ultimately rejects [God] and is sent to his death implying that it would have been more ideal for Ahab to embrace God, and keep his salvation” (Pardes 11). Ahab’s vengeful, mono-maniacal conviction seems to contradict the notion of salvation. However, my argument here suggests that Ahab’s evil actions serve as pre-determined behavior. In other words, Ahab’s actions—although evil—could be viewed as an argument for the validity of a Calvinistic God, in that Ahab has chosen to reject his salvation by hunting the whale, and therefore, is pre-destined to a horrific fate, as argued by the tenants of Calvinism for those who, like Ahab, are destined to reject God. In seeking to rail against the Calvinistic God in order to destroy the whale, Melville’s unintentional irony here is evident: having Ahab reject God, and hunt Moby-Dick, despite all the options he is given to desist on this quest, suggests that Ahab rejects God, which, in a sense ironically makes a strong argument that Ahab’s actions are somewhat pre-determined for the destruction of himself and the crew. This dynamic presents a strong argument for the presence of a Calvinistic over-tone in the thematics of the plot, whether Melville intended it or not.

To further strengthen this Calvinistic theme in the text, a more concrete debate concerning pre-determinism is illustrated in chapter thirty-six, “The Quarter-Deck”. Starbuck confronts Ahab’s monomania by suggesting that “vengeance on a dumb brute that simply smote thee from blindest instinct! Madness! To be enraged with a dumb thing, Captain Ahab, seems blasphemous” (Melville 178). If Starbuck views Ahab’s hatred of the whale as blind rage, it is clear that the first-mate is making a moral distinction that Ahab is unable to make. He likens Ahab’s pursuit of Moby-Dick as heresy, and in seeming contradiction to the Christian ideals of humility. Starbuck serves as another type of foil to Ahab’s atheistic ideals because he is portrayed as having humility. However, as logical as Starbucks plea is here, it falls on deaf ears: “talk not to me of blasphemy, man; I’d strike the sun if it insulted me” (Melville 178). Ahab’s dismissiveness implies that his actions are somewhat pre-determined from the onset of the novel because he is unwilling to listen, and therefore suggests a Calvinistic view on his own fate with Moby-Dick. The argument here supports a pre-determined motive in Ahab as discussed earlier. Scholar Lawrence Thompson argues that “being a forgiving and charitable Christian, he [Starbuck] hopes that God can wedge aside Ahab’s heaven-insulting purpose” (190). However, as well-intentioned as he is, Starbuck is unable to use Christian rhetoric to stop Ahab. In that sense, Ahab is defying Christianity by defying Starbuck. Ahab is bound to fulfilling his quest regardless of what God thinks. Ahab disagrees with Starbuck that his actions are blasphemous. The irony here is that, to himself, Ahab is right. Ahab is determined to not let anyone or anything stop him on his quest—not even God. His vengeance seems pre-determined here, which ironically aligns succinctly with the Calvinistic view of determinism. Ahab ironically cannot choose his quest to hunt the whale, it has been chosen for him, and that is a fundamental tenant of Calvinistic ideology.

After analyzing some of the key elements of Ahab’s intentions within the text, it is important to consider the Calvinistic arguments that Melville presents in comparison to Ahab’s seemingly fatalistic malevolence. This line of inquiry leads this scholar to ask the pressing question concerning Melville’s Calvinistic themes within the text: can the events that unfold be interpreted as exemplary of pre-destined Calvinism, or do they suggest a more atheistic theme? The discourse will analyze several key examples within the text that strongly condemn Ahab’s atheistic ideals and help strengthen the theistic argument that can be extrapolated from the text. We will again momentarily move away from Ahab to a scene with Ishmael to juxtapose their actions in order to compare and contrast examples of Calvinist idealism..

A key theistic allusion occurs in chapter seven entitled “The Chapel”. Ishmael is walking the streets of New Bedford during the winter storm. He enters the chapel “shaking off the sleet from my ice-glazed hat and jacket,” (Melville 41). Two intriguing points are suggested from this excerpt. First, the setting outside on the walkway is described as cold, icy, and potentially dangerous. It is only when he enters the chapel that Ishmael is able to “shake off” the danger where there is warmth and security. If Melville wanted to negatively characterize the house of God, why describe the church in such a comforting way? The description of the three marble tablets further accentuates the goodness of God in this scene. Furthermore, Ishmael asks “how is it that we refuse to be comforted for those who we nevertheless maintain are dwelling in unspeakable bliss” (Melville 42)? Melville is bringing the idea of salvation into question here. Ishmael’s question is filled with the supposition that these names on the tablet are men who have made it to an afterlife (regardless of the specificity of denomination or belief). This supposition of eternal redemption is paramount not only in Calvinistic Christianity, but is also one of the founding principles of larger Christian dogma. Ishmael’s question is answered here, because the Christian belief of salvation is guaranteed. Christian scripture suggests that believers “in Him (Christ) have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” (NIV, Ephesians. 1.7-8). Melville poses the question in order to consider the application of Calvinistic salvation in relation to the characters. The passage strongly supports a Calvinistic perspective in Ishmael’s thoughts whether he realizes it or not. If we are to extend the Biblical metaphor further, then it strongly suggests that Melville is implying that all men are worthy of, and are pre-destined to, redemption discussed earlier in the discourse. However, Ishmael questions why there are some men who refuse to be comforted by this. Melville is alluding to Ahab here in the early pages. From a Calvinistic interpretation, Melville is claiming that God’s pre-destined plan for all men is for redemption, but like Ahab, some men lack “discernment in the realms of good and evil” (Thompson 192), suggesting again that one can lose his or her salvation by rejecting God’s pre-destined plan. Fundamentally then, Melville’s atheistic rant here achieves the opposite effect of its intent. In seeking to illustrate the absurdity of Calvinism, Melville succeeds in giving it validity because Ahab is not comforted by embarking on his quest to kill Moby-Dick, and to destroy “the very veil of the Christian Deity” (Melville 212), but only in the completion of it. Ironically, it is Ahab’s destiny to hunt and kill Moby-Dick, which supports the notion that the death of Moby-Dick is Ahab’s, pre-determined (Calvinistic) journey in life.

To extend the Calvinistic allusions made in chapter seven, “The Chapel”, it is important to look at the characterization of Father Mapple, who could, from a Christian perspective, serve as the strongest portrayal of a Calvinistic God in the text. Father Mapple begins the service with a hymn and a lesson on the moral principles of the story of Jonah. Melville is clearly making a comparison between Jonah and Ahab when he alludes “But the Lord provided a great fish to swallow Jonah,” (NIV, Jonah. 1.17). Jonah feels the terror of being trapped inside the fish and he prays “In my distress I called to the Lord, and he answered me. From the depths of the grave I called for help, and you listened to my cry” (NIV, Jonah 2.2). In citing this passage, Fr. Mapple is making a distinction between theism and atheism in his sermon. Jonah has a moment of reconciliation with God through his perilous ordeal with the fish, and asks for repentance. Jonah gains his salvation through his reconciliation, petition, and faith. Melville juxtaposes this with the fate of Ahab at the end of the novel in which he realizes the mistake of his prideful damnation: “Oh, lonely death on lonely life! Oh, now I feel my topmost greatness lies in my topmost grief” (Melville 622). Ahab realizes he is nearing his death and is in great distress, similarly to Jonah referenced previously. Jonah is rescued from the whirlwind because he petitions God for help, and is saved. This obviously reinforces the validity of Christian repentance and salvation. Ahab is in a similar situation and refuses to ask for forgiveness and salvation. Instead he laments the loneliness of his life and impending death. These two passages illuminate the validity of Christian Calvinism wherein Jonah is saved because of his faith, and Ahab, because of his rejection of his pre-determined salvation, perishes. The juxtaposition of these two not only argues the validity of Calvinism, but also illustrates the redemption of those who believe in God, and the destruction of those who don’t.

If we can concede that an argument can be made that Ahab is the embodiment of a Calvinist, the remainder of the discourse will illuminate several passages within the text that reflect Ahab’s actions as being such, supporting the thesis that the novel strongly aligns with Calvinistic principles. A key example of Ahab’s Calvinism occurs prior to the climax of the novel in chapter one hundred nineteen when Starbuck warns Ahab that “God, God is against thee old man, forbear” (Melville 552)! The angst and fear conveyed by the God-fearing Starbuck here could be interpreted as an attempt to derail Ahab from his destiny to kill Moby-Dick. However, in his book The Philosophical Implications of Literary Technique in Moby-Dick (1971), scholar John Borton presents a moral judgment within this passage: “We realize (from Starbuck’s point-of-view) that the whale is “not evil,” and that Ahab’s attempt to define it as such is dangerously wrong” (28). From a Calvinist position then, Borton concludes that Melville could be making the argument that the idea of Calvinistic pre-destination does not mean we lack free will, but that humans are pre-determined to either the redemption of God, or eternal damnation. This ideal is accentuated with the juxtaposition of Ahab’s prideful vengeance against, with Starbuck’s mercy upon, the whale. Ironically, it is Starbuck who has the courage to question Ahab’s rage against God and serve as a moral compass for the mono-maniacal captain. From a Calvinistic view then, Melville is illustrating that Starbuck is accepting his Calvinistic regeneration alluded to earlier because he chooses to do right—in this case, letting Moby-Dick go—and in choosing so, is maintaining his salvation.

A more compelling example of Calvinism occurs in chapter forty-one entitled “Moby-Dick.” This chapter conveys Ahab’s vindictiveness against the whale. Ishmael tells us that Moby-Dick was “the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, until they are left living on with half a heart and half a lung. That intangible malignity which has been from the beginning; to whose dominion even the modern Christians ascribe one-half of the worlds” (Melville 200). Scholar Mark Lloyd Taylor suggests that Melville is making a Calvinistic argument here. He is portraying Ahab’s vengeance against the whale in order for the reader to question its (Ahab’s vengeance) spiritual morality. Ironically, it can be observed that it is actually Ahab’s anger and aggression that is implicitly immoral here—not Moby-Dick. Taylor presents a nuanced theistic argument in the proceeding chapter, where Ishmael states that it is “the whiteness of the whale that above all things appalled me” (Melville 204). The point here is that Ishmael and Ahab clearly are on the wrong side of the argument. The whale, is simply being a whale in its natural state, while Ahab’s monomania has spread to the crew and has created a collective loathing of the creature. Ishmael observes that white is “the most meaning symbol of spiritual things, nay the very veil of the Christian’s Deity” (Melville 212). This line is somewhat ambiguous because Melville’s connotation of white is not clear. According to Taylor, “If we are to take the previous citation at face value, then white—and in this case Moby-Dick—are considered this veil of Christianity” (329). It is interesting to note that Moby-Dick has been demonized and hated for his whiteness (Christianity). In other words, he is hated for things out of his control and is subject to the free-willed wrath of Ahab and the crew of the Pequod. The whale has done nothing immoral to deserve this damnation. Ahab’s only case against Moby-Dick is that he bit off Ahab’s leg while Ahab was hunting him. In other words, the case against the whale here is that he is to be punished for being a whale. This argument is similar to the condemnation of Christ, in that he was arrested and tried for claiming to be the son of God: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life” (NIV, Luke 9. 22). It is no coincidence, then, that if the Biblically-recorded suffering of Christ is pre-determined (Calvinistic), and necessary by God here, then Ahab’s fate in hunting the whale—and dying in the process—is also pre-determined and necessary.

The examples illustrated above provide a clear debate within the text about the impact of Calvinistic ideals. However, there are two other examples in the text that solidify the prevalence and legitimacy of Calvinism within the text. Let us first look at the implications of the events that occur in chapter ninety-three: “The Castaway”, and then chapter one hundred seventeen “The Whale Watch.”

The chapter begins with the lowering of boats for the cherished ambergris that Stubb seeks. Pip is in a boat that is rocked by the swing of a whale’s tail and he (Pip) is sent into the air. During the ruckus, Pip becomes entangled with the whaling lines and Tashtego is ordered to cut the lines to save his life. Pip is callously left in the water as another ship is sailing near as Stubb pragmatically assumes that they will have an easy time picking him up out of the water. Melville portrays Pip treading in the water as he “saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects…He saw God’s foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it” (Melville 453-4). The reference implies that as Pip lay in the water, at the mercies of the men on the Pequod who choose not to rescue him, he realizes that the only person he can rely on to save him is God. He begins to sing and pray for God to rescue him. Upon hearing this, Ishmael tells us that the crew of The Pequod “called him mad” (Melville 454). However, the irony here is that Pip’s prayers are answered as the Pequod miraculously abandons the pursuit of some whales and rescues Pip from his death. It is interesting to note that Melville juxtaposes Pip’s prayers as madness, and yet Melville conveys that Pip is rescued by the crew. This dynamic expresses the Calvinistic Christian philosophy of redemption and salvation discussed earlier in that Pip cannot save himself, but it is through God’s divine Providence and theistic pre-determinism that Pip is eventually rescued. It is important to note that the idea of divine Providence exhibited in this passage parallels the themes of salvation and determinism conveyed in the final chapter of the book, which will be discussed in a larger context later in this essay.

Similarly to “The Castaway”, chapter one hundred seventeen, “The Whale Watch,” presents implications of Ahab and divine providence through the prophetic musings of Fedallah. Ahab and the Parsee have a private conversation below deck about revelations that will pass prior to Ahab dying: “two hearses must verily be seen by thee on the sea; the first not made by mortal hands, and the visible wood of the last one must be grown in America” (Melville 541). Ahab scoffs at the idea which prompts Fedallah to relay that the second prophecy: “Hemp only can kill thee” (Melville 542). Ahab regards this revelation with relief and vindictive pride, assuming that hemp cannot be incorporated in his fate: “The gallows, ye mean.—I am immortal then, on land and on sea” (Melville 542). It is interesting to note here the assuming ideology of Calvinism embedded in Ahab’s revelation. Ahab believes that he cannot be killed, which implies that his fate is not uncertain to him, but is pre-determined through Fedalla’s prophecy. The fatal flaw in Ahab’s thinking here is that he seems to forget his own finite mortality, and that even Calvinist doctrine understands that regardless of your spiritual destination, you are still subject to the laws of nature and mortality. Scholar Lawrence Thompson concedes the fact that Melville portrayed Ahab “as an artistic daydream wish-fulfillment” (85). In other words, Ahab seems to think that he is pre-destined to hunt and kill Moby-Dick, and that he has been granted the gift of immortality to do so in the process. The combination of these two delusions seems impossibly unrealistic. Ironically then, if Ahab’s wishful thinking is delusional, it suggests that all the rage and railing against God and his deviant revenge against Moby-Dick is wishful thinking as well, and will not end well for him. From a Calvinist perspective, Ahab is conversely convinced he cannot die in his quest against Moby-Dick. If we look at this ideology from a Calvinist view then, Melville has yet again centralized Calvinism as a focal point. However, the way he presents this point seemingly paints Calvinism in a positive light. By suggesting that Ahab will play out his vengeance on Moby-Dick—which is what Ahab believes he is destined to do—there suggests a Calvinistic theme to the fulfillment of the prophecy mentioned above because Ahab truly believes he is pre-determined to fulfill it. Melville is making the mistake of indicting Ahab’s delusion of immortality as an attack against Calvinism and it simply does not work, because Melville forgets that he has already conceded Ahab’s pre-determined ideology on hunting and killing Moby-Dick, and that is what Ahab feels is his destiny. Notable here is that Ahab’s interpretations of destiny are not aligned with traditional morality. Scholar Ilana Pardes suggests Melville “opens up the question of what counts as Bible and what counts as interpretation” (1). Succinctly, Ahab interprets the prophecy in that he is destined for a final confrontation with Moby-Dick, and in a very Calvinistic way, Melville allows him to have it in the final three chapters of the book.

Before the discourse moves to Ahab’s final confrontation with Moby-Dick, it is important to understand the fatalistic implications of the events discussed in this paper. The argument can be posed in a linear hypothetical progression. If Melville wrote Moby-Dick as a criticism against the goodness of a Calvinistic God, it must inherently suggest there is a possibility of the existence of such being. Melville’s thesis then became whether or not this God has pre-deterministic or a Calvinist existence. Melville took exception to this suggesting that this seemed inherently cruel given his arduous struggles as a child. To defy this ideology, Melville presents his protagonist Ahab as a vigilante atheist who will stop at nothing to destroy this “veil of Christianity” represented by Moby-Dick. To follow this sequence, each event seems contingent upon the preceding event and in its very sequential nature actually reinforces a pre-determined, Calvinistic nature within the text. However, to make my final argument more convincing, the paper will turn its focus to the final scenes of chapter one hundred thirty-five, “The Chase—Third Day.”

The chapter opens with Ishmael’s pastoral description of the morning “made for a summer-house to the angels…a fairer day could not dawn upon that world” (Melville 613). Ishmael tells us that Ahab would have recognized the God-like beauty of the day had he thought about it, and Ishmael tells us “but Ahab never thinks” (Melville 613). Melville implies that Ahab’s thoughtlessness is a Calvinistic trait given the fact that if one’s world is pre-determined, one does not have to think about anything, because one’s thoughts and feelings about it make no difference.

As the chapter progresses, Ahab and the crew engage Moby-Dick and the retaliation is catastrophic. Ahab requests the boats lowered: “Some men die at ebb tide; some at low water; some at the full of the flood;—and I feel now like a billow that’s all one crested comb, Starbuck” (Melville 616). This interjection screams Calvinism from its depths. Ahab has realized that all of his decisions have reached a precipice point and that have lead him to this pre-destined encounter with the whale, and that he has now accepted the idea of his death. Ultimately he is invoking Calvinistic ideology to allow him to carry out his actions. As he throws his final harpoon, Ahab is dragged into the vortex and ultimately solidifies his pre-determined death.

The final solidification of this Calvinistic, pre-determined end is echoed in the closing paragraphs of the novel. The storm and Moby-Dick have stirred up a whirlwind on the ocean and the water and wind have created a liquid vortex that begins to swallow up the small boats and the Pequod. Melville paints an inevitably (pre-destined) grim scene as “concentric circles seized the lone boat itself, and all its crew, and each floating oar, and every lance-pole, and spinning, animate and inanimate, all round and round in one vortex, carried the smallest chip of the Pequod out of sight” (Melville 623). The final scene presents the strongest argument against Melville’s anti-Calvinistic attempts. If Ahab’s life-or-death hunt of the whale is supposed to fulfill Melville’s attempts at destroying “Calvinistic Christianity”, it is ironic that Ahab fulfills a Calvinistic fate for himself by following through with his hunt of Moby-Dick, and dying in the process, which is what he already knew he was pre-destined to do.

The overarching argument that this scholar has attempted to make with this discourse is this: if Melville’s text was intended to be an attack and indictment of pre-deterministic Calvinism (Christianity), then it is exceedingly coincidental and ironic that Ahab, despite all the warnings from prophets, crew members, other captains, and colleagues was pre-destined to hunt the whale, died in doing so, and led the entire crew to its mortal fate. Ironically, these events appear to embody and give validity to the foundational and fundamental ideals of Calvinism, which is the exact opposite intention that Melville allegedly hoped to accomplish. By attempting to disprove the validity of the Calvinism of his own upbringing, Melville ultimately illuminated how Calvinism ruled his own life through the allegorical implications of his Masterpiece Moby-Dick, the impact of which reflect the deeply-rooted Calvinist philosophies of pre-destination by God.

Works Cited

Borton, John. Herman Melville: The Philosophical Implications of Literary Technique in Moby-

Dick. Amherst: Amherst College Press, 1971. Print.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1564. New York: Harper, 2009. Print

Herbert Jr., T. Walter. Moby-Dick and Calvinism: A World Dismantled. New Brunswick:

Rutgers University Press, 1977. Print.

Hurh, Paul. American Terror: The Feeling of Thinking in Edwards, Poe, and Melville.

Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015. Rpt: Rebeccah Bechtold 2016. Print.

Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick or, The Whale. 1851. London: Penguin, 2003. Print.

Pardes, Ilana. Melville’s Bibles. Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Web.

Taylor, Mark Lloyd. Ishmael’s (m)Other: Gender, Jesus, and God in Melville’s Moby-Dick.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Print

Thompson, Lawrence. Melville’s Quarrel with God. Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1952. Print.

Townsend, James A. Herman Melville: An Author in the Angst of Ambiguity. Elgin: Journal of

The Grace Evangelical Society, 2004. Web.

The Holy Bible. New International Version. Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 2003.

Print.

#scholarly