Context
“Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish”
Herman Melville
One of the most famous chapters in Moby-Dick, it is here, over two-thirds of the way into the book, that Melville’s
Ishmael “shows his hand,” revealing that the reader is both “a
Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too.” That is, both competed for and
captured. This depiction of the relationship between reader and book
seems all the more puissant in light of discussion about the
“competition” between technology and book culture. It frequently happens that when several ships are
cruising in company, a whale may be struck by one vessel, then escape,
and be finally killed and captured by another vessel; and herein are
directly comprised many minor contingencies, all partaking of this one
grand feature. For example,—after a weary and perilous chase and
capture of a whale, the body may get loose from the ship by reason of a
violent storm; and drifting far away to leeward, be retaken by a second
whaler, who, in a calm, snugly tows it alongside, without risk of life
or line. Thus the most vexatious and violent disputes would often arise
between the fishermen, were there not some written or unwritten,
universal, undisputed law applicable to all cases. Perhaps the only formal whaling code authorized by
legislative enactment was that of Holland. It was decreed by the
States-General in A.D. 1695. But though no other nation has ever had
any written whaling laws, yet the American fishermen have been their
own legislators and lawyers in this matter. They have provided a system
which for terse comprehensiveness surpasses Justinian’s Pandects and
the By-laws of the Chinese Society for the Suppression of Meddling with
other People’s Business. Yes; these laws might be engraven on a Queen
Anne’s farthing, or the barb of a harpoon, and worn round the neck, so
small are they. I. A Fast-Fish belongs to the party fast to it. II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it. But what plays the mischief with this masterly code is
the admirable brevity of it, which necessitates a vast volume of
commentaries to expound it. First: What is a Fast-Fish? Alive or dead a fish is
technically fast, when it is connected with an occupied ship or boat,
by any medium at all controllable by the occupant or occupants,—a mast,
an oar, a nine-inch cable, a telegraph wire, or a strand of cobweb, it
is all the same. Likewise a fish is technically fast when it bears a
waif, or any other recognized symbol of possession; so long as the
party waifing it plainly evince their ability at any time to take it
alongside, as well as their intention so to do. These are scientific commentaries; but the commentaries
of the whalemen themselves sometimes consist in hard words and harder
knocks—the Coke-upon-Littleton of the fist. True, among the more
upright and honorable whalemen allowances are always made for peculiar
cases, where it would be an outrageous moral injustice for one party to
claim possession of a whale previously chased or killed by another
party. But others are by no means so scrupulous. Some fifty years ago there was a curious case of
whale-trover litigated in England, wherein the plaintiffs set forth
that after a hard chase of a whale in the northern seas, they (the
plaintiffs) had succeeded in harpooning the fish; but at last, through
peril of their lives, were obliged to forsake, not only their lines,
but also their boat itself,—Furthermore: ultimately the defendants (the
crew of another ship) came up with the whale; struck, killed, seized
and finally appropriated it before the eyes of the plaintiffs;—Yet
again:—and when those defendants were remonstrated with, their captain
snapped his fingers in the plaintiffs’ teeth, and assured them that by
way of doxology to the deed he had done, he would now retain their
line, harpoons, and boat, all of which had remained attached to the
whale at the time of the seizure. Wherefore, the plaintiffs now sued
for recovery of the value of their whale, line, harpoons, and boat. Mr. Erskine was counsel for the defendants; Lord
Ellenborough was the judge. In the course of the defence, the witty
Erskine went on to illustrate his position, by alluding to a recent
crim. con. case, wherein a gentleman, after in vain trying to bridle
his wife’s viciousness, had at last abandoned her upon the seas of
life; but in the course of years repenting of that step, he instituted
an action to recover possession of her. He then proceeded to say that,
though the gentleman had originally harpooned the lady, and had once
had her fast, and only by reason of the great stress of her plunging
viciousness, had at last abandoned her; yet abandon her he did, so that
she became a loose-fish; and therefore when a subsequent gentleman
re-harpooned her, the lady then became that subsequent gentlemans
property, along with whatever harpoon might have been found sticking in
her. Now in the present case Erskine contended that the
examples of the whale and the lady were reciprocally illustrative of
each other. These pleadings, and counter pleadings, being duly heard,
the very learned judge set terms decided, to wit:—That as for the boat,
he awarded it to the plaintiffs, because they had merely abandoned it
to save their lives; but that with regard to the controverted whale,
harpoons, and line, they belonged to the defendants; the whale, because
it was a Loose-Fish at the time of final capture; and the harpoons and
line because when the fish made off with them, it (the fish) acquired a
property in those articles; and hence anybody who afterwards took the
fish had a right to them. Now, the defendants afterwards took the fish;
ergo, the aforesaid articles were theirs. A common man looking at this decision of the very learned
Judge, might possibly object to it. But ploughed up to the primary rock
of the matter, the two great principles laid down in the twin whaling
laws previously quoted, and applied and elucidated by Lord Ellenborough
in the above cited case; these two laws touching Fast-Fish and
Loose-Fish, I say, will on reflection, be found the fundamentals of all
human jurisprudence; for notwithstanding its complicated tracery of
sculpture, the Temple of the Law, like the Temple of the Philistines,
has but two props to stand on. Is it not a saying in every one’s mouth, Possession is
half of the law: that is, regardless of how the thing came into
possession? But often possession is the whole of the law. What are the
sinews and souls of Russian serfs and Republican slaves but Fast-Fish,
whereof possession is the whole of the law? What to the rapacious
landlord is the widow’s last mite but a Fast-Fish? What is yonder
undetected villain’s marble mansion with a door-plate for a waif; what
is that but a Fast-Fish? What is the ruinous discount which Mordecai,
the broker, gets from poor Woebegone, the banker, on a loan to keep
Woebegone’s family from starvation; what is that ruinous discount but a
Fast-Fish? What is the Archbishop of Savesouls income of 100,000 seized
from the scant bread and cheese of hundreds of thousands of
broken-backed laborers (all sure of heaven without any of Savesoul’s
help) what is that globular £100,000 but a Fast-Fish? What are the Duke
of Dunder’s hereditary towns and hamlets but Fast-Fish? What to that
redoubted harpooneer, John Bull, is poor Ireland but a Fast-Fish? What
to that apostolic lancer, Brother Jonathon, is Texas but a Fast-Fish?
And concerning all these, is not Possession the whole of the law? But if the doctrine of Fast-Fish be pretty generally
applicable, the kindred doctrine of Loose-Fish is still more widely so.
That is internationally and universally applicable. What was America in 1492 but a Loose-Fish, in which
Columbus struck the Spaniard standard by way of waifing it for his
royal master and mistress? What was Poland to the Czar? What Greece to
the Turk? What India to England? What at last will Mexico be to the
United States? All Loose-Fish. What are the Rights of Man and the Liberties of the World
but Loose-Fish? What all mens minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What
is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to
the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but
Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what
are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?
The allusion to the waifs and waif-poles in the last chapter but one,
necessitates some account of the laws and regulations of the whale
fishery, of which the waif may be deemed the grand symbol and badge.
