#also i know the inclusion of genesis 34:3 is controversial but it is literally just for the sake of linguistics

[imsorryimlate]

About to bring you very long and speculative meta about Moby Dick even though we are only 26 chapters into this thing and I have never read it before.

Back in chapter 13 when Ishmael said “from that hour I clove to Queequeg like a barnacle” I was like, huh. That’s a funny way to express it. Because clove – here being the more archaic past tense of cleave, that is, cling to – is often used in the Bible in relation to someone clinging to God, or at times clinging to a loved one.

I decided to check out the Hebrew word for it, which is דבק (dbq, dabaq) and it appears 54 times. I’m not gonna list all of them, but you can find the full collection here.

Now, let us look at this word. I will bold the English word that corresponds with dbq. I use the KJV translation because it consistently translates dbq as “cleave”, while newer translations will generally use cling, hold fast, stick, etc.

Here are some instances where it relates to love/marriage:

Genesis 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

Genesis 34:3 “And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.”

1 Kings 11:2b “Solomon clave unto these [his wives] in love.”

However, the word is not only used this way. It has more “everyday” use as well, for example:

Psalm 22:15a “My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws.”

Psalm 102:5b “My bones cleave to my skin.”

1 Sam 31:2a “And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons.” (literally “the Philistines cleaved to Saul and his sons”)

I think here, what these examples demonstrate, is that this word suggests a certain intensity. The Philistines were not simply following Saul and his sons, they were clinging to their heels. The Psalmist isn’t just skinny, his flesh clings to his bones without anything in between, you can see his skeleton through his skin, etc.

It is therefore also used to demonstrate deep loyalty:

Ruth 1:14 “And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.”

2 Sam 20:2b “But the men of Judah clave unto their king, from Jordan even to Jerusalem.”

Which brings me to my original point, that it is used specifically about a worshipper’s commitment and loyalty to God:

Psalm 63:8a “My soul followeth hard after thee.” (literally “my soul cleaves to you”)

Deuteronomy 10:20 “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his name.”

Deuteronomy 13:4 “Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.”

Joshua 22:5b “To love the Lord your God, and to walk in all his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cleave unto him, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul.”

Joshua 23:8 “But cleave unto the Lord your God, as ye have done unto this day.”

These are just a handful of examples, there are way more, especially in Deuteronomy. And I just feel like, with how Melville strews biblical references all around, it cannot be a coincidence. Or am I reading too much into it?

Then I started thinking about this post, where @animate-mush suggested that Queequeg is whale coded. Which would then not leave my brain.

Because see, the book very much presents whales similarly as the Bible speaks of them and other creatures of chaos, such as the leviathan (which, we do not know exactly what it is, despite the Hebrew word for whale being the same). Which is to say, primordial creatures, present since the creation of the universe, creatures of chaos that only God can control – sometimes with huge effort (depending on which theological strata we’re talking about but that’s not relevant right now). These forces of chaos are not the anti-thesis of God, per se, but they’re something on the outskirts of our world, something to fear, something to be grateful that God subdued, something that could very well be considered divine in itself (for example, the sea god Yam in Canaanite mythology).

Which leads me to my next point, which is that many theological strata in the Bible are not concerned with monotheism, but rather monolatry, that is, the acceptance of several gods existing, but only worshipping and being loyal to one. For a lot of culturally Christian people, myself included, the way God is approached is like, you either believe in God or you don’t. The constant reminders we find in the Bible to be loyal to the Lord might feel a bit like, you know, “yeah duh, if you believe in God obviously”, but it wasn’t that simple. God is the God of the Hebrew people in the Bible because they chose God, and they did it for a reason: the Exodus, that is, God saving the Hebrew people from slavery in Egypt, demonstrating God’s power and loyalty. So the loyalty is reciprocal – the people is loyal to God, and God is loyal to the people (help them, keep them safe). The need for God was not placed in the future, in the idea of Heaven and eternal life, but rather it was urgent and present right then; you would rely on your God for crops to grow and children to be born, you would rely on your God to keep you safe, to help you out of your enemies’ grasp. But if your God could not provide, there were other gods to turn to, who might help you instead.

The reason I bring that up is that, well. It’s interesting that Ishmael’s statement that he “clove to Queequeg” happened after they had already done their whole marriage thing. They had already decided to be ~husband and wife~ (no matter how tongue-in-cheek that designation is), they had already decided to share their earthly possessions, they had already made their “wherever you go, I go” promises. So him cleaving to Queequeg here is not in the marriage way, since that has already been established; he cleaves to him in a different manner now.

So what I have suggested here is that Queequeg is whale coded → whales are creatures of chaos and near-divinity → people cleaved to God in a reciprocal loyal and beneficial relationship, even in the presence of other deities → Ishmael watches Queequeg save a man from the depths of the chaotic sea → Ishmael decides to cleave to Queequeg.

Now, I would definitely not go as far as suggesting that Queequeg is God or “God-coded” or whatever, or that Ishmael would worship him as such. But there is something here, isn’t it? In this scene, Ishmael cleaves to Queequeg not as a companion, but as a protector and as a force to be reckoned with.