Moby-Dick; or, The Whale

by Herman Melville


Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter 89 - Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish


Chapter 89 - Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish from Moby-Dick; or, The Whale

The allusion to the 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.

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 indirectly 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 law, 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 forthing, 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 wailing 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; and when indeed they (the plaintiffs) had succeeded in harpooning the fish; they were at last, through peril of their lives, obliged to forsake not only their lines, but their boat itself. Ultimately the defendants (the crew of another ship) came up with the whale, struck, killed, seized, and finally appropriated it before the very eyes of the plaintiffs. 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, which had remained attached to the whale at the time of the seizure. Wherefore the plaintiffs now sued for the 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. Erskine was on the other side; and he then supported it by saying, 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 gentleman's 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 to each other.

These pleadings, and the counter pleadings, being duly heard, the very learned Judge in 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 the 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 doorplate for a waif; what is that but a Fast-Fish? What is the ruinous discount which Mordecai, the broker, gets from the poor Woebegone, the bankrupt, on a loan to keep Woebegone's family from starvation; what is that ruinous discount but a Fast-Fish? What is the Archbishop of Savesoul's income of L100,000 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 Jonathan, 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 Spanish standard by way of wailing 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 men's 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?

Frequently Asked Questions about Chapter 89 - Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish from Moby-Dick; or, The Whale

What happens in Chapter 89 of Moby-Dick?

Chapter 89 pauses the narrative to examine the property laws of whaling. Ishmael presents two simple rules: a Fast-Fish (one attached to a ship or bearing a mark of possession) belongs to whoever holds it, and a Loose-Fish (one free of any attachment) is fair game for anyone. He illustrates these laws with an English court case in which a whale abandoned under duress was ruled a Loose-Fish, and then extends the concept far beyond whaling to critique imperialism, slavery, landlordism, and human possession generally.

What do Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish mean in Moby-Dick?

In whaling law, a Fast-Fish is any whale connected to an occupied ship or boat by a controllable medium—a harpoon line, rope, cable, or even a waif-pole marker—making it the legal property of that party. A Loose-Fish is any whale not so attached, making it fair game for whoever can catch it first. Melville uses these terms metaphorically: anything possessed and held by power is a Fast-Fish (slaves, conquered lands, extracted wealth), while anything unclaimed or contested is a Loose-Fish (new territories, human rights, ideas). The chapter argues that all human jurisprudence ultimately reduces to these two principles.

What is the court case described in Chapter 89 of Moby-Dick?

Ishmael describes an English whale-trover case from roughly fifty years before the novel’s setting. The plaintiffs harpooned a whale in the Northern seas but were forced to abandon their lines and boat to save their lives. Another ship’s crew then captured the whale and refused to return it. The defense attorney, Mr. Erskine, drew a witty analogy to a matrimonial case where an abandoned wife had become a "Loose-Fish." Lord Ellenborough ruled that the boat should be returned to the plaintiffs (since they abandoned it under duress), but the whale, harpoons, and line belonged to the defendants because the whale was a Loose-Fish at the time of capture.

What is the broader meaning of Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish in Moby-Dick?

Melville extends the whaling doctrine into a sweeping political and philosophical critique. He identifies Russian serfs, American slaves, a widow’s last mite, Ireland under England, and Texas under the United States as examples of Fast-Fish—things seized and held by those with superior power. America in 1492, Poland, Greece, India, and Mexico are Loose-Fish—territories claimed by whoever arrives with sufficient force. The chapter’s final turn declares that the Rights of Man, religious beliefs, human thoughts, the globe itself, and even the reader are all simultaneously Loose-Fish and Fast-Fish, suggesting that possession and freedom are unstable, contested conditions.

Who are Mr. Erskine and Lord Ellenborough in Moby-Dick Chapter 89?

Mr. Erskine (Thomas Erskine, 1st Baron Erskine) was a famous British barrister known for his wit and eloquence. In the chapter, he serves as defense counsel for the ship that captured a disputed whale, and he draws a humorous analogy between an abandoned whale and an abandoned wife to argue both are Loose-Fish. Lord Ellenborough (Edward Law, 1st Baron Ellenborough) was the presiding judge who ruled in favor of the defendants on the whale but returned the boat to the plaintiffs. Both were real historical figures, and Melville uses them to give legal authority to the Fast-Fish/Loose-Fish doctrine before expanding it into a universal principle.

What does Melville mean when he says the reader is both a Fast-Fish and a Loose-Fish?

The chapter’s famous closing line—"What are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?"—captures Melville’s central paradox about human freedom and bondage. As a Fast-Fish, the reader is bound by social conventions, obligations, laws, and institutions that "possess" them. As a Loose-Fish, the reader’s mind, beliefs, and identity are always potentially up for grabs—open to new ideas, new allegiances, and new forms of capture. The dual designation suggests that every person simultaneously belongs to something and is available to be claimed by something else, reflecting the instability of all possession and the contingency of all freedom.

 

Previous Chapter Next Chapter
Return to the Moby-Dick; or, The Whale Summary Return to the Herman Melville Library