How we cite our quotes: (Chapter, Paragraph)
Quote #10
"'The backwoodsman is a lonely man. He is a thoughtful man. He is a man strong and unsophisticated. Impulsive, he is what some might call unprincipled. At any rate, he is self-willed; being one who less hearkens to what others may say about things, than looks for himself, to see what are things themselves. If in straits, there are few to help; he must depend upon himself; he must continually look to himself. Hence self-reliance, to the degree of standing by his own judgment, though it stand alone. Not that he deems himself infallible; too many mistakes in following trails prove the contrary; but he thinks that nature destines such sagacity as she has given him, as she destines it to the 'possum. To these fellow-beings of the wilds their untutored sagacity is their best dependence. If with either it prove faulty, if the 'possum's betray it to the trap, or the backwoodsman's mislead him into ambuscade, there are consequences to be undergone, but no self-blame.'" (26, 3)
Don't let the simplicity of this pseudo-definition of a backwoodsman fool you; this moment has layers. Layers how, you ask? Well, get this. 1) This definition of a burly backwoodsman is taken verbatim from a judge (a scholastic dude with power) and retold by Charlie (a fake sneaky-sneakerson who tries to get others drunk when he won't drink) to his new "buddy" the cosmopolitan (a fancy world-traveler) in order to diss Pitch, a backwoodsmen looked down on by Charlie, the PIO man, and the herb-doctor for being uncouth.
Phew, that was a lot. The point is that each of these dudes is the embodiment of a very different version of manliness, each of which gets tested out against the others.
So what's up with this definition? For one thing, it's a transparent snapshot of one early version of the American dream, which was to be self-reliant and a tamer of nature. For another thing, it's an insult. For a judge to judge the backwoodsman as "unsophisticated" even when he calls him "strong" and "thoughtful" suggests he's mocking that strength and questioning the value of those thoughts.
Plus, take note of what the backwoodsman gets compared to—an opossum. He's not described as a man of intellect, but one of instinct—like an animal. Ouch. An added insult is that reason and intelligence are often talked about as if they are what separate us from the animals. Is the judge suggesting that certain definitions of manliness are animalistic? Is this Melville's critique? Is Melville just trolling everyone? (A distinct possibility.)