I don't know whether or not Melville intended for the "leader" to be ambiguous, it could be Babo or Aranda. It's also worth noting that Babo's head is positioned to be looking toward Aranda's bones and Cereno's monastery. During my first reading, I thought this gesture served as another cruel reminder to Babo and other slaves of where they stand in the world, always looking for the white man. But as I read this again, I view it more as Babo taunting both men he had successfully destroyed, physically and mentally, even if his revolt failed, he remains tied to Cereno, a fact that haunts the Spaniard to his grave.

Represents how Babo as a black slave will never be given a voice and how his actions were all he had.

This is one of my favorite exchanges of dialogue in the story simply because it displays how different Cereno and Delano are. Cereno is now defined by this experience and can no longer deny the truth of human nature whereas Delano steadfastly upholds the belief of optimism and will not let this incident interrupt his ideals, he remains ignorant of his surroundings.

It is far more easy to open a lock with a designated key, than untie a complicated knot. I think this signals that the testimony will only cover the easier to digest and more socially acceptable narrative, rather than focusing on the voices of the slaves and their narrative.

Shadows are dark in color, either grey or completely black. Cereno may be saved, but he will always remember Babo as his attached shadow on the San Dominick.

Delano's cheerful and dangerously optimistic outlook on life and the entire ordeal juxtaposed with Cereno's detachment from the present and traumatic focus on the past signals Cereno's ability to see how much race and race relations matter and effect the world and truth of the narrative.

How much do our unconscious beliefs cloud our judgement?

Delano puts his safety and survival over discovering the truth. There is an argument to be made over if a person is moral because of their beliefs or because of their actions and ability to acknowledge and see the truth?

I wonder what this says about Melville's opinion on optimism? Since a mix of Delano's naivete, optimism, and lack of situational awareness kept him alive for so long.

Don Benito tells Delano that it hurt him to behave so cold and unseemly to him, and that it was out of fear for Delano's safety, that he leaped into the boat. This signals that Benito and Delano have similar morals and are moved to help others in need.

The narrator's tone of voice and language when introducing the testimony interests me. The phrase "it is hoped" in particular, denotes that the narrator is apprehensive to the actual events of the narrative and questions the validity of the events and the validity of the speaker who is giving the testimony. I think this is Melville's way of telling the reader to reflect on who has a voice in this story and who doesn't.

After re-reading this again, it reminds me of the role Babo played and his relationship with Don Benito Cereno while they were both upholding the charade when Delano was on board. It also reflects how for Don Benito, he is forever trapped reliving the events of what happened on the San Dominick, whereas Delano, is free of the events that have transpired and his conscience remains clear, despite having killed several of the slaves.

The double entendre of "once more lay anchored" not only represents the ship docking in a safe harbor but also how the slaves are once more, anchored to their fate and role as slaves.

Because Delano DEFINTELY needs his ego stroked.

Oxymoron

Saint Dominic is the patron saint of astronomers, the Dominican Republic, and falsely accused people.

Delano being from Massachusetts fits in with his character and ideology. Delano is a Transcendentalist, which subscribes to the idealistic belief that each human has an infinite amount of potential to do good in them and all humans are inherently good.

Consuming but no longer producing.

I love how Barthes characterizes the relationship between author and text as father and child, it emphasizes the point he's trying to make about how respect doesn't need to be necessarily given to the author/father, since most people affirm that all children should respect their parent.

This reminds me of the dozens of diagrams shown in the Alan Liu reading, and how so many degrees of separation diminishes the relationship between the author and the text.

A very profound (and kind of pretentious) way of saying readers?

Here, the Text seemingly takes on a whole new life and through this "explosion" of distribution, is confronted with endless possibilities.

Barthes seems to really enjoy personifying the Text. It comes off as if he is revering some almighty deity.

Barthes strives to convey how vast and open the Text is by referring to it as "a methodological field" whereas he calls the work "a fragment of substance" field > fragment