Man, tied to his subjective perception, inhibited from understanding the essence of things, is forced to attribute a personal and foreign meaning to them or to find himself completely devoid of it. The nobility of such an application is the nature of romance, and such is the nature of Melville's Moby Dick. The sea becomes vogue, limbo for the reticent felo-de-se; the unexplored, the nebulous, even the numinous. The Pequod takes on the role of a nation of men – 30 men for 30 states is quite explicit – condemned by the mad will of those in power. The Whale becomes God, myth, the embodiment of evil, or all of the above, depending on the perception of the character you want to take. Indeed, Moby Dick contains myriad examples of such applied meaning, but the focus of this article will be on three of the most important: that of the sea, that of whiteness, and that of Moby Dick. Ishmael examines the sea in various ways, and from different perspectives, but in all his investigations, the sea invariably takes on the role of a vehicle for escape from the world of the living, temporary or otherwise. Early in the novel, Ishmael compares his escape to Cato the Younger's final protest of tyranny: “With a philosophical flourish, Cato throws himself upon his sword; I calmly get on the ship” (14). Although Ishmael does not list political reasons for fleeing, he implies that it is the tyranny of life that generates the need. In any case, the ocean is an escape both for him and, as he states, for all men. Ishmael describes the sea - and water in general - as inseparably linked to meditation - a narcissistic mediation; in this description, he embodies the aforementioned romantic (=narcissistic, anthropocentric) application of man... middle of paper... realm that hosts the fugitive, the wandering felo-de-se and the dear (or not so dear) he left. Whiteness takes on as many roles derived from as many human assertions to its being: the role of beauty, purity, sanctity, that of amazement and that of terror. Moby Dick, like much of the novel's imagery, is enigmatic and open to interpretation. This article has chosen to interpret his role as that of God, a conduit of beauty, richness and meaning in life, but also a cause of suffering. A predominant difference between Ahab and Ishmael is which of these they choose to focus on. Ahab's assumption of the archetypal hero role, with its single catastrophic flaw in the choice and intensity of his focus, sets up and anchors the plot, allowing Melville to tangentially and romantically analyze a plethora of other natural stimuli along the route..