The Many Identities of Bartleby

Cindy Crain

ENG 102

Laura Cline

24 February 2012

The Many Identities of Bartleby

Bartleby is a double for the narrator in Melville’s story, showing the dark ineffectiveness of the lawyer’s sense of Christian charity, and the absurdity of his work. 

Bartleby represents the side of the narrator who wants to continue coasting through life and say that he prefers not to work so hard.  Bartleby arrived after the narrator was awarded the office of Master in Chancery and his work load suddenly increased; he is the shadow that dogs the narrator, the part of him that wants to reject this busier lifestyle.  The narrator’s ambitious side desires the perks that accompany the position and resents Bartleby, as his alter ego, forcing him to slow down.  In response he hides Bartleby away in a corner of his office, “I procured a high green folding screen, which might entirely isolate Bartleby from my sight, though not remove him from my voice.” (Melville, loc: 118).  In this manner he is hiding away the part of himself that he dislikes and creating a barrier to separate the two distinct parts of his personality.  Note that the narrator does not say that he can hear Bartleby, but that Bartleby can hear him.

At first Melville allows the narrator, as the dominant side, a measure of control over Bartleby, “He ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light.  I should have been quite delighted with his application, had he been cheerfully industrious.  But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically.” (Melville, loc: 120).  As time went on the power began to shift.  Often when an authoritarian presses his will on another, the more passive person acquiesces in some areas yet attempts to defy the will of their tormenter in other ways, and then may completely break down.  In this case Bartleby will copy as much work as the narrator will give him, yet refuse to do other work.  And while his actions are firm he is unable to completely verbalize a denial, instead repeating that he prefers not to undertake other tasks. 

Here Melville shifts the power to Bartleby, and when the narrator continues to press him, Bartleby implies that his eyes will not allow him to copy and completely quits doing any work.  At this point the transition is complete; Bartleby takes the reins in this protracted struggle and try as he might the narrator cannot eradicate him.  Because Bartleby has figuratively paralyzed the narrator, in order to preserve his view of how the world should operate the narrator must kill off this unproductive, inefficient part of himself.  He leaves Bartleby behind and alone, and then denies him, “I am very sorry, sir…but really, the man you allude to is nothing to me,” (Melville, loc: 454).

The text illustrates the ineffectiveness of Christian charity as well as the insincerity that often goes hand in hand with the false benevolence.  On multiple occasions the narrator attempts to give money to Bartleby instead of working on finding a solution, even after he finds Bartleby’s savings in his desk drawer and it is apparent that money is not the issue, he attempts five times in three separate instances to give him funds.  The narrator does the same thing with Turkey when giving him a coat instead of addressing his alcoholism.  Too many times throwing money at a problem appeases our consciences when all would be better served by spending time collectively creating real solutions; this is the main distinction between Christian charity and those who head into the trenches to produce positive change in the world.  The narrator spends time within his head trying to figure out what is wrong with Bartleby and comes up with several ideas but doesn’t appear to notice how supercilious this is.  Instead of taking time to sit with Bartleby within his comfort zone (which at that time was his office) and work through solutions, the narrator leaves daily and tries to figure them out by himself.  This is another example of the unproductiveness of Christian charity.

Melville sheds light on the hypocrisy and insincerity more clearly than ever when – because the narrator is unable to get Bartleby to leave – he decides it is divine providence, and then when his friends and colleagues begin to make snide comments he reverses this decision and moves his office, threatening Bartleby not to follow.  Finally he has tried every means known to him except for calling the police, which he tells himself he can’t dishonor himself by doing, so his decision to let Bartleby remain serves his interest at the time, “At last I see it, I feel it; I penetrate to the predestinated purpose of my life.  I am content.  Others may have loftier parts to enact; but my mission in this world, Bartleby, if to furnish you with office-room for such period as you may see fit to remain.”(Melville, loc: 407).  So due to the narrator’s inability to convince Bartleby to leave, and his unwillingness to tarnish his name by either physically forcing Bartleby to or having the police remove him, Melville has the narrator jump on this idea that God – though he doesn’t say God, he says Providence – has put him on the earth in order to give Bartleby an office to make his home. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubus   

Then the whispers begin.  His colleagues quickly begin to comment on the strangeness of the situation, both in the narrator’s presence and behind his back.  Melville shows us that the facade of being a charitable Christian is more important to the narrator than actually being charitable, which reflects back to Bartleby being the shadow side as well, as many will not only deny others but also will deny their true character in order to keep up appearances.  In order to be able to retract the original statement that Providence led him to take care of Bartleby, the narrator must show that Providence is now leading him away from this divine duty in order to fit with his identity as a charitable Christian.  In order to achieve this, Melville chooses descriptions that are inflammatory or derogatory within the church, having the narrator refer to Bartleby as, “the apparition in my room,” (loc: 427) and further said, “I resolved to gather all my faculties together , and for ever rid me of this this intolerable incubus.” (loc: 428).  An apparition is a spirit or supernatural appearance, which can either be positive or negative, but the connotation in the story leads towards negative.  Incubus is most definitely a negative, inflammatory term, and is technically a male demon who sexually assaults women in their sleep.  Although the narrator is not using the term in that way, it’s specifically chosen by Melville to show how the narrator needs to use this to justify his retreat from his divine duty.  The narrator can then tell himself that Providence led him, but Bartleby is evil and has been deceiving both the narrator and God, so he has no choice but to remove Bartleby from his life.  In this part of the story Melville shines the harshest light on Christian charity.

A scrivener is the prelude to the copy machine in human form.  When law documents needed to be sent to more than one recipient the scrivener would copy the document by hand multiple times and then review the copies with another scrivener for correctness.  This is a job that even the narrator referred to as a “dry, husky sort of business,” (Melville, loc: 100) and the comparison between the work and Bartleby as a dry, boring personality type is obvious.  Melville creates the characters of Turkey and Nippers as obvious contrasts of both the job and Bartleby, and through this dissimilarity Turkey and Nippers are utilized as vivid illustrations of the absurdity of the job.

Works Cited

Melville, Herman. Bartleby, the Scrivener A Story of Wall Street. Public Domain Books, 1853. Digital.

Bartleby the Scrivener

“Imprimis:  I am a man who, from his youth upwards, has been filled with a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best.  Hence, though I belong to a profession proverbially energetic and nervous, even to turbulence, at times, yet nothing of that sort have I ever suffered to invade my peace.  I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury, or in any way draws down public applause; but in the cool tranquility of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men’s bonds and mortgages and title-deeds.  All who know me consider me an eminently safe man.  The late John Jacob Aster, a personage little given to poetic enthusiasm, had no hesitation in pronouncing my first grand point to be prudence; my next, method.  I do not speak it in vanity, but simply record the fact, that I was not unemployed in my profession by the late John Jacob Astor; a name which, I admit, I love to repeat, for it hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and rings like unto bullion.  I will freely add, that I was not insensible to the late John Jacob Astor’s good opinion.” (Loc. 11)

Herman Melville’s short story Bartleby, the Scrivener A Story of Wall-Street could have been alternately titled Wall Street Lawyers: Lacking Self Awareness (in Addition to Being Weak and Smug).  Melville created the narrator a character who believed he was simply choosing the easiest way which, as Melville illustrated, would be enough to skewer him with; but as it turned out he was tremendously afraid of confrontation.  The narrator claimed he was valued John Jacob Astor’s opinion, noted that Astor was not given to “poetic enthusiasm” (Loc. 11) and yet waxed poetic about Astor. This single passage contains an abundance of contradictory information and proves the narrator to be both imperceptive and foolish.

The narrator professed to be one who had “a profound conviction that the easiest way of life is the best” (Loc. 11), yet it is evident that what he should have said was that he was profoundly afraid to be the bad guy.  The easiest thing to do when faced with someone who refused to leave would have been to contact the police and have them removed; instead the narrator went to the trouble of renting a new office space and moving his office and employees.  If the narrator’s clients and business associates hadn’t commented and began gossiping about Bartleby the move would not have happened, the narrator would have allowed the situation to continue.  It was only the discomfort of others that caused him to move his office.  This is an example of the extreme exaggeration that Melville utilized to make the point of the story, for no man who has a modicum of self awareness can say he takes the easy way and then move his office rather than confront the situation head on.  

 Melville further illustrated the narrator’s foolishness with his claim to value Astor’s opinion, which would lead to living up to Astor’s description of him being prudent and methodical, was then contradicted with the gushy “…John Jacob Astor; a name which, I admit, I love to repeat, for it hath a rounded and orbicular sound to it, and it rings like unto bullion” (Loc.11).   Another prime example of poetic speech is earlier in the section “in the cool tranquility of a snug retreat” (Loc.11), which serves as example of the narrator’s imprudence, the opposite of Astor’s description of him.

            This lack of self-awareness continued – and in fact grew – throughout the story as the narrator projected this same way of viewing himself onto the world around him.  It’s as if he intentionally wore fogged glasses that obscured and softened the external.  Nippers’ morning hangovers became indigestion, Turkey’s inkblots and explosive nature in the afternoons was allowed to be explained away as age related rather than a product of his affinity for “red ink” (whiskey) at lunch, and Bartleby’s strange and insubordinate behavior was disregarded as the narrator conjured up multiple sob stories to excuse his behavior.  It is clear from Melville’s description that the narrator knew what was going on but chose to obscure his own vision as to be able to continue fooling himself.  He was lacking internal integrity; that understanding of who he truly was vs. the image he projected.  

This link on gaining self awareness contains information that could have assisted the narrator.

Politicians have the difficult role of trying to please the majority of the people all of the time and often appear to have a lack of self-awareness.  Please note that whether they truly lack awareness isn’t my point, it’s the perception of such that I’m pointing out.  

Cartoon courtesy of Dana Summers-Tribune Media Services. http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gop-2012-hopefuls-cartoons

Summary vs. Analysis

A summary tells what a piece of writing is about, what happens, and generally follows the order of events as written in the book.  In an analysis the evidence is presented in the order necessary to defend the argument the writer (analyzer?) is making.  The job of a summary is to inform, whereas the job of an analysis is to pick apart the reading and make inferences as to why certain elements were utilized or what makes them work.  It’s the difference between looking at a watch to see the time and taking the watch apart to see what makes it tick. 

            Two things from the lecture that assisted me in defining the differences were the T-table or T-chart, and the question “Could I be wrong?”  The T-table was described as having observations on one side and inferences on the other, with the observations acting as the evidence for the inferences.  I used the question about whether I could be wrong and looked at an old analysis I had done.  It helped me understand why the professor marked in several places “this is summary” in a way that hadn’t truly resonated with me prior to this point. 

            One additional note about the lecture, the usage of PIE paragraphs makes a lot of sense and I am probably revealing my age by saying I have never heard of using them.  I took English 101 about 20 years ago and honestly do not remember it ever being explained that way.  For anyone else who has not worked with PIE paragraphs, this site explains it in more detail

http://www.laspositascollege.edu/raw/bodyparagraphs.php.

        I utilized the T-Chart on part of a prior analysis I did on The Story Sisters by Alice Hoffman.