Ex Post Facto

Herman Melville, known today for his novel Moby Dick, published “Bartleby the Scrivener” in 1853. The narrator of the story, an elderly lawyer, recounts his relationship with the “unaccountable” and “inscrutable” Bartleby, a copyist who briefly worked in the lawyer’s office. As the story is set primarily at a place of business — the lawyer’s office — it is relevant to note the historical economic context within which Melville wrote.

During the early-to-mid 1800s, the United States was deep into the midst of what historians call the “market revolution.” Not only were market activities and capitalistic logic becoming more widespread, but capitalist values affected social relationships as well. Business owners seeking to maximize efficiency and profits were replacing skilled laborers with machinery (operated by cheap, unskilled labor) wherever feasible. As a result, fewer and fewer manual laborers could hope to achieve economic independence, a goal long cherished by American farmers and workers alike.

Master craftsman had once trained journeyman to be masters themselves, but industrial capitalism increasingly displaced this sort of small-scale production by skilled, independent artisans. Employers gradually became mere “bosses,” thus shedding responsibility for overseeing and training workers. Unlike the master, the boss had no obligations to his workers. To be sure, the industrial system improved productivity and fed economic development, but it did not do so without fundamentally altering social relationships, for better or for worse. (Orestes Brownson offered an insightful analysis of these problems in an 1842 essay, which is available here.)

In “Bartleby,” the lawyer’s employees are in many ways like human copying machines. (They get paid by the page.) Like industrial workers, furthermore, Nippers, Turkey, Ginger Nut, and Bartleby seem to have few prospects for improving their lots in life. The lawyer does not seem especially aware of their plights, but the arrival of Bartleby, as he explains, threw his entire office into disarray.

It might be argued that Bartelby refused to play by the rules of the capitalist, wage-labor system, and he thus forced the lawyer to confront the tensions buried within his vision of himself as a benevolent man.

As we discuss this story, there are several questions that we might consider:

How does the narrator present himself at the beginning of the story?
What kind of fellow does he seem to be?
Why might Melville have made the narrator dwell on the characters of Turkey, Nippers, and Ginger Nut? What do these characters reveal? How might these characters been seen as examples of bad living?
How would you describe Bartleby’s behavior?
Why didn’t the narrator deal more harshly with Bartleby?
Why was the narrator concerned about the contagion of the word “prefer”?
What is the central conflict of this story?
What value systems does the lawyer employ to try to resolve his dilemma?
How would you evaluate the narrator’s moral character by the end of the story?
How else might the lawyer have handled the Bartleby dilemma?
To what extent might the narrator be said to be living a “good life”?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 7:45 pm and is filed under American Thought. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

21 Responses to “Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener””

Erica Spurgeon Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 11:16 am
The story about Bartelby really intrigues me. In the beginning, the narrator describes himself as an older man who has much patience and rarely ever loses his temper. However, when Bartelby is in the picture, you find that he loses patience not only with Bartelby but with himself. The narrator considers himself to have a good life but is often bogged down by the fact that he can’t figure anything out about this Bartelby character. At the end of the story, the narrator finds it his responsibility to take care of Bartelby even though he will still not take his offer. I get the impression that narrator really can’t be at peace with himself until Bartelby is okay.
Elyse Koenig Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I don’t believe that the narrator cares about Bartleby at all. The narrator states at one point that all charity is driven by self-interest. The narrator is a man that relishes the power that he has. He wants and expects his employees to submit to him. So long as this is the case, he will tolerate anything, even Turkey showing up to work drunk in the afternoons. He has no real interest in his employees’ well-being, beyond what affects their ability to work. Bartleby, however, interests the narrator because he is a threat to the narrator’s authority, and the hierarchical structure of the office. It would seem that the narrator’s “charity” towards Bartleby isn’t really to help Bartleby. The narrator seems just to want to be rid of him altogether, but Bartleby simply refuses. In the end, the narrator decides to abandon his office and Bartleby altogether. Though I don’t believe that the narrator is an intentionally malicious man, I don’t feel he has really done anything to help Bartleby at all. Nor do I think his intention is ever really to help him.
Jan Cheney Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 5:34 am
I wonder if it truly was the narrator’s duty to help Bartleby. From what I’ve experienced, you can’t help someone who doesn’t want to be helped. In my family, it’s usually a dose of compassionate, but “tough love” that motivates individuals to pick themselves up and begin putting the pieces together. Perhaps the narrator should have held Bartleby accountable for his polite, but subordinate, behavior.
Michelle Kostka Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
I agree with Jan, you cannot help someone who does not want to be helped. Try as you might the person must reach out to you for help before they are willing to take charity or advice from a stranger. It is human nature to be proud and want to care for yourself.
Erica Spurgeon Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 9:19 am
While I agree with you (Elyse) about the narrator in the beginning, and how he doesn’t care for his workers and how he uses his power to get himself ahead, I disagree when you say that he tries to abandon Bartelby and doesn’t care about him. I think that his power was challenged and that is why he moved, but when he was given the chance to forever get rid of Bartelby he has a change of heart and ends up visiting him in jail and paying the food guy to take good care of him. I think that the narrator realizes that the power and money he had that once made him happy are no longer the things that make him whole…
Richard Baker Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 9:19 am
We are the products of our environment. Bartleby can be compared to a machine which produces only the product for which it was intended and has no response or requires no affection. Interaction between humans is complex. The narrator, in the end laments, “Ah Bartleby! Ah humanity!” as he expresses frustration with life and our common perpetual struggles. It was interesting to hear the narrator upon his realization of how closely he was connected to Bartleby’s gloomy disposition and fate, what he described as a “fraternal melancholy” state, “For the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging melancholy seized me” . Mortality and morality go hand in hand.
William Schwartz Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 10:09 am
He comes across that he is a man who is sure of himself and a showoff. Likes to mention that he knows rich and famous people. He also is a man who gives his workers funny names, and talks bad about them, but yet does not want to get rid of them because he will most likely not find any one that will want to work for him. I do not believe he is sincere with wanting to help him.
Matt Streckenbach Says:
September 6th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I agree with what Erica quote about the “Power and Money he had that once made him happy are no longer the things that made him whole.” an beleive that it deals with what we discussed in class over the “Good Life” what makes one person happy is not what we always think to what really should make them happy, such as icon’s today sure they have money and increased security/leisure but many of them lack the privacy you and me enjoy today. When we feel as though we are somebody an self confident we are whole, as if we are already living the “Good Life”…
Ryan Heck Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 11:29 am
At first I thought the narrator was just trying to give the readers background, but later in class discussion I found out that the narrator is full of himself. Although he is unabitions he has plenty to say about himself. He was also concerend about how others thought of him.
Adam Klug Says:
September 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
If I could describe Bartlebys behavior, I would call it normal for a man who just got his job he starts out strong working his rear end off, but then when he realizes that no matter how much work he gets done he wont be paid anymore he just slacks off. You know the Office Space syndrome. But to be honest with you I wish I could get away with saying I would prefer not to when I go to work and someone asks me to do something.
Tom Matuszak Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I do not like the narrator is full of him self while talking about his background, like Ryan had commented. I believe this is just background for the reader to know where in life this man is and the struggles he faced and the tension that Bartleby has caused in his life. The story the narrator is telling is one of a prosperous man during the early enlightenment and industrial revolution eras. This era was the foundation where people were trying to figure out the balance between work and religion. The narrator through out the whole sorry struggles with his relationships with other people and with him self. The narrator is a man trying to find that in peace (good life), while maintaining is social status, which causes him to resist his business instincts in conjunction with is religious charity.
Chase Hedrick Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
The problem in determining whether or not the narrator is a good or bad man is when you consider the time and environment that this story takes place, the mid 1850’s, Wall Street, we must remember that there is little such thing as workers rights, Labor unions, and mininum wage. Although I do not support the way the narrator goes about his daily business, lookind down upon his employees, and paying them poorly, I can’t attack his character because any other Wall Street business owner would have more than likely treated his workers the same. It is simply the narrator’s misfortune that he encountered an individual not willing to “conform” or take a subordinate role as an employee.
Eric Bansemar Says:
September 12th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Although Bartleby’s exact motives for his behavior are unclear, it would be reasonable to assume that he was a independent person who sought to live his life in his own way, and resisted efforts from other from distracting him from his goal. Ultimately, then, I view his refusal to do anymore work as a culmination of events in which he was asked to do something that was against his own wishes, and the realization that this would most likely not change in the future.
Also, in response to a few other posts, I do not believe that the narrator was an unreasonable man. He did not appear to have any real disdain for his employees, he just expected them to do the jobs in which they were hired.
Chris Gould Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I would have to agree with Ryan, when I first read this story I didn’t really see how into himself the narrator was. It was kind of amusing to me the way everything that happened in the story had to be related to him (the narrator). I would also like to add that I think Bartelby just got fed up with the system and decided he was done with it all. He realized it was pointless to work his butt off because he wasn’t moving up that ladder anytime soon.
Stephanie Bellile Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 10:23 am
I agree with both Eric and Chris. I think Bartelby just had enough. He was sick of working everyday and giving 110% effort and no one noticing or caring until he stopped. It through a wrench into the whole grand scheme of things for the lawyer. I also believe that the lawyer did everything possible to help Bartelby. What more could the guy do? Jan was right when she brought up the point that people can only be helped if they want to be.
Brian Knaak Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
In his short story, “Bartleby the Scrivener”, Melville highlights the social and economic changes taking place at the time. It must be understood that during these times, many people can forward to criticize the capitalistic ideology that become so entrenched since the “Industrial Revolution”. This is especially true in the areas of literature and philosphy. These
critics included the like Karl Marx, Henry David Thoreau, and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

The primary arguement put forward by these authors, including Melville, was that capitalism caused people to be exploited. This is what Karl Marx identified as the “exploitation of the prolitariate”. The entire notion of capitalism is to gain more wealth. Without people trying to gain more and more wealth a capitalistic society would perish. Hence, it is essential for business owners to maximize profits.

This however, often comes into conflict with what is actually the “right” thing to do. Put in a more succint manner, there was a dichotomy between capitalism and a person’s conscience. It is possible to take this one step furthur and say that since the right thing to do was usually defined by religion, the dichotomy is actually between capitalism and religion/ Spirituality. This is the arguement of both Emerson and Thoreau.

In this particular story, it is clear to see that the narrator is struggling with these exact questions. In fact, the narrarator eventually gives into his conscience. When deciding what to do with Bartleby he finally surrendered stating, ” At least I see it: I penetrate to the predestined purpose of my life. I’m content. Others may have loftier parts to enact; but my mission in this world, Bartleby, is to furnish you with office room for such period as you may see fit to remain.” Because his business peers continually riduculed the narrarator for having this Bartleby present as he did nothing at all. Hence, the narrarator moved out. Finally the police came to Bartleby him away after he would still not leave. Even as embarrassed as he was, the narrarator continued to visit Bartleby. Perhaps the narrarator’s conscience really did win out, but it was a sincere struggle nonetheless.

In conclusion, Melville highlights the great social tensions of the time, particulary between capitalism and religion/spitituality/conscience. Caught up in a capitalist rat race often prevents people from seeing the many contradictions within society. Quite simply it is hidden particularly well by the inner workings of capitalism. As the narrator concluded, “I remembered the bright silks and sparkling faces I had seen that day, in gala trim, swan-like sailing down the Mississippi of Broadway: and I contrasted them with the pallid copist, and thought to myself, Ah, happiness courts the light, so we deem the world is gay; but misery hides aloof, so we deem that misery there is none.” Although this strory was written nearly 145 years ago, the dichotemy of capitalism and conscience is still hotly debated to this day.
Angela Anderson Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I agree with what Chase said about considering the time period when looking at the narrators attitude. I think the narrator was pretty smug, but he wasn’t completely uncaring. When the narrator had moved his office away from Bartleby, his mind would wonder and think of Bartleby. Maybe he just had a guilty conscious but I really think the narrator had some speck of good in him.
Alex Stevens Says:
September 17th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
I would tend to agree with what Eric B. said, in that the narrator does not harbor any disdain for his employees. I would agrgue he is non-confrontational. When the narrator brings up Turkey’s sloppy afternoon work habits, he never pressures Turkey to admit to any wrongdoing, instead he allows Turkey to twist the conversation into an opportunity to make it seem as though his poor afternoon copying is a result of age catching up with it. The narrator accepts this, since, as Turkey points out, both men are no longer young, and it seems to be a reasonable, plausible excuse. This non-confrontational trait can be easily seen in the narrator’s dealings with Bartleby; first by allowing Bartleby to lock him, the narrator, out of his own office on a Sunday morning, and culminating with the narrator relocating in order to avoid having to force Bartleby to leave the premises.
Matt Micksch Says:
September 20th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
I agree with what Erica saud that in the begining of the story the narrator seems like an older man that is pretty even keel. But it seems when Bartleby enters the picture all of that changes and he is the total opposite like a total 180.
David Voelker Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 11:00 am
FINAL COMMENT

Most of you concede that the narrator, despite his flaws, makes a sincere effort to help Bartleby — even though he ultimately fails to do so.

Alex raises a good point about the lawyer’s non-confrontational manner. Given the extremes to which he went to avoid having to use force to throw Bartleby out — most strikingly he moved his office — it seems like the lawyer avoids confrontation in part to avoid coming face-to-face with the real nature of the relationship that he has with his workers.

Despite his attempt to avoid seeing how power relations work within his office, the narrator clearly does engage in a serious personal struggle to help the pallid scrivener. As he tells his story, he explicitly credits Christian ethics for urging him to sympathize with Bartleby. But the conclusion makes one wonder if this ethic can really be effective in the Wall Street universe where the lawyer lives.
Marissa Rauen Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I definitely found the story to be very subtle as we discussed in class. What I think is interesting is that the subtle nature of the story is what makes it so mysterious. You almost read it, trying to read into every little detail in an attempt to pull something out about Bartleby’s disobedience, or the narrators unwillingness to make a final decision about Bartleby.

Print This Post

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener”

21 Responses to “Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener””

Leave a Reply