Bartleby – A Law Student’s Analysis

Herman Melville’s short story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street,” contains sufficient depth and detail to support an infinite variety of analysis. This short piece will analyze the text against a central theme of our class. Specifically, I will address the empathy the narrator expresses towards Bartleby and how this conflicts with the narrator’s description of himself.

Prior to Bartleby’s entrance, the narrator describes himself as an experienced, self-possessed professional. He knows what he wants and he seems to have acquired it. “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” (1). The narrator was recently appointed a Master in Chancery, for which he completes little arduous work and yet is compensated pleasantly. He approaches life from a distinctly self-interested point of view, and yet this self-interest occasionally compels him to help others. “Mere self-interest, then, if no better motive can be enlisted, should … prompt all beings to charity and philanthropy” (23). In contrast to his two copyists, who take turns flubbing their work according to the hour of the day, the narrator appears content and controlled. In short, the narrator appears to live a work life that many of us desire for ourselves. He is cool, collected, and well-paid.

Of course, this depiction contrasts with the image of the ideal lawyer that we have been presented with this semester. The ideal lawyer strives for justice. He eats well only when he satiates his clients. The hardest way through life is the only way through life, otherwise the lawyer has wasted the talents that nature and society has bestowed upon him. Professor Moglen’s lawyer would not profess “when at last it is perceived that such [misery] cannot lead to effectual succor, common sense bids the soul rid of it” (16). According to the narrator, Professor Moglen’s ideal lawyer is a touch illogical.

Bartleby challenges the narrator’s equilibrium. The narrator cannot rid himself of Bartleby, even though everything in the preceding description suggests that he should. When Bartleby refuses to engage in proofreading, the narrator fails to dismiss him. “With any other man I should have flown outright into a dreadful passion, scorned all further words, and thrust him ignominiously from my presence” (9). Against the pretense of being a logical, ease-seeking professional, the narrator should have fired Bartleby.

Bartleby continues to challenge the ease and logic in the narrator’s life, yet the narrator fails to rid himself of Bartleby every single time. When Bartleby originally fails to complete his work, the narrator rationalizes his decision not to fire him by reasoning between logic and altruism. “Poor fellow! Thought I, he means no mischief…He is useful to me. I can get along with him.” When the narrator discovers that Bartleby lives in his office, without his permission, the narrator is unable to ask him to leave. He again rationalizes this decision. The narrator comments on the loneliness of Wall Street on nights and weekends, and empathizes for the lonely Bartleby. Even when the narrator surrenders his office space to move to another location, simply to remove himself from Bartleby, he is unable to stay away from the tragic figure. The narrator reveals his internal conflict when he addresses the lawyer who moved into his old offices. The narrator pretends not to know Bartleby’s name, and originally refuses to do anything about him. However, once the narrator finds a way to rationalize the interaction (by fearing his own exposure in the papers), he immediately runs off in his attempt to convince Bartleby to quit the premises.

This hesitation, this internal conflict, is inconsistent with the narrator’s previous description of himself. The self-interested professional would fire Bartleby the second he refused to perform his duties. He would forcibly remove Bartleby, either using the state’s force or his own, once Bartleby began trespassing in his office. He would forget Bartleby when he moved, content himself once he “perceived that [he] had now done all that [he] possibly could,” and move on to his other affairs. The narrator, for all his ruminations of logic and ease, cannot forget the tragic figure.

The troublesome aspect of this story, and this analysis, is that the narrator only develops empathy when he perceives an individual worthy of it. The narrator expresses little or no empathy for his other coworkers. He finds business-related reasons to remain patient with Turkey and Nippers. He expresses a small deal of admiration for Ginger Nut, but only in proportion to Ginger Nut’s competence at his menial tasks. He certainly expresses little empathy or feeling when describing himself or his practice pre-Bartleby. It seems that some aspect of Bartleby’s personality triggers the empathy that we witness wreak havoc on the narrator’s logical decision-making process throughout the story.

Professor Moglen, however, suggests that any lawyer worth his salt would be empathetic before he began practicing. The narrator in the story has practiced for many years (he is in his early sixties). The question that lingers is how we, as law students, develop empathy before we meet our Bartleby. How do we strive for justice before our conscience dictates that we should? Can we?

-- AlexBuonocore - 25 Mar 2012