payment page
Charity and Selfishness
“Bartleby the Scrivener” contains a very critical look at “charity,” and the story may be interpreted as a wry commentary by Melville on the way materialism and consumerism were affecting it. The Lawyer thinks of charitable actions in terms of cost and returns: "Poor fellow?... he means no mischief; it is plain he intends no insolence I can get along with him. If I turn him away he will fall in with some less indulgent employer, and then he will be rudely treated here… I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval. To befriend Bartleby will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience.”
Note the lawyer's train of thought: he first pities Bartleby; then he recognizes the fact that Bartleby is useful to him; then he notes that Bartleby would be ill-treated at another office, presumably making him less useful to some other employer and, by extension, society; and finally, the Lawyer pats himself on the back for keeping Bartleby on as a worker. He “purchases” self-approval, a "sweet morsel for his conscience" which will cost him little. Through “charity,” the Lawyer is actually just buying himself a good conscience. In a broader sense, he also believes he is making the best use possible of Bartleby. If he can at least get Bartleby to make copies, then at least he is doing something.
Of course, eventually Bartleby refuses even to make copies. Still, the Lawyer decides that he will let Bartleby live on in his offices, so that he does not starve; but as soon as Bartleby affects his business, the Lawyer moves his offices and abandons Bartleby. The Lawyer does make the kind offer to let Bartleby live in his own home, but the Lawyer might do this in order to relieve himself of the annoyance of having to deal with the tenants who complain about Bartleby. Of course, were the Lawyer to take Bartleby into his home, he could purchase great amounts of good conscience. But Bartleby refuses the Lawyer's charity, as he does whenever it is offered to him, saying that he “would prefer not to.” The Lawyer then decides to keep Bartleby on his staff as a sort of “charity case.”
Passive Resistance
Initially, Bartleby is a very efficient and prolific copyist when he first starts to work for the Lawyer. However, he soon ceases his productivity and responds to every one of the Lawyer’s requests with a polite but firm “I would prefer not to.” His response, understandably, stuns his boss. In a famous passage in which the Lawyer reflects on Bartleby’s curious behavior, Melville writes, “Nothing so aggravates an earnest person as a passive resistance." The Lawyer continues that he is uniquely frustrated and feels “goaded” by Bartleby’s passivity and would be more equipped to handle the situation if Bartleby got angry or combative. Instead, Bartleby repeatedly rejects the Lawyer’s demands with a calm, almost indifferent or inactive demeanor. As a result of Bartleby’s curious behavior, many scholars have referred to “Bartleby the Scrivener” as a tale of passive resistance in which the titular character repeatedly engages in the office-life equivalent of civil disobedience. However, “Bartleby the Scrivener” is an intriguing text because Melville never discloses to the reader what Bartleby is resisting. His behavior could equally be interpreted as a rejection of capitalism and/or materialism, a display of mental illness, or simply the rejection of a society that does not value interconnectedness and empathy. This ambiguity surrounds Bartleby in mystery which contributes to the text’s fairytale or fable-esque tone. Regardless of how one chooses to interpret Bartleby’s curious behavior, Bartleby represents a new type of hero who resists opposition in a subtle but effective way.
Disconnection and Isolation
A distinct lack of human connection persists throughout “Bartleby the Scrivener.” Some examples include the lack of any real names (except for Bartleby’s), Nippers and Turkey’s alternating temperaments and productivity levels, and the Lawyer’s inability to effectively communicate with Bartleby. Some of these examples may seem deceptively simple but, as the story progresses, it becomes abundantly clear that all forms of disconnectedness are problematic. For instance, by refusing to give the characters’ real names, Melville relegates them to nameless employees which alienates them from both their coworkers and the reader. In a similar vein, Turkey and Nippers’ alternating personalities means that they can never really interact with one another in a meaningful way. Instead, they both remain isolated and pass each other in the office like ships in the night. The most obvious and most effective critique of disconnection and isolation is the Lawyer’s inability to connect with Bartleby. Bartleby is a paragon of isolation and he does not allow any of the characters to know him. As a result, the Lawyer and his employees are forced to watch from the sidelines as he slowly deteriorates. This causes the reader to wonder if the short story would have ended differently if the various characters were able to overcome their disconnection and communicate with one another.
