Research Paper

Nadya Castillo

ENG 103

Instructor: Dr. Elizabeth McCormick

German Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener”

            During 1853, a well known American writer, Herman Melville published one of the most important pieces of literature of all times, Bartleby, the Scrivener. One hundred and fifty years later, Bartleby continues to be one of the most enigmatic, misunderstood and questioned characters because of his strange behavior at the law office and the regular activities he would just “prefer not to do.” In this essay, I will prove that Bartleby was not a strange person or a “luny” one; he was just a regular human being with a very common mental disorder called Major Depressive Disorder, MDD. This disorder develops differently depending on the person that acquires it. In some patients, it is displayed as a sad mood, frequently with crying spells, while in others it is displayed as self-carelessness. This disorder might have not been a very known one back in the 1850’s, being this the main reason why Bartleby was very much misunderstood back then, but now it is just a matter of what clinicians call biopsychosocial analysis to fully understand the explanations behind Bartleby’s behavior.

            As portrayed by Melville, Bartleby is a scrivener that works at a law office along with two other coworkers for a lawyer nearby Wall Street. Bartleby is a very competent worker since he always gets his job done by the time it is suppose to be done. As the narrator of the story explains “One prime thing was this – he was always there – first in the morning, continually through the day, and the last at night.” (Melville 32), he gives out the impression that at first, he was very pleased with Bartleby’s performance at his job. However, as time went by, the narrator started noticing some behavior on Bartleby’s behalf that started making him feel empathy towards him, while his coworkers just thought Bartleby was a “luny” (as spelled by Melville).

            Throughout the years, Melville’s character, Bartleby, has been analyzed and criticized in many different ways, under many different aspects. Some of the critics have attributed Bartleby’s behaviors to many different motives; some have linked them to religion, others to common sense. However, what we definitely need to realize is that in order for us to understand Bartleby, we have to understand first that the entire situations has a humanities piece and a psychological one as well. The essayist Thomas Dilworth, explains that the first person to realize that Bartleby has a more serious problem, rather than just being “crazy” as his coworkers deliberately decide to call him. Dilworth says that the fact that the narrator, regardless of what everyone else thinks about Bartleby, feels some degree of guilt when he treats Bartleby the way everybody else does, gives us the sense that he sort of understands that Bartleby does not deserves to be treated as a mentally normal person, because he is not. Dilworth says “An important key to interpreting ‘Bartleby, the Scrivener’ is the guilt the lawyer feels, which may explain his wish for anonymity” (50). Here, what Dilworth wants us to understand is that before running into conclusions about Bartleby and his awkward behaviors, we should take a deep look at the reasons why the narrator decides to maintain anonymous. Dilworth suggests with this, that the narrator, after watching Bartleby’s entire process, realized that he did not deserve being treated the way he was treated. According to Dilworth, the narrator apparently seemed to have some sort of understanding of what could have been happening through Bartleby’s mind; Dilworth says “If his guilt is moral, it is also psychological and in that respect, it is a matter of understanding rather than blame” (51). Even though the narrator never really accepts feeling pity for Bartleby, neither feeling guilty about sometimes acting in a cruel manner towards him, through his actions one can very easily tell that that is the real way the narrator feels about Bartleby. Thomas Dilworth takes encounter of this by saying that “weather moral or psychological, the question ‘why the narrator feels guilty’ is difficult to answer, which is precisely why that is question that must be asked with some rigor” (51), because as he says later on in his essay and as he previously suggested, he might not only have one motive for deciding to help Bartleby. Dilworth also suggests that besides understanding at some degree the psychological impairment that Bartleby might have, the narrator may feel that helping Bartleby is an act of charity that any good Christian should do. Dilworth more precisely is referring to the point towards the end of the story in which the narrator calls himself a “friend” of Bartleby, when that was never the case. Dilworth says that if the narrator had some degree of understanding of Bartleby’s conditions, he had no necessity to put the tag of “friend” onto himself because after all there was something in Bartleby’s head that was not letting him properly function. Dilworth wonders “why then does the lawyer make the false claim to be Bartleby’s friend? One reason may be that the lawyer is a Christian as well as humanistic and that Christianity obligates him to love Bartleby whether Bartleby deserves it or not” (54). Dilworth is also convinced that pure understanding was not the only reason why he decided that Bartleby needed to be helped rather than judge.

            Some other critics have given more emphasis to the narrator rather than to Bartleby. The essayist Steven Doloff for instance shares some thoughts with Thomas Dilworth and believes that the narrator’s motives behind helping Bartleby and trying to take care of him while he is in prison, are nothing more than his efforts in earning indulgencies to go to heaven. Doloff gives very little importance to Bartleby and instead focuses on the reasons why the narrator is not letting Bartleby go, to which I strongly disagree. The reason why I disagree with Steven Doloff’s view is because I believe the narrator’s motives should not be questioned just because of the fact that he is willing to do something that nobody else ever tried to do, the bare minimum to help Bartleby. Also, I believe that what really matters is who is making the narrator have these motives and why. Steven Doloff says “Melville’s lawyer cites this same Christian ‘law’ as his salvation in dealing with his own mounting resentments towards the uncooperative Bartleby” (385), explaining that what the narrator really feels is annoyance towards Bartleby’s behaviors and so he decides that the best thing to do to give an end to his annoyance is to help Bartleby to get over his problems. From my point of view, if this was the case, it would have been just very easy for the narrator to have called the authorities and get rid of Bartleby since the very beginning; instead he took care of him until his possibilities led him. The narrator definitely must have felt something inside of him that did not let him leave Bartleby deal with his problems by himself. Also I believe that if it would have been because the narrator wanted to be the “Good Samaritan” as part of a religious belief, with only one act of his good heart would have been enough for him to get the ‘job done.’ Later on in his review, the essayist points out that the narrator says that “A new commandment give I unto you, that yet love one another. Yes, this is was that saved me” (Steven Doloff 358), once again trying to prove that the real reason why the narrator would, without looking like wanting to, be the caretaker of Bartleby. Again, this point of view seems weak to me since Christian’s beliefs mark that when helping someone who is in need, the willingness to do so must come from the heart, from within, not from the thought of presuming one will get a reward out of it.

            In the seeking for more explanations for Bartleby’s behavior, some other critics happen to believe that Bartleby was in fact never ill, and that he was in total control of his actions. The essayist Todd Giles suggests that Bartleby knew exactly why he was acting the way he did, how and when to do it. He also says that Bartleby was putting in effect his right of freedom of speech and action and his willingness of “preferring not to” do his daily activities was prove of that. This writer claims that Bartleby was very careful with his choice of words and situations so that the attention was drawn to him in a way that would look like those were not his intentions. He says that “Bartleby’s silence establishes distance, while at the same time inviting desire for proximity” (Todd Giles 890), suggesting that maybe Bartleby wanted to produce pity in people so that rather than he seeking for help, people would look for him and try to help him. Giles deliberately suggests that “Bartleby is nothing but surface, and as such, is a pure act of power and free will. To have preferences and the will to act on them, especially in the face of superior, is the ultimate realization of freedom and selfhood” (89), trying to say that Bartleby is practically manipulating people around him and so he has a level of superiority over them. According to the study of psychology, this itself (trying to grab people’s attention in distorted manners), is not a sign of a healthy mental state. I happen to believe that Gile’s point of view is underestimating the capability of the human mind to make an impact in other’s lives. Our minds are very powerful and our capacity to create is unimaginable. Suggesting that the best that a person can do to catch people’s attention is to produce pity onto others, is almost as saying that we live only to die. Also, how could somebody explain that Bartleby committed suicide by starvation only to catch the attention of people? To make such assumptions discourages the science of psychology and put in a very low level the helpfulness that being able to give treatment to a patient mentally ill gives to humanity. One could very easily say that there are millions of people out there that use mental illnesses as excuses to manipulate loved ones or even the system; however, let’s not forget that Bartleby starved to death.

            Even thought it was difficult for some people around Bartleby to understand the reason for his behavior, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-IV) the description of Bartleby behaviors best matches with what is known today to be classified as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). According to the DSM-IV “The essential feature of MDD is a period of at least two weeks during which there is either depressed mood or the loss of interest in nearly all activities” (320). This is the most important and outstanding description of Bartleby’s behavior since the narrator mentions that “several days passed, and I heard nothing more…All is over with him, by this time, thought I, at last, when, through another week…” (Melville 45), making the reader understand that when he moved out of the old office, Bartleby stood in there for at least two weeks and the current owner of the office is looking for him so he can talk to Bartleby and make him leave the office.

            Another characteristic of MDD is, as described in the DSM-IV is “Loss of interest or pleasure nearly always present, not caring anymore or not feeling any enjoyment in activities that were previously considered pleasurable” (321). In Bartleby’s case we do not exactly know if he considered his job as an enjoyable activity, but it was definitely a job that he was getting paid for, and back in 1800’s whoever had the opportunity to learn how to read and write could make a good living out of it. Furthermore, this description contains the clearest example out of them all, which is Bartleby’s famous line “I would prefer not to” which appears all over the story. The very first time that the narrator hears this line from Bartleby he says: “‘Bartleby! Quick, I am waiting!’…’what is wanted?’ said he, mildly…’we are going to examine the copies’…’I would prefer not to’” (Melville 27), making the narrator as well as the reader confuse, however, as the story goes by and Bartleby repeats this line so often ones comes to understand that something is definitely different about him.

            Other among the many symptoms of MDD is the change in appetite habits. As the DSM-IV explains “Appetite is usually reduced, and many individuals feel that they have to force themselves to eat.” (321), we realize that Bartleby also is presenting episodes in which his desire for food as almost completely vanished. The narrator says that he had noticed something very particular about Bartleby. He says “I observed that he never went to diner” (Melville 29), giving out a sense of concern about Bartleby’s health, even when he has never complaint about health issues. However, the narrator later realizes that Bartleby “never spoke but no answer” (Melville 34), and this is the reason why he would just never complaint to anybody. Also, when Bartleby has already been put into custody in the jail, the person that the narrator asks to take special care of Bartleby, tells the narrator when he goes to visit him “’His dinner is ready. Won’t he dine to-day either? Or does he live without dining?’” (Melville 49). During this conversation the caretaker practically what is telling the narrator is that he does not eat dinner and he is kind of amazed that he can live without eating.

            Another symptom that was identified in Bartleby to be as one of MDD is the psychomotor changes. As per the DSM-IV, “psychomotor changes include agitation or retardation, which consist of slowed speech, thinking, and body movements; increased pauses before answering; speech that in decreased in volumes, inflection, amount, or variety of content or muteness.” Which in Bartleby’s case is very well represented in all of the many occasions in which Bartleby would just stay quiet at a number of questions, or just in the cases where he would just answer with very cut and dry sentences; the famous I would prefer not to among his short answers. Among the many examples throughout the story, when the narrator informs Bartleby of him moving his office to a different facility, the narrator tells Bartleby “’what earthly right have you to stay here’…he answer nothing” (Melville 41). As the narrator gets no response, the only thing left to do is to assume what Bartleby might want to do and asks him “’are you ready to go on and write now’…He silently retired into his hermitage.” (Melville 41). Obtaining as you can see a very unsuccessful response for what he intended to be a conversation.

            From my point of view, I believe that what Melville intended to do was to create a consciousness among people about what is normal and what is abnormal and to make people realize that what is good to me might not be good to you. I think that Bartleby is an example of how far can wrong judgments take a person. Unlike the essay written by Leo Marx in 1953, in which he criticizes Melville by saying that the character of Bartleby symbolically represents Melville, who resisted the pressure of writing in a “normal” way to which everybody was accustomed to (Marx 1953), I believe that what Melville wanted to make people understand was not only that “different” could be successful, but that the word “different” does not mean good or bad. That if one person is “different” from another, it does not mean that the person is a “luny”.

            Among the many other types of interpretations given to Bartleby’s behaviors and motives, there is one given by the essayist Noemi Reed that definitely puts Melville’s work in a total different category of writing. Reed suggests that “Bartleby, the Scrivener” was written by Melville as a way of criticizing Marxism and his capitalism. She explains that people have tried to look deep into Bartleby’s behaviors and characteristics trying to figure him out and give answers to people’s enigmas about him. However, she says “we would be reminded of what current critics of the story seem to have forgotten: Bartleby is strange” (Reed 247), and she also says that people do not pay enough attention to why Melville decided Bartleby needed to be strange. Noemi Reed says that Melville’s motives to create such character are to create a consciousness among the working classes rather than only trying to make Bartleby a Psychiatrist patient. One can tell that Reed extremely opposes to some views of this story when she says that “one early reviewer went so far as to call the story ‘a portrait from life’” (247), suggesting that clearly Melville wanted to create a cartoonlike character that would personified what Marxism saw as a perfect worker. Noemi Reed says that “Bartleby is the ‘perfect exemplum’ of the Marx’s alienated worker and Melville’s story is a parable of the heartlessness of capitalism” (248), suggesting that Bartleby and his problematic behaviors are a result of the lack of care to the worker and the coldness that employees are treated with by their employers. Through Reed’s suggestions, one can realize that by focusing on the reasons why Melville portrayed Bartleby the way in which he did; one can understand what the outcome could be and also understand why Bartleby ended up being the kind of psychologically troubled person he is. Even thought Noemi Reed does not directly put Bartleby in the category of a mentally ill person, her opinions on the reasons why Melville decided Bartleby should be a “strange” character suggests she indeed believes Bartleby is a person with need for psychological help, being he the result of a system that deteriorates and exploits the middle social class.

            As a result of this essay, we could have a better understanding of why of Bartleby’s behaviors and Melville’s motives. Bartleby was not a luny, neither an activist that wanted his word to be heard and was trying to stand for something. Bartleby was simply a very normal human being with a very common psychological condition Major Depressive Disorder. And if Melville’s motive for creating such character was to portrait himself, what he really was intending was to make people understand that “different” is also normal.

Works Cited

Giles, Todd. "Melville's BARTLEBY, THE SCRIVENER." Explicator 65.2 (2007): 88-91.  Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

Reed, Naomi C. "The Specter of Wall Street: "Bartleby, the Scrivener" and the Language of Commodities." American Literature 76.2 (2004): 247-273. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 22 Oct. 2010.

Doloff, Steven. "The Prudent Samaritan: Melville's 'Bartleby, the Scrivener' as Parody of Christ's Parable to the Lawyer." Studies in Short Fiction 34.3 (1997): 357. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.

Dilworth, Thomas. "Narrator of 'Bartleby': The Christian-Humanist Acquaintance of John Jacob Astor." Papers on Language & Literature 38.1 (2002): 49. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Oct. 2010.

Mitchell, Thomas R. "Dead letters and dead men: Narrative purpose in `Bartleby.." Studies in Short Fiction 27.3 (1990): 329. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 13 Oct. 2010.

Gardner. Lawn. Ridl. Shackel. Literature: A Portable Anthology. Second Edition, 2009. Bedford ST. Martin’s. Print.

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorder, Fourth Edition. DSM-IV. Published by The American Psychiatric Association. Washington D.C. Print

Mark Elliott, “An Overview of ‘Bartleby the Scrivener’,” in Short Stories for Students, Gale, 1998. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 3 Nov. 2010.