Bartleby The Scrivener Essay, Research Paper

In democratic ages men rarely sacrifice themselves for another, but they show a

general compassion for all the human race. One never sees them inflict pointless

suffering, and they are glad to relieve the sorrows of others when they can do

so without much trouble to themselves. They are not disinterested, but they are

gentle. – Alexis De Tocqueville (www.cybernation.com) Compassion is an innate

quality that is found within human nature, and is expressed to those in the form

of a helping hand to people who are financially and emotionally troubled.

However, each individual may have a different limit towards the amount of

compassion that one can show to another being. In Herman Melville?s story,

?Bartleby, the Scrivener?, Melville is showing the reader that each

individual does have a limit, when it comes to expressing compassion towards

other beings. Melville also shows that this limit is different for each

individual, when he talks about how each of the characters interact with

Bartleby. The story of ?Bartleby, the Scrivener? begins with the narrator

identifying himself as a man who is ?filled with a profound conviction that

the easiest way of life is best?. This very attitude towards life in general,

suggests that the narrator cannot be too compassionate towards other beings

because showing compassion and providing support is hard work emotionally and

physically. To be compassionate, one must be able to understand the inner

workings of the unfortunate soul, so that one can help fix the problem. Thus,

the narrator does not have the experience or the spontaneity to help others

because all who know him, consider him to be ?an eminently safe man? (2330).

However, one must note that as the story progresses, the narrator does push his

boundaries towards helping Bartleby, but ultimately fails because he does not

take the time to understand Bartleby. There is no doubt that the narrator is a

compassionate person because he puts up with the antics of his employees. One of

his employees is an old man named Turkey, who handles himself well in the

morning, but in the afternoon becomes insolent. Any other person would have

fired Turkey, when he becomes insolent towards his fellow workers and clients,

but the narrator generally leaves him alone. One can conclude that the narrator

is weak, and being a ?safe? man, he decides to let things be the same in

order to prevent a conflict, but this is an incorrect conclusion. The narrator

could have fired Turkey, which would have prevented a conflict as well as

resolving the issue regarding Turkey?s attitude, but the narrator chooses to

keep Turkey. Although one can say that the narrator is compassionate, one must

also take into account the extent of his compassion. In the scene where Bartleby

refuses to help examine the paper, the narrator backs away from a confrontation.

He says, ?I looked at him steadfastly. His face was leanly composed; his gray

eye dimly calm. Not a wrinkle of agitation rippled in him? (2336). The

narrator does not know how to handle the situation because he could not find any

human qualities within Bartleby. Therefore, he plays it safe and avoids the

confrontation by proceeding to other matters. This scene helps show the

narrator?s limits because by playing it safe, he is not helping Bartleby, but

instead delays the inevitable confrontation. Thus, one can argue incorrectly

that the narrator has a weak character, when in reality he is looking at the

world with a different perspective, and therefore is not able to understand the

needs of Bartleby. It is easy to see that the narrator is a compassionate man,

although many would argue that he is weak. He allows his employees to be

themselves, and tries to reign them in when they go too far. Thus, when Bartleby

refuses to help him and the others examine the documents, he avoids a

confrontation. However, the others are quick to judge Bartleby. This is seen

when Nippers says, ?I think I should kick him out of the office? (2337)

while Turkey says, ?shall I go and black his eyes?? (2339). Neither of these

characters attempt to understand Bartleby, and if they had their way, they would

have fired him immediately. This shows that the limit of their compassion

towards Bartleby is very short, and it also allows the reader to come to the

conclusion that the narrator is indeed an extraordinary man, whose limit towards

helping Bartleby exceeds that of many people. A compassionate person is a person

who understands the strengths and weaknesses of other people. With a better

understanding of the person, one can help sort out the other person?s

problems. The narrator?s perspective of life, along with how he lives his

life, makes him incapable of showing more compassion towards Bartleby. John

Seelye says that the narrator?s ?orderliness of his world is suggested by

the design of his office: two adjoining apartments, with antipodal windows

looking out upon opposing white and black walls, suggesting the cleanly defined

ethics of their inhabitant? (97). Thus, due to his ?commitment to balance,

order, and rational processes, his office is not equipped to handle a case like

the mysterious scrivener, the ?motionless young man? whose gravity nearly

destroys the balanced movements? of the narrator?s life. Bartleby ?demands

love that passes all understanding?, but the narrator is incapable of

understanding Bartleby?s needs, and the ?most he can give is [limited

compassion]? (97). However, the narrator does make a connection with Bartleby

in the scene where he realizes that Bartleby has been living in the office. He

says, ?for the first time in my life a feeling of overpowering stinging

melancholy seized me. Before, I had never experienced aught but a not-unpleasing

sadness. The bond of a common humanity now drew me irresistibly to gloom. A

fraternal melancholy! For both I and Bartleby were sons of Adam? (2341). This

is an important scene because now that he has made a connection with Bartleby,

he goes beyond his ?safe? zone and becomes more compassionate towards the

needs of Bartleby. By attempting to understand Bartleby, the narrator becomes

more compassionate, and thus leaves his ?safe? zone. This is evident when he

tries to find information about Bartleby?s personal life. However, Bartleby

refuses to talk about his life, and the narrator finds that he can?t break

through the wall that Bartleby has erected. One can say that the narrator?s

attempt to understand Bartleby is half-hearted because he already feels that he

will never be able to fully understand Bartleby, and thus cannot help overcome

Bartleby?s problems. He says, ?what I saw that morning persuaded me that the

scrivener [,Bartleby,] was the victim of innate and incurable disorder. I might

give alms to his body; but his body did not pain him; it was his soul that

suffered, and his soul I could not reach? (2342). Thus, the narrator has given

up trying to understand Bartleby, which in effect leads to Bartleby?s death.

When the narrator concludes that he could not connect to Bartleby, it seems he

has reached the limit of his compassion towards Bartleby. He devises a plan to

get rid of Bartleby, rationalizing that he is helping the scrivener, when in

truth he is bribing him. He says, ?I told Bartleby that in six days time he

must unconditionally leave the office. I offered to assist him in this endeavor,

if he himself would but take the first step towards a removal? (2345). This

indicates that the narrator has reached his limit, when it comes to helping

Bartleby. However, it also shows that the narrator is still being compassionate

towards Bartleby because he is giving him advance notice, along with money, when

other people would have simply had Bartleby removed from the premises. It can be

argued that the narrator is giving money to Bartleby in order to ease his guilty

conscience, but the fact remains that many people would have fired Bartleby the

day he quit working, and they would not have given him extra pay. Therefore, the

narrator is still trying to be compassionate, although he himself admits later

on that he was trying to bribe Bartleby. Furthermore, when Bartleby refuses to

leave the premises, the narrator packs his things and moves to another area.

This is humorous because he is the one who is moving, since Bartleby refuses to

leave. The narrator could have had Bartleby thrown into jail, or he could have

kicked him out, but chose not to. Many people would think that the narrator is

weak because he does not throw Bartleby out, but instead moves his office to

another location to accommodate Bartleby, and avoid a confrontation. The

narrator says to himself, ?you will not thrust him, the poor, pale, passive

mortal ? you will not thrust such a helpless creature out of your door?? The

narrator realizes that he would rather let Bartleby ?live and die? in the

office, instead of throwing him out. In the same line of reasoning, the narrator

says to himself, ?you will not have him collared by a constable, and commit

his innocent pallor to the common jail? (2349). Therefore, he still remains

compassionate towards Bartleby, while at the same time he leaves Bartleby,

thinking that he is no longer responsible for Bartleby?s welfare. This act

shows that the narrator is still a prisoner towards his own rational thinking,

and thus is still incapable of helping Bartleby. However, the narrator?s

compassion towards Bartleby has extended further, when he offers to give

Bartleby a new job. He says, ?would you like to travel through the country

collecting bills for the merchants? That would improve your health?. Bartleby

refuses to accept any of the jobs that the narrator offers him, which in turn

angers the narrator. The narrator is at his wit?s end because he is trying to

help Bartleby, but his help is always rejected. Finally, the narrator offers to

take Bartleby to his home. He says, ?[Bartleby,] will you go home with me now

? not to my office, but my dwelling ? and remain there till we can conclude

upon some convenient arrangement for your leisure?? (2352). The spontaneity of

the narrator?s action shows that the narrator has again moved further away

from his ?safe? zone, in his need to help Bartleby. This also shows that the

limit of his compassion has increased significantly, as he again tries to relate

to Bartleby. The narrator?s ?safe? zone is again challenged, when he

learns that the landlord had called the police to take away Bartleby. The

narrator, who for most of his life was considered to be an ?eminently safe

man? (2330), goes to the Tombs to see Bartleby. This shows that he is again

pushing the limit of his compassion in order to provide comfort to a man that he

hardly knows. The narrator is again going out of his way to ensure that Bartleby

is properly taken care off. He says, ?I narrated all I knew [about Bartleby to

the functionary], and closed by suggesting the idea of letting him remain in as

indulged confinement as possible till something less harsh might be done?

(2353). This act goes beyond what many people would do for someone in need, and

therefore one should respect and admire the type of person that the narrator has

become. When the narrator goes to see Bartleby in the Tombs, Bartleby says, ?I

know you . . . and I want nothing to say to you? (2353). This suggests that

everything that the narrator had done was not enough, and therefore this

response would anger many people if they had to endure what the narrator went

through in helping Bartleby. However, the narrator only felt pain, and again

tried to reach out by trying to ensure that Bartleby?s stay would be as

comfortable as possible. This is seen when he gives money to the grub man, and

asks the man to take care of Bartleby. He says, ?I want you to give particular

attention to my friend there; let him have the best dinner you can get. And you

must be polite to him as possible? (2353). This again shows that the narrator

is a compassionate man, who does a lot to help give physical comfort to

Bartleby, but cannot reach out to Bartleby?s soul, because he is still

incapable of understanding Bartleby. Thus, Melville shows in ?Bartleby, the

Scrivener? that there is a limit to compassion, which differs for each

individual, when one tries to help another individual. True compassion is when

one gives freely, love that surpasses all understanding. However, this is a

quality only seen in very few people (i.e. Mother Teresa). Although the narrator

tries to understand Bartleby, he ultimately fails because they are worlds apart.

The narrator is rational and practical, while Bartleby is withdrawing from life.

In order to relate to Bartleby, one cannot rationalize the situation, as it will

not benefit Bartleby. Instead, the narrator should have given him unconditional

love, which would have brought Bartleby back into the social world.

Melville, Herman. ?Bartleby, the Scrivener.? The Norton Anthology of

American Literature. Ed. Nina Baym. New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.,

1998. 2330-2355. Seelye, John. Melville: The Ironic Diagram. Evanston:

NorthWestern University Press, 1970.