Bartleby The Scrivener A Story Of Wall Street Summary

Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street Summary
Herman Melville’s Bartleby the Scrivener remains one of the most enigmatic short works in American literature, offering a compact yet profound meditation on isolation, resistance, and the dehumanizing forces of capitalist modernity. First published in 1853, the tale unfolds through the eyes of an unnamed lawyer who narrates his peculiar encounter with a copyist named Bartleby. Below is a detailed summary that captures the plot’s essential beats, followed by analysis of characters, themes, style, and the story’s lasting relevance.

Plot Summary

The narrator, a successful Manhattan attorney specializing in mortgages, titles, and bonds, employs two scriveners—Turkey and Nippers—to copy legal documents. Their work habits are comically opposite: Turkey is productive in the morning but grows irritable and error‑prone after lunch, while Nippers is useless in the early hours yet sharp and diligent in the afternoon. To balance the workload, the lawyer hires a third scrivener, Bartleby, a pallid, motionless man who initially performs his duties with “remarkable” diligence.

For a few days, Bartleby copies documents silently and efficiently. Then, when asked to proofread a paper, he responds with the now‑iconic phrase: “I would prefer not to.” The lawyer is startled but tolerates the refusal, attributing it to a momentary quirk. Over the next days, Bartleby repeats the same response to every request—whether to examine a document, to run an errand, or even to leave the office. His passive resistance escalates: he stops working altogether, yet remains seated at his desk, refusing to vacate the premises.

The lawyer’s initial pity turns to frustration, then to a strange mixture of compassion and bewilderment. He attempts to reason with Bartleby, offers him money, and even proposes to help him find another place to live. Bartleby’s unwavering reply—“I would prefer not to”—remains unchanged. The lawyer eventually decides to relocate his office to avoid the awkward situation, leaving Bartleby behind in the former premises.

The new tenants discover Bartleby still inhabiting the empty office, living off nothing but ginger nuts and refusing to leave. They call the police, who remove him to the Tombs, a New York City prison. The lawyer visits Bartleby there, offering food and assistance, but the scrivener declines everything, preferring to stare at a wall. A few days later, the lawyer learns that Bartleby has died of starvation, having chosen to “prefer not to” eat.

The story concludes with the lawyer’s rumored speculation that Bartleby’s previous employment in the Dead Letter Office—a government bureau that handled undeliverable mail—may have shattered his spirit, leading to his extreme withdrawal.

Character Analysis

Themes and Symbols

1. Passive Resistance vs. Active Defiance
   Bartleby’s refrain, “I would prefer not to,” is not a shouted protest but a quiet, persistent negation. This form of resistance challenges the notion that dissent must be loud or violent, suggesting that sheer refusal can be a powerful, albeit tragic, statement.

2. Alienation in a Capitalist Milieu
   Set on Wall Street, the story critiques the dehumanizing effect of a society that measures worth by productivity. Bartleby’s eventual starvation mirrors how individuals can be discarded when they no longer serve economic function.

3. The Wall as Motif
   The physical wall that Bartleby stares at in prison symbolizes both emotional isolation and the impenetrable barriers of modern bureaucracy. It also reflects the narrator’s own “wall” of incomprehension—he cannot see beyond Bartleby’s silence.

4. Charity and Its Limits
   The lawyer’s attempts to help Bartleby oscillate between genuine concern and self‑serving guilt. Melville questions whether charity can ever truly reach someone who has withdrawn from the very language of exchange.

5. The Dead Letter Office Backstory
   Bartleby’s prior work handling undeliverable mail hints at a life spent dealing with messages that never reach their destination—an apt metaphor for his own inability to communicate his inner turmoil.

Literary Style and Narrative Technique

Melville employs a first‑person limited perspective, allowing readers to experience the lawyer’s rationalizations and frustrations directly. The tone shifts from dry, almost legalistic narration to moments of unsettling empathy, creating a rhythmic tension that mirrors the story’s thematic push‑pull.

The narrative is notable for its minimalist dialogue; Bartleby’s limited vocabulary amplifies the weight of each utterance. Repetition of the phrase “I would prefer not to” functions like a refrain, turning a simple sentence into a philosophical mantra.

Melville also blends realism with allegory. While the setting—a bustling legal office on Wall Street—is rendered with concrete detail (scriveners’ quirks, the layout of the office, the Tombs prison), Bartleby’s existential withdrawal lifts the tale into the realm of parable, inviting multiple interpretations.

Historical Context

Published in 1853, the story appeared during a period of rapid financial expansion in New York City. The rise of Wall Street as a hub of speculation and the growing bureaucracy of government offices (such as the Dead Letter Office, established in 1825) created new classes of clerical workers whose lives were defined by repetitive, invisible labor. Melville, who had himself worked as a customs inspector, draws on personal experience to depict the soul‑crushing monotony of such occupations.

The tale’s initial reception was modest; it was overshadowed by Melville’s more famous novels like Moby‑Dick. However, twentieth‑century critics—especially existentialists and

...existentialists and postmodern scholars have re-evaluated Bartleby as a seminal text exploring the human condition in an increasingly mechanized world. For existentialists like Jean-Paul Sartre, Bartleby’s refusal to engage with the world—his “I would prefer not to”—embodies the absurdity of existence, where individuals are thrust into a society that demands participation yet offers no meaning. Postmodern critics, meanwhile, have highlighted the story’s critique of language and power, noting how Bartleby’s silence subverts the lawyer’s authority and exposes the futility of imposed narratives. These interpretations underscore Melville’s prescience in capturing the alienation of modern life, long before the term became academic parlance.

The story’s enduring power lies in its ability to resonate across time. In an era defined by digital anonymity, remote work, and bureaucratic impersonality, Bartleby’s plight feels eerily contemporary. His isolation is not merely a product of 19th-century office culture but a reflection of universal struggles with meaning, communication, and the tension between individual agency and systemic expectations. Melville’s narrative, with its sparse yet profound language, invites readers to confront uncomfortable truths about complicity, empathy, and the cost of silence.

Ultimately, Bartleby, the Scrivener transcends its historical setting to pose timeless questions: Can a person be reduced to a function? Is silence a form of rebellion or surrender? How do we reconcile our humanity with the demands of a world that often demands we remain unseen? By refusing to conform to the expectations of his environment, Bartleby becomes a mirror for readers to examine their own relationships with work, identity, and the spaces in between. In this way, Melville’s tale remains not just a literary artifact but a profound meditation on what it means to exist in a world that often seeks to erase the individual.