Almost one hundred and fifty years since it was first published, Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener"" remains one of the most elusive short stories in all of American literature. What is the reason for Bartleby's strange behavior in the story? This is the question that plagues the story's narrator, and it has plagued the readers of "Bartleby the Scrivener,"" as well. While many intriguing hypotheses have been offered over the years, no single interpretation dominates critical opinion or seems to fully explain the author's intention. Indeed, part of "Bartleby's" enduring appeal" comes from its well-crafted ambiguity and denial of easy interpretation. Such an enigmatic story by one of America's greatest writers has proved an irresistible challenge to scholars in numerous fields, including literature, history, philosophy, psychology, and religion. These various approaches to "Bartleby " have deepened our understanding of the issues in the story, even if they have not solved the riddle of Bartleby's behavior. Perhaps to understand the story one must first accept that there is no single meaning to the character of Bartleby. This essay will consider Bartleby's actions in light of the possibility that his ultimate meaning is not meant to be understood by the reader.
Let us briefly examine one of the most influential interpretations of "Bartleby the Scrivener."" In a 1953 essay Leo Marx argued that the character of Bartleby symbolically represented Melville himself, who resisted the pressure to write the kind of unoriginal, formulaic fiction that could provide him with a comfortable living. Marx believed that "Bartleby " was Melville's testament to the misunderstood artist who refuses to "copy " popular forms "as Bartleby refused to copy legal documents "and who suffers rejection and alienation from society on account of his independence. It is tempting to interpret the story in this fashion because, undoubtedly, Melville was something of a Bartleby.
