Though the title may be Bartleby the Scribe, Herman Melville's tale is far more interested in its nameless narrator than the title character. Addressing a man's concept of himself and how that concept must be reevaluated when challenged by change, Bartleby describes a man who misinterprets and rationalizes his life to be in accordance with the ideals to which he aspires. At his core, the narrator is so terrified of confrontation that his reluctance limits his effectiveness as a leader. However, he is able to convince himself that his weakness is actually a great quality he possesses, an enhancement to his stellar leadership ability. The concept is explored in Bartleby through the narrator's description of himself, the bust of Cicero that takes up space in his office, the way the narrator treats his regular employees, and, of course, his relationship with the troubled Bartleby . It is through the narrator's interpretation of that relationship that the full extent of his reluctance and rationalization is realized. More importantly, it is as a byproduct of that rationalization that the otherwise absent concept of genuine concern for others is finally realised, its previous deficiency illuminating Melville's central theme of a society devoid of true compassion. In Bartleby, one theme, that of a man's power of self-deception, moves the plot forward by intentionally leaving the back door open for another more pressing theme, that of a society devoid of compassion, to make its way. subtle but burning entrance. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The narrator states early in his description of himself, “…the simplest lifestyle is the best.” For him, easy can be equated to free from comparison. He breezily acknowledges that he is "one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury." Instead, he is content to "do quiet business in bonds, mortgages, and the property titles of rich men." For the narrator, the best word to describe it is "safe." He does not take risks, does not try to go beyond what is easily achievable, does not expend precious energy without an urgent cause. However, the narrator also regards himself rather nobly, proudly citing John Jacob Astor's description of him as a man of prudence and method. As much as he clearly feels he understands himself, however, the narrator's self-description is at odds with the qualities he aspires to and is in fact, as the story continues, quite paralyzing. The narrator proudly considers himself a transmigration of Cicero, but in reality it is a pale and superficial imitation. The narrator's comparison with Cicero is invited several times in the text. The precious plaster bust of Cicero that stands behind the narrator in his office is mentioned twice during the story, and the attributes assumed by the narrator, modeled on Cicero's writings, are also recognized. However, the similarities between the narrator and his idol are at best only superficial. The statement of method alluded to in the reference to Astor is ultimately false: instead of the careful detail of a Ciceronian oration, the narrator's initially sequenced lists break down absurdly or dissolve into a grandiloquence that serves only to damage any neoclassical pretensions it has. . Furthermore, in addition to the rhetorical contrast with Cicero, the narrator also philosophically has a dichotomous relationship with Cicero. While the Roman lawyer was a defender of the people, the narrator preferscertainly look for work among the rich rather than among the poor. The narrator's world is based on pride and others' perception of him, rather than the deep and abiding personal philosophy he possesses. The only real trait he possesses is that of passivity, and that he possesses to the extreme and rationalizes as a good thing. Ultimately, the parallels with Cicero, or lack thereof, serve to highlight the gap between the narrator's actual existence and his perception of that same existence.2E The narrator's ideology and concept of humanity are vague and superficial at best. hypotheses and, when compared with Cicero's realization of such values, demonstrate the enormous difference between grandeur and pretentiousness, between a marble bust and the plaster imitation that seeks to duplicate it even if only on the surface. Having thoroughly established his perception of himself, the narrator proceeds in Bartleby to describe his employees. It is through this representation that even more valuable information about the narrator can be gained. Turkey and Nippers are essentially mirror reflections of each other in terms of behavior. One, Turkey, is effective in the morning. By the afternoon, however, his ability to perform the tasks required of his job quickly erodes and he is no longer needed. Nippers, by contrast, is wasteful in the morning but completely competent in the afternoon. The two characters are essentially flat and static: their value lies in the reaction they elicit from the narrator2E Seeing himself as a skilled manager in his ability to resist the idiosyncrasies of his eccentric and unreliable employees, the narrator observes that Turkey and Nippers are effective and ineffective at times alternate. Therefore, it is possible for him to maintain efficiency in his office by considering and circumventing the particular peculiarities of his employees. Although this lack of discipline and responsibility would seem to many to be impractical and the product of a timid and ineffective manager, the narrator sees the situation more as a testament to his great aptitude for working with unreliable employees, remaining calm and still achieving success. Once again, the gap between the narrator's reality and his perception of it is called into question. A more confident and accomplished manager would assert his authority and thus improve the efficiency of his office. The narrator, however, stands by and watches, unable to muster the necessary courage that such a confrontation would require. The narrator represents an extreme passivity compared to the extreme eccentricity of his employees: he is the base and they are the acids. As long as this is the difference, the confrontation can be avoided as the narrator simply works to put out his employees' fire. It is only when the narrator, the base, meets an even more extreme base, Bartleby, that the veil is lifted on his inadequacies and he is tested as a manager. Instead of extinguishing the volatility, the narrator must now ignite what has already long been extinguished and it is in this quest that he fails woefully. Türkiye and Nippers, as already mentioned, are mirror reflections of each other. They share the same room and are essentially the same species: one is volatile in the morning, the other in the afternoon. Likewise, the narrator and Bartleby also belong to the same mould. Sharing the same space as Turkey and Nippers, Bartleby represents the logical extreme of the narrator's passivity, so passive that he does nothing. Drawing in part, somewhat satirically, on the writings of Jonathon Edwards and Joseph Priestley – alluded to as readings the narrator seeks out in response to his new employee – the philosophy can best be paraphrased as meaning that whatever you are doing at any given time, iswhatever you prefer. If you eat a slice of wholemeal bread, you do it because you prefer it. If you sit back and watch, doing nothing, then that is exactly what you, like Bartleby, prefer to do. The narrator prefers to avoid confrontation, and that's exactly what he does. The problem inherent in this philosophy occurs when two people have divergent preferences but must somehow reconcile their differences to accomplish a necessary task. Henry David Thoreau said that not everyone can be a hero because there must be someone at their side along the way and greets the passing of the hero. Likewise, not everyone can always have their own preference. In the case of Bartleby and the narrator, someone has to admit if something is to be achieved. Either Bartleby must work, even if he prefers not to, or the narrator must force the confrontation. Neither of the two characters, however, is willing to make such a concession and, consequently, nothing happens. Instead, the narrator rationalizes his own shyness and justifies Bartleby's behavior. When Bartleby first begins to refuse to do various parts of his job, the narrator tries to justify the refusal, attributing to Bartleby a wide range of qualities that would make the refusal more palatable; "It seemed to me that as I addressed him, he carefully examined every statement I made; he fully understood its meaning; ... but, at the same time, a fundamental consideration prompted him to respond as he did." Bartleby inevitably has to draw some comparisons with the transcendentalist concept of passive resistance, of which in many ways he is a perfect model. As such, the narrator is all the more likely to support him and put up with his eccentricities. The narrator is more than complacent in making excuses for Bartleby if such excuses can procrastinate the seemingly inevitable confrontation. Furthermore, the narrator sees sympathy and compassion toward Bartleby as a method of serving his own self-interest, declaring, "Here I can cheaply purchase delicious self-approval. Befriending Bartleby; indulging him in his strange obstinacy, it will cost me little." . or nothing, while I lay in my soul what will ultimately prove a sweet morsel to my conscience." And so, in the stages of Bartleby's bizarre behavior, the narrator revels in his superficiality, seeing the friendship with Bartleby as a method to enhance oneself, to develop greater self-esteem. As already mentioned, the narrator diverges from Ciceronian ideals due to his lack of true altruistic motives, he is guided by his own personal interest and is able to extend the pretense of charity as a justification for his passivity with Bartleby Continuing the theme of justification and rationalization, when Bartleby also refuses to perform his normal copying duties the narrator initially attributes the refusal to his eyesight problems due to the poor light , trying to excuse his employee's actions and thus eliminate any risk of confrontation. As the actions become less excusable or justifiable, however, the narrator begins to look for other ways to deal with the issue. At first he tries to reason with Bartleby, but to no avail. Short of physical strength, of which the narrator is entirely incapable, there is no way to expel Bartleby. Rather than confront this failure, however, the narrator instead tries to find a higher purpose for the events that occur. This is achieved by reading the aforementioned sermons of Edwards and Priestley and assuming that Bartleby was sent for the purpose of teaching the narrator compassion. Interestingly, the narrator finally manages to free himself from the pervasive interest.