Wall Street, or The Economics of Personality: Question Number 1

Herman Melville’s “Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street” is told from the perspective of a Wall Street lawyer, a pious man who believes that the generosity he gives to his employees is in their best interest. The lawyer describes himself as someone who chooses to do whatever is easiest in order to live without any complications:

I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury, or in any way draws down public applause; but in the cool tranquillity of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men’s bonds and mortgages and title-deeds. (Melville)

What he does not notice is that in choosing to not do anything, he is just as bad as someone who will do anything to solve a problem. In fact, his proclivity towards inactivity is exactly the same as Bartleby, a man whose maxim is “I prefer not.” I believe that Melville chose to have the unnamed lawyer as the narrator of “Bartleby” to act as a sort-of reverse foil to Bartleby, showing that in the world of Wall Street there is no right. The lawyer proves to be a contradiction to himself, although he is very religious and believes in giving alms and helping the needy, when faced against Bartleby his final reaction is to run away, paying people to do what he cannot.