Although Melville's short stories have received scant attention as a whole, "Bartleby the Scrivener" is one of the few that has not lacked examination. The story has run the critical gamut ranging from strictly autobiographical interpretations of Bartleby as Melville through metaphysical evaluations of him as a nihilist.¹ Consequently, it is interesting to find that only four articles have ever treated "Bartleby" in the light of the specific Transcendental thought of the day. Egbert Oliver in "A Second Look at 'Bartleby'"² proposes the view that Bartleby represents a satire on Thoreau in his withdrawal from society, his dietary habits, etc. However, Hershel Parker's³ article cites the lack of positive external evidence that Melville was aware sufficiently of Thoreau to attempt a satire and argues the unconvincing nature of the internal parallels.

Although Parker seems to successfully repudiate Oliver's argument, it does not mean that Transcendental doctrines were not uppermost in Melville's mind. Accordingly, Christopher Sten⁴ utilizes an exact Transcendental interpretation and believes that "Bartleby" is based on Emerson's essay "The Transcendentalist." He attempts a comparative textual analysis to present the narrator as Emerson's materialist and Bartleby as the transcendentalist as outlined in the essay. Although he states that "no reader has previously argued" from this vantage point (p. 33), exactly the same approach was taken by John Seelye in "The Contemporary 'Bartleby'"⁵ though not in as fully developed a form. Unfortunately, the problems raised by this interpretation outweigh the critical gains.

We are unnecessarily restricting the function of the tale by dealing with Bartleby and the narrator in such strictly delineated terms as "materialist" versus "transcendentalist." Although I heartily concur with both Seelye and Sten in the analysis of "Bartleby" as an Emersonian statement, I feel that the essay crucial to an understanding of the story is "Self-Reliance." This essay gives not only a broad definition to the tale but supplies some of the basic imagery and explicitly directs the action as well.

In interpreting the story as an investigation of the possibility of independence within the confines of society, the doctrines of "Self-Reliance" as espoused by Emerson have a basic function. Although Melville lauded "the man who . . . declares himself a sovereign nature (in himself) amid the powers of heaven, hell, and earth," he recognized that "he may perish," by the forces he confronts.⁶ Therefore, the story can best be viewed as a parody of the Emersonian doctrines of self-reliance in the attempt to put theory into practice. The essay "Self-Reliance" fully delineates the ways in which a man could attain independence and Bartleby follows the precepts exactly. With full confidence in his own assumptions, Emerson encourages the idealist, but Melville had no such belief in the viability of absolutism. The inevitable failure of Bartleby to maintain a Transcendentalist stance of self-reliance within the framework of society points strongly to the ideological conflict that is both the source of the tragi-comedy and the crux of Melville's own turmoil--although drawn to Emerson's concepts, he viewed them as unworkable. Consequently, by establishing the basis of Bartleby's actions in "Self-Reliance," we are helping to define Melville's apprehension of man and his limitations.

Although there is no incontrovertible evidence to prove that Melville read either of Emerson's essays, the evidence that Mr. Sten advances in favor of "The Transcendentalist" is more applicable to "Self-Reliance." We know that Melville had little direct knowledge of Emerson until the winter of 1848-49 when he heard him lecture. Melville's reaction was, "I was very agreeably disappointed in M^r Emerson. I had heard of him as full of transcendentalisms, myths & oracular gibberish; I had only glanced at a book of his once in Putnam's store--that was all I knew of him, till I heard him lecture.--To my surprise, I found him quite intelligible, tho' to say truth, they told me that night he was unusually plain" (Davis, pp. 78-79). As Mr. Sten admits, the book Melville speaks of probably did not contain "The Transcendentalist" because the lecture took place before March 1849 and the American publication of the essay in book form was not until September 1849. However, the book referred to could very well have contained "Self-Reliance," which was published in 1841 in the first series of Essays.

The only other direct indication of Melville's knowledge of Emerson prior to the writing of "Bartleby" in 1853 is provided by Sophia Hawthorne who noted in September 1850 that Melville "shut himself into the boudoir & read Mr. Emerson's Essays..."⁷ It would seem more likely that by using the designation "Essays" Mrs. Hawthorne was referring to the volume entitled Essays that contains "Self-Reliance" rather than to Nature, Addresses, and Lectures that contains "The Transcendentalist" as Mr. Sten suggests. I would also advance the possibility that the lack of annotation of the essay "Self-reliance" in Melville's own copy of Essays: First Series which he purchased in 1862⁸ is explained by his having already been thoroughly acquainted with it either through Duyckinck's library or this initial reading at the Hawthornes' home. It seems inconceivable that Melville, who in 1850 was trying to break away from the mold society (in the form of his reading public) was trying to impose upon him,⁹ would ignore an essay with this title.

Melville's notations in his copies of Emerson's works show that although he greatly admired some of Emerson's essays his positive remarks were largely confined to his interpretation of the role of the poet. His mixed feelings are summed up in marginalia to a remark in "The Poet." He states, "This is admirable, as many other thoughts of Mr. Emerson's are. His gross and astonishing errors and illusions spring from a self-conceit so intensely intellectual and calm that at first one hesitates to call it by its right name. Another species of Mr. Emerson's errors, or rather blindness, proceeds from a defect in the region of the heart" (Leyda, II, 649). This is thoroughly consistent with the remark he made over ten years before that he perceived in Emerson "a gaping flaw. It was, the insinuation that had he lived in those days when the world was made, he might have offered some valuable suggestions. These men are all cracked right across the brow" (Davis, p. 79).

Melville's amused attitude toward Emerson is not difficult to understand. Melville admired Emerson as one of his beloved group of "all men who dive" (Davis, p. 79); however, to an author who could say, "Though I wrote the Gospels in this century, I should die in the gutter" (Davis, p. 129), Emerson's rosy views about the rewards of self-reliance and the universal conformity of truth were quite unacceptable. In discussing Goethe's dictum "Live in the All," so close in spirit to Emerson's, Melville exclaims, "What nonsense! Here is a fellow with a raging toothache. 'My dear boy,' Goethe says to him, 'you are sorely afflicted with that tooth; but you must live in the all, and then you will be happy!' ... what plays mischief with the truth is that men will insist upon the universal application of a temporary feeling or opinion" (Davis, p. 131). Although Melville was capable of pantheistic moments, this relativist stance is basic to an understanding of his thought. There could be no formal or delineated philosophical framework for his views because there could be no certainty about what lay beyond the pale of observable reality. Even the visible truth was uncertain since it was "the apprehension of the absolute condition of present things as they strike the eye of the man who fears them not..." (Davis, p. 124). However, the "absolute condition" referred only to the "present things" taken momentarily out of the flux of time and obviously was open to various interpretations since they might "strike the eye" of one man differently than another.

As we have seen, Melville's attitude toward Emerson remained consistent during the thirteen year period beginning with his report of the 1849 lecture to the writing of the marginalia in 1862. "Bartleby" was written during this period and serves to point up many of Emerson's "errors and illusions" through an ironic representation. The story depicts Melville's relativist stance in the presentation of Bartleby's "universal application" of the doctrines of "Self-Reliance." It is especially powerful because Melville's skepticism did not conform to the Emersonian dicta governing an orderly and benevolent universe. Instead he envisioned the evils of an "intolerant universe," where "the malicious Devil is forever grinning in upon [him] holding the door ajar" (Davis, p. 128).

The depth of the satire is apparent through Melville's use of one of Emerson's analogies as the central symbol of the story. Emerson speaks of the average man's adherence to creeds as "pass[ing] for the end and not for a speedily exhaustible means, so that the walls of the system blend to their eye in the remote horizon with the walls of the universe."¹⁰ But the Transcendentalist also adheres to certain dicta--such as those of "Self-Reliance" and his awareness of "that deep force, the last fact behind which analysis cannot go" (p. 64) is tantamount to a wall, such as the one that Bartleby faces. The satire evolves to even greater subtlety when we remember that Melville deplored the intense self-centeredness of Emerson's doctrines. In "Bartleby" he reveals it through the delicate maneuver of placing the wall within three feet of the office window. Since the lighting on the outside is extremely dim, the lighted office would cause the pane of glass to act partially as a mirror. In addition to the wall, Bartleby is staring at himself as he obeys Emerson's admonition to his genius "to stay at home, to put itself in communication with the internal ocean... We must go alone" (p. 71). To Melville, the consequences of voyages on the "internal ocean" could be at least as dangerous as those on the physical waters.

The consequences of an absolutist stance in a universe governed by relativist principles are inescapable and are the basis of the ironic tone and ambiguity of the story. In depicting the common man through the narrator and the transcendental non-conformist through Bartleby, the ideological conflict is highlighted in the ludicrous situation that arises. On the one hand, Bartleby adheres to the basic Emersonian dictum "What I must do is all that concerns me, not what people think" and to the admonition to be strong "because you will always find those who think they know what is your duty better than you know it" (p. 55). However, the lawyer is Bartleby's employer and has every right to prescribe his duty. Hence, the confrontation provides the basis of the comedy through the depiction of the narrator's confusion. By placing Bartleby in a passive role so that the reader sympathizes with the narrator and shares his bewilderment, the comic effect of the story is enhanced. What greatly heightened irony there is when a scrivener follows Emerson's dictum: "Insist on yourself; never imitate" (P. 81)!

The narrator's narrowness is kindly depicted as he attempts to deal with what, to him, is a basically incomprehensible experience. His inability to cope with Bartleby's actions is understandable since he is specifically based on Emerson's description of the average man. The narrator "do[es] a snug business among rich men's bonds, and mortgages, and title-deeds [and] seldom indulge[s] in dangerous indignation at wrongs and outrages" (8-10). In "Self-Reliance" the average man is "pledged to himself [like a priest] not to look but on one side, the permitted side... He is a retained attorney" (p. 56) and typically "the reliance on Property, including the reliance on governments which protect it, is the want of self-reliance" (p. 85). Now the stage is set as Bartleby walks into the office of a "retained attorney" who relies on "Property" and government business for his living. Emerson has evoked the confrontation by saying: "Let us affront and reprimand the smooth mediocrity and squalid contentment of the times and hurl in the face of custom and trade and office..." (p. 61) the doctrine of non-conformity.

The essay "Self-Reliance" is the controlling mechanism throughout the entire story. The disdain for property and government enjoined upon the non-conformist by Emerson causes Bartleby's indifference when the narrator demands that he leave the office. The lawyer's final cry, "What earthly right have you to stay here? Do you pay any rent? Do you pay my taxes? Or is this property yours?" (64) is completely ignored for the same reason. The narrator is inspired by his set of Truths and priorities and Bartleby adheres to his own. The irony is exquisite as the employee evokes "squatter's rights" in the office of the real estate attorney.

Although Bartleby seems to embody self-reliance and attempts to act upon Emerson's statement, "Whoso would be a man, must be a non-conformist.... Absolve you to yourself and you shall have the suffrage of the world" (p. 52)--he proves that the structured society is too powerful to be fought. As Emerson states, "Society everywhere is a conspiracy against the manhood of every one of its members. Society is a joint-stock company in which the members agree, for the better securing of his bread to each shareholder, to surrender the liberty and culture of the eater. The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion" (p. 51). Although Emerson believes that pattern can be broken by sustained will, Melville does not. The dehumanized, mechanized form of the "conspiracy" is found in the description of the daily drudgery of the scriveners, Nippers and Turkey--their acceptance of their plight during the parts of the day when they are "reasonable" and their expressions of dissatisfaction when their "visceral" impressions are tapped. Their forced subjection to and acceptance of society's pressures is conveyed by Nippers' constant dissatisfaction with the position of his table and his inability to fix it. The narrator admits, "Nippers knew not what he wanted. Or, if he wanted anything, it was to be rid of a scrivener's table altogether" (16), and yet he remains trapped.

Bartleby is the only one to attempt to transcend society's pressures for conformity and even his appearance has been decided by "Self-Reliance." Emerson states that he wishes his life of nonconformity to be of a "lower strain... not to need diet and bleeding" (p. 54)--and Bartleby's physical appearance is presented exclusively as poor, thin and pale. In addition the scrivener's actions are totally controlled by the essay. For Emerson the way to achieve spiritual elevation was through solitude. He states, "It is easy in the world to live after the world's opinion; it is easy in solitude to live after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude" (p. 55). The ideal image is seen in the appearance of a congregation before the sermon when each individual appears "begirt each one with a precinct or sanctuary" (p. 71). Pointedly, Bartleby is described as returning constantly to his "hermitage" (32) and isolating himself through his refusal to do anything he "prefers not to."

Emerson cautions, "Your isolation must not be mechanical, but spiritual, that is, must be elevation. At times the whole world seems to be in conspiracy to importune you with emphatic trifles" (p. 71). He compares the appropriate response to that of a boy who "cumbers himself never about consequences, about interests, he gives an independent, genuine verdict" (p. 51). Accordingly, Bartleby refuses to do anything he "prefers not to." For instance, after the lawyer has sought to impress upon Bartleby the necessity for examining his copy by stating that "It is common usage. Every copyist is bound to help examine his copy," he is astonished at the lack of "reasonableness" in ignoring the customary patterns. He describes Bartleby as having "fully comprehended the meaning; could not gainsay the irresistible conclusion; but, at the same time, some paramount consideration prevailed with him to reply as he did" (28). On another occasion, the narrator's demand that Bartleby be "a little reasonable" is met with the response of "I would prefer not to be a little reasonable" (50). Since "reasonable" means the acceptance of someone else' ideas, Bartleby's answer is consistent with his rejection of norms. Nonetheless, his isolation, based on the "elevation" fostered by his spiritual "dead-wall reveries," is deemed reprehensible by his colleagues, unacceptable by his employer, and eventually causes his destruction by his society.

Bartleby's "standing reveries" (38), when he is oblivious to all around him, speak more of his solitude than do even the physical facts of his "hermitage." Although Emerson states that "the idlest reverie... command[s] my... respect" (p. 65), society, as depicted by the narrator abhors this kind of isolation and independence and does everything in its power to circumvent it, even without understanding it. Emerson cautions, "Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company" (p. 53)--but society, as the narrator, demands either conformity or explanations as the price of its acceptance.

The form and emotional consequences of Bartleby's isolation also have been dictated by the essay "Self-Reliance." Emerson attempts to describe the resultant state of the non-conformist but cautions that communication is faulty--which explains Bartleby's taciturn attitude:

It is not by any known or accustomed way; you shall not discern the footprints of any other; you shall not see the face of man: you shall not hear any name;--the way, the thought, the good, shall be wholly strange and new. It shall exclude example and experience. You take the way from man, not to man. All persons that ever existed are its forgotten ministers. Fear and hope are alike beneath it. There is somewhat low even in hope. In the hour of vision there is nothing that can be called gratitude, nor properly joy. The soul raised over passion beholds identity and eternal causation, perceives the self-existence of Truth and Right, and calms itself with knowing that all things go well. Vast spaces of nature, the Atlantic Ocean, the South Sea; long intervals of time, years, centuries, are of no account (p. 68-69).

Bartleby's long "dead-wall reveries," his exclusion of all company, resistance to instruction, passionless attitude and his periods of complete isolation during the evenings and weekends are obviously drawn from Emerson's outline. The narrator's description of Bartleby as "A bit of wreck in the mid Atlantic" (56) becomes an ironic commentary on the contrast between the average man's apprehension and the transcendentalist's supposed view of the "Vast spaces of ... the Atlantic Ocean ... of no account."

It is vitally important, however, that the narrator's subjective description of Bartleby as, "He seemed alone, absolutely alone in the universe. A bit of wreck in the mid Atlantic" (56) and of his environment after working hours as, "But his solitude, how horrible!" (42) not be unquestioningly accepted. We see Bartleby only through the lawyer's eyes, and contrary to most critical opinion,¹¹ he is not thoroughly reliable.`Emerson says of most men that because of their conformity, "Their every truth is not quite true" (p. 56) and this is a prime example. What has beep greatly ignored by the critics is the fact that the narrator's initial description of himself takes place in the present after his experience with Bartleby has been concluded. His relationship with Bartleby has not altered his belief "that the easiest way of life is the best" nor changed him from a "safe man" in "the cool tranquility of a snug retreat" (8). He views Bartleby as merely one of "an interesting and somewhat singular set of men... a scrivener, the strangest [he] ever saw, or heard of" (8). By his own report he was "astonished" and we can see that he essentially learns nothing from his experience. What is usually viewed as a step in his development, his "feeling of over-powering stinging melancholy" (44) upon his first apprehension of misery is dismissed by him as "sad fancyings--chimeras, doubtless, of a sick and silly brain" (44).

The narrator is not showing any great depth of understanding in allowing Bartleby to remain. Being extremely practical, he originally keeps Bartleby because he is useful, and then admits to being "not only disarmed... but unmanned" (42) by Bartleby's attitude. As he says, there was "an austere reserve about him, which had positively awed me into my tame compliance with his eccentricities" (46). This is understandable for as Emerson states of the non-conformist, "Who can thus avoid all pledges and, having observed, observe again from the same unaffected, unbiased, unbribable, unaffrighted innocence,--must always be formidable" (p. 51). Although the intimidated narrator is well able to recognize his own feelings of insecurity, he remains consistently shortsighted throughout. His explanations of his own and Bartleby's actions are entirely subjective and do not have the reliability of an omniscient narrator. Surely his reasoning regarding his examination of Bartleby's desk as not being due to curiosity but as, "the desk is mine, and its contents, too" (44) will serve sufficiently as an example.

The narrator is an example of Emerson's statement that the average man's works of charity "are done as an apology or extenuation of their living in the world... their virtues are penances" (p. 54). This the narrator admits as he says, "Here I can cheaply purchase a delicious self-approval. To befriend Bartleby; to humor him in his strange willfulness, will cost me little or nothing, while I lay up in my soul what will eventually prove a sweet morsel for my conscience" (34). His constant rationalizations regarding Bartleby and his own benevolence are too easily accepted because of the reader's sympathy with his position. Emerson states, "Every decent and well-spoken individual affects and sways me more than is right" (p. 52) and Bartleby obeys the injunction by refusing to capitulate to the "decent and well-spoken" narrator. However, it should be remembered that the resulting confusion engendered in the narrator is an integral part of his interpretation of Bartleby's actions. The critical interpretations of Bartleby as a nihilist, perverse, irrational, etc. are based on the narrator's view which is part of the reason for Melville's vision of the doctrines of "Self-Reliance" as unworkable in society. Obviously, society will negatively label anything it cannot understand or condone. It is an ironic fulfillment of Emerson's caution that "the populace think that your rejection of popular standards is a rejection of all standards" (p. 73).

Bartleby is constantly ordered to conform. After his colleagues declare him "wrong," he is told, "You hear what they say... come forth and do your duty" (30). Emerson declares, however, "the only right is what is after my constitution; the only wrong what is against it" (p. 52); "I have my own stern claims and perfect circle. It denies the name of duty to many offices that are called duties" (p. 74). It is to this that Bartleby adheres as he sits "in his hermitage, oblivious to everything but his own peculiar business there" (32). But the verdict of the lawyer is, "Either you must do something, or something must be done to you" (76). He can in no way understand the independent stance Bartleby has assumed in contrast to his own malleability in the face of society's pressures as manifested by his fear of the verdict of his friends and of rumors that might scandalize his professional reputation.

The continuous admonition of Emerson is, "Believe your own thought... believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men" (p. 47). However, what happens when two men with different ideologies, lifestyles and "thoughts" confront one another? When the narrator asks for an explanation Bartleby responds indifferently, "Do you not see the reason for yourself" (54), for Emerson has instructed, "Expect me not to show cause" (p. 53). Not understanding the necessity for free-will and self-determination, the narrator opts for a "predestined purpose" (66) as the explanation. He can interpret himself only on the basis of inter-relationships even to the point of attempting to instigate Bartleby to action by saying to him, "You are the cause of great tribulation to me" (76). This is true, of course, but the whole Transcendentalist stance of self-reliance is a negation of inter-dependence and is based on a self-determining premise.

Similarly, the narrator cannot accept Bartleby's integrity--that a person could follow his internal impulses and preferences without concern for externals of person or place. He describes a confrontation with Bartleby as: "His face was leanly composed; his gray eyes dimly calm. Not a wrinkle of agitation rippled him. Had there been the least uneasiness, anger, impatience or impertinence in his manner; in other words, had there been anything ordinarily human about him, doubtless I should have violently dismissed him from the premises" (26). His description of what he considers "human" qualities defines society's vision as well. The lawyer, who venerates Cicero, the epitome of temporizing expediency, is in no way prepared to encounter such a figure. The scrivener abides by Emerson's counsel: "A man is to carry himself in the presence of all opposition as if everything were titular and ephemeral but he" (p. 52). Unfortunately, the display of steadfast calm in the face of all opposition can be interpreted by the narrator only as abnormal, perverse and morbid.

The difficulty in the interpretation of the story lies partially in the fact that the lawyer's initial hesitation would seem to bear out Emerson's statement: "Absolve you to yourself, and you shall have the suffrage of the world" (p. 52)--but only momentarily. Emerson advises, "Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense" (p. 47), but Bartleby, who follows Emerson's dictum, finds it universally accepted as nonsense. He ends up destroyed by society, not "Clapped into jail by his consciousness" (p. 51) but clapped into jail by a society that deprives him of his free will and leaves him surrounded by windows where "peering out upon him [are] the eyes of murderers and thieves" (82)--as the whole society is composed of murderers of the spirit and thieves of the will. Emerson is correct when he claims, "Nature is not slow to equip us in the prison-uniform of the party to which we adhere" (p. 56) and in society a "prison-uniform" is the lot of the non-conformist. Bartleby's actions remain the same in prison but now society mandates his isolation and inactivity so they are acceptable. His situation refutes Emerson's insistence that "It is only as a man puts off all foreign support and stands alone that I see him to be strong and prevail" (p. 87).

The narrator cannot even understand why Bartleby should be disturbed by being in the Tombs. Because Bartleby is staring at a wall as usual, the lawyer cannot see that it is a question of free-will that defines his existence and claims, "To you, this should not be so vile a place" (82). The narrator's density to the very end refutes Emerson's contention that if one is true to himself and speaks truly he will prevail since "all persons have their moments of reason, when they look out into the region of absolute truth; then will they justify [him] and do the same thing" (p. 73).

The narrator has indulged in assumptions, like Emerson, but Melville has pointed out the unreliability of his practice. The doctrine of relativity is paramount and as the narrator observes, "After all, that assumption was simply my own, and none of Bartleby's" (60). Emerson's doctrines must be tested in the same way as the narrator's, for the "procedure seemed sagacious as ever--but only in theory. How it would prove in practice--there was the rub" (58). Emerson instructs, "Ask nothing of men, and in the endless mutation thou only firm column must presently appear the upholder of all that surrounds thee" (p. 87). The narrator also sees Bartleby as a column, but "like the last column of some ruined temple, he remained standing mute and solitary in the middle of the otherwise deserted room" (58). Melville's ironic use of Emerson's imagery is a direct commentary on the difference in their world views.

To the end Bartleby maintains his self-reliant stance as he refuses to talk to the narrator. Emerson affirms, "I will not hide my tastes or aversions.... If you are noble, I will love you; if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions, I will seek my own" (pp. 72-73). The narrator cannot be considered "noble" for Bartleby abides by Emerson's dictum "Your goodness must have some edge to it,--else it is none" (p. 53). Since he is unable to comprehend Bartleby's vision of the truth, he is ignored. Emerson compared the self-reliant non-conformist to "the king, the noble, or the great proprietor [who has been allowed to walk] among [the average man] by a law of his own, make his own scale of men and things, pay for benefits not with money but with honor, and represent the law in his person" (pp. 63-64), and so Bartleby can be described as sleeping with "kings and counselors" (p. 86). His fetal position reminds us of Emerson's statement that "Infancy conforms to nobody" (p. 50)--but puts an ironic light on the ending: "all conform to it."

The story remains a basic rebuttal of Emerson's doctrines of "Self-Reliance." It focuses on the rejection of the optimistic view that man is capable of successfully following the Transcendentalist principles of solitude and self-reliance in a world where society is equally determined to impose its own vision. If as Emerson has stated, "perception is not whimsical, but fatal," (p. 65) and "Nothing can bring you peace but the triumph of principles" (p. 87), then Bartleby's only alternative to a life of subjection is to will himself to die.

Although Emerson states, "Let our simplicity judge them, and our docility to our own law demonstrate the poverty of nature and fortune besides out native riches" (p. 71), Bartleby's adherence to the principles of self-reliance is neither understood nor appreciated by others. As the grub-man thought the singular Bartleby was a forger (a fraudulent imitator)--the narrator solaces himself by the vague tale of the Dead Letter Office to decry Bartleby's supposed morbidity and the lack of more extensive interdependence--a direct contradiction of all that Bartleby stood for.

Francine S. PUK

Pour tous les articles des numéros 6 et 7 de Delta, les indications de page figurant entre parenthèses apres une citation renvoient au texte anglais ou à la traduction de Pierre Leyris publiés en volume séparé par Delta.

(1) For a perceptive review of the critical history see: Kingsley Widmer, The Ways of Nihilism: Herman Melville's Short Novels (California: California State Colleges, 1970), pp. 95-104.

(2) College English, 6 (1945), 421-39.

(3) Hershel Parker, "Melville's Satire of Emerson and Thoreau: An Evaluation of the Evidence," in Studies in the Minor and Later Works of Melville, ed. Raymona E. Hull (Hartford: Transcendental Books, 1970), pp. 61-62.

(4) Christopher Sten, "Bartleby the Transcendentalist: Melville's Dead Letter to Emerson," Modern Language Quarterly, 35, N° 1 (1974), 30-44.

(5) Hull, pp. 15-17.

(6) Merrell R. Davis and William H. Gilman, eds., The Letters of Herman Melville (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), p. 124.

(7) Jay Leyda, ed., The Melville Log (New York: Gordian Press, 1969), 11, 925.

(8) William Braswell, "Melville as a Critic of Emerson," American Literature, 9 (1937), 19.

(9) Leyda, I, 412; Hershel Parker, ed., The Recognition of Herman Melville (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1970), pp. 14-19, 30.

(10) "Self-Reliance," The Complete Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1888), 11, 79. All parenthetical references to the essay are to this edition.

(11) Some critics who take this view are Richard Abcarian, "The World of Love and the Spheres of Fright: Melville's 'Bartleby the Scrivener,'" Studies in Short Fiction, I (1964), 207-15; Richard Chase, Herman Melville, A Critical Study (New York: MacMillan, 1949), pp. 143-46; Richard Harter Fogle, Melville's Shorter Tales (Norman: University of Oklahoma, 1960), pp. 19-27; Charles G. Hoffman, "The Shorter Fiction of Herman Melville," South Atlantic Quarterly, 52 (1953), pp. 418-19; Ronald Mason, The Spirit Above the Dust (London: John Lehmann, 1951), pp. 190-92; James E. Miller, A Reader's Guide to Herman Melville (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1956), pp. 160-61; Lewis Mumford, Herman Melville (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929), pp. 236-39.

return to bibliography