1 This article was originally read as a formal lecture at St. Mary's College in April 1962. A shorter version was read at the annual meeting of the PAPC at Berkeley in November 1962. It was evoked by Leo Marx's article on “Bartleby,” “Melville and the Parable of the Walls,” Sewanee Review, lxi (Autumn 1953), 602–627, the most extensive treatment of the novella in print. Marx sees a “grave defect in Melville's tale” because “we must go back to Typee and Moby Dick and Pierre for clues to its meaning.” Because he does not see the story as an artistic success, Marx decides that Melville takes “extraordinary means to mask his meaning,” and he attempts to reclaim the tale by treating it as Melville's statement on the writer in society. The work finally becomes, for Marx, an affirmation on Melville's part, “a compassionate rebuke to the self-absorption of the artist Bartleby and so a plea that he [the artist] devote himself to keeping strong his bonds with the rest of mankind.”
Further comment on Marx's article and an excellent short survey of the limitations and hazards of the “social-biographical allegorizing” criticism of Melville appear in Kingsley Widmer's article, “The Negative Affirmation: Melville's Bartleby,” MFS, viii (Autumn 1962), 276–286. (A useful bibliography on “Bartleby” appears in the same issue, which is a Herman Melville Number.) Widmer's perceptive reading properly accepts “Melville's directions of form” and focuses on the narrator. I would disagree, however, with his view that the negation Bartleby represents ever becomes “unmistakable to the narrator” as it does to the reader. This distinction, as my analysis demonstrates, I see as the control on all the parts of the tale, the key to an understanding of its wholeness and beauty.
