Foils and Fools: “Bartleby” and the Failure of Romantic Possibility

Abstract: “Bartleby” has elicited an inordinate number of readings, as it strikingly bridges the gulf between the antebellum sensibility and our own, but this essay sees it less as a forerunner of postmodern dislocations or indeterminacies, than as an exploration—or, rather, an exposition—of the limits of Romantic possibility. More specifically, the essay frames “Bartleby” as Melville’s response to the illusions or inadequacies of Transcendentalism. As distinct from the few readings that have connected Melville’s short story to Transcendentalism, this essay locates Melville’s critique of Transcendentalism not only in the figure of Bartleby, but also in that of the lawyer. Further, it points to a confrontation with Transcendentalism which focuses less on self-reliance than on another of Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essential notions—that of power—arguing that, far from being a figure of potentiality, Bartleby is an emblem of starkly thwarted possibility, offering one of Melville’s harshest comments on the humanist vision of agency, discovery, and insight.