The two themes are prevalent in the narrative. They have been essential in the
organization of the whole story. In the first paragraph, the narrator, the unspecific lawyer, starts
by describing himself as an elderly man who has encountered several scriveners (Weinstock 24).
The narrator describes to the reader what he is not going to recount. He reveals that he would not
provide all the details despite having the potential to narrate. The narrator forfeits to present the
He notes that ‘
The narrator fails to present the
entire biographical account of Bartleby because there is nothing that has been document of the
law-copyist. Instead, he was to report what he perceived, and the rumors propagated about his
subject.
The themes are apparent as the lawyer is unwilling to narrate Bartleby’s story. Despite
being a lawyer with original legal documents which he hired scriveners to duplicate, the narrator
is only willing to narrate what he heard and saw about Bartley in writing. The lawyers’
retrospective narration of the events witnessed will not be original but what had already
transpired. He is only willing to copy the details heard and seen about his copyist. Despite
Bartley being a member of the original copyist, he does not perform his duties (Weinstock 28).
Additionally, prior to Bartleby’s employment’ as a law-copyist, the theme of confusion of
copy and original is evident in the text. The reader is informed of Nippers’ role, another
narrator’s scrivener. The narrator shows that Nippers had ambition in the exercise of his post
which was described as ‘an unwarrantable usurpation of strictly professional affairs, such as the