Though Herman Melville’s “Bartleby the Scrivener: A Story of Wall Street” and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” take place in drastically different time periods, they share a plethora of different varying motifs in syntax and theme. These similarities allow for a well-developed analysis of the two works. Both works are an illustration of the moral and character corruption of good people within their realms due to the unfavorable societal settings and values of the evolving society.  Herman Melville and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s works portray characters trapped in their own environments with similar internal conflicts, however their approaches to how their conflicts arise and how they deal with them prove to be very different. Both works although extremely dissimilar, include analogous themes and motifs which may be more easily understood by using one another to identify those ideas.

Melville and Hawthorne use functional and symbolic characteristics to name the individuals in their works. Each author uses this naming technique in their own styles to define the characters as well as enhance the overall message of the stories. Hawthorne uses a more abstract approach to naming by using symbolic qualities whereas Melville uses primarily functional and physical features. Hawthorne’s characters such as Faith and Goodman Brown are prime examples of names with symbolic inference. Goodman Brown is a representation of innocence and traditional Christian values. His name also represents irony because of his newfound distrust in the inherent goodness of humanity. Faith embodies domesticity, virtue and the stability of Puritanism. Hawthorne uses the pink ribbons of Faith’s hat to symbolize her youth and innocence. In the opening of the story, we see her wearing the hat as she kisses her loving husband goodbye, “And Faith, as the wife was aptly named, thrust her own pretty head into the street, letting the wind play with the pink ribbons of her cap while she called to Goodman Brown” (Hawthorne 1). Near the end, Goodman Brown comes to believe that she is not the expectations of Puritanism “But something fluttered lightly down through the air and caught on the branch of a tree. The young man seized it, and beheld a pink ribbon” (Hawthorne 5). Faith represents the opposite of these values due to her presence in alternate realms of good and evil. Both of these characters highlight the hypocrisy of both the Puritan belief system as well as their society while emphasizing the archetypal imperfections of humans as a whole. While Melville’s character names are not as forthcoming about their symbolic natures, they embody functional or physical features such as Nippers and Turkey. Nippers is characterized by his ambitious nature and sporadic behavior whereas Turkey is his opposite, slower, messy and ill tempered. The lawyer describes Turkey as “strange, inflamed, flurried, and flighty reckless” (Melville 2). He also characterizes Nippers as “irritable and nervous” (Hawthorne 5). Both characters also are opposites by the times they are most effective at their work. The contrast of these individuals is similar to the contrast of Hawthorne’s Faith and Goodman Brown through their apparent surface view differences but deeper view equality. 

Both authors use a linear approach to the evolution of their characters. Bartleby and Goodman Brown follow different paths to the loss of innocence but end with the ultimate downfall of deterioration of character and death. Bartleby’s evolution includes a mockery of American consumerism and self-indulgence which catalyzes his rapid decline into nothingness. For Goodman Brown, Hawthorne uses the possibilities of coexisting realms to characterize and expand on the downfall of Goodman into a cynical man. His symbolic loss of faith leads to his moral corruption and ultimate downfall in society. The loss of innocence is a paralleled theme between both works which is reflected in the main character’s evolution. For Bartleby, the dead letters create the vehicle for developing his personality and his madness. The overall effect the job had on his character leads the lawyer to understand why Bartleby is the way he is, “Dead letters! Does it not sound like dead men? Conceive a man by nature and misfortune prone to a pallid hopelessness, can any business seem more fitted to heighten it than that of continually handling these dead letters, and assorting them for the flames?” (Melville 28).  For Goodman Brown, his lack of faith and ease of corruptibility leads to his acceptance of evil and ultimate lack of innocence. Hawthorne describes Goodman Brown’s eventual character as “A stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not a desperate man did he become” (8). Both characters show that all humans go through similar experiences and that the loss of innocence is inevitable. 

A motif in both works is the rejection of desire, self-desire and the significance it plays in the stories. In “Young Goodman Brown”, the protagonist resides in a Puritan culture whose basis is formed off of the complete rejection of self-indulgence and efforts to ward off sin. In “Bartleby the Scrivener”, Bartleby systematically rejects consumerism and pleasure by refusing all requests of the lawyer leading to his eventual complete metamorphosis into nothing. He tells the lawyer multiple times throughout the story, “I prefer not to” (Melville 7). Eventually his refusal to work evolves into a refusal to eat, “‘Won’t he dine to-day either? Or does he live without dining?’ ‘Live without dining,’ said I, and closed the eyes” (Melville 27). Both of these rejections of self-indulgence makes a comment on the current state of American consumerism and the flaws of the mentality of our past and present society. 

Melville and Hawthorne’s works can both be analyzed singularly and collectively. While both are extremely different stories, their underlying themes and motifs can be identified by using one another as reference points. The differences in time period, setting, and style are overshadowed by the obvious connection between the significance of character names, the loss of innocence, rejection of desires, and similar character evolution. Through these ideas, the reader can better develop an understanding that self-deprecation is a natural part of human existence, but should not be all consuming. 
