can you help with this passage on hazlitt On the want of money
There are two classes of people that I have observed who are not so distinct as might be imagined - those who cannot keep their own money in their hands, and those who cannot keep their hands from other people's. The first are always in want of money, though they do not know what they do with it. They muddle it away, without method or object, and without having anything to shew for it. They have not, for instance, a fine house, but they hire two houses at a time; they have not a hot-house in their garden, but a shrubbery within doors; they do not gamble, but they purchase a library, and dispose of it when they move house. A princely benefactor provides them with lodgings, where, for a time, you are sure to find them at home: and they furnish them in a handsome style for those who are to come after them. With all this sieve-like economy, they can only afford a leg of mutton and a single bottle of wine, and are glad to get a lift in a common stage; whereas with a little management and the same disbursements, they might entertain a round of company and drive a smart tilbury. But they set no value upon money, and throw it away on any object or in any manner that first presents itself, merely to have it off their hands, so that you wonder what has become of it. The second class above spoken of not only make away with what belongs to themselves, but you cannot keep any thing you have from their rapacious grasp. If you refuse to lend them what you want, they insist that you must: if you let them have anything to take charge of for a time (a print or a bust) they swear that you have given it to them, and that they have too great a regard for the donor ever to part with it. You express surprise at their having run so largely in debt; but where is the singularity while others continue to lend? And how is this to be helped, when the manner of these sturdy beggars amounts to dragooning you out of your money, and they will not go away without your purse, any more than if they came with a pistol in their hand? If a person has no delicacy, he has you in his power, for you necessarily feel some towards him; and since he will take no denial, you must comply with his peremptory demands, or send for a constable, which out of respect for his character you will not do. These persons are also poor - light come, light go - and the bubble bursts at last. Yet if they had employed the same time and pains in any laudable art or study that they have in raising a surreptitious livelihood, they would have been respectable, if not rich. It is their facility in borrowing money that has ruined them. No one will set heartily to work, who has the face to enter a strange house, ask the master of it for a considerable loan, on some plausible and pompous pretext, and walk off with it in his pocket. You might as well suspect a highwayman of addicting himself to hard study in the intervals of his profession.
There is only one other class of persons I can thing of, in connexion with the subject of this Essay - those who are always in want of money from the want of spirit to make use of it. Such persons are perhaps more to be pitied than all the rest. They live in want, in the midst of plenty -- dare not touch what belongs to them, are afraid to say that their soul is their own, have their wealth locked up from them by fear and meanness as effectually as by bolts and bars, scarcely allow themselves a coat to their backs or a morsel to eat, are in dread of coming to the parish all their lives, and are not sorry when they die, to think that they shall no longer be an expense to themselves - according to the old epigram:
"Here lies Father Clarges,
Who died to save charges!"
There are two classes of people that I have observed who are not so distinct as might be imagined - those who cannot keep their own money in their hands, and those who cannot keep their hands from other people's "money" the object of the possessive makes the sentence clearer. The first are always in want of money, though they do not know what they "could/would"? do with it. They muddle Clearer verb? it away, without method or object, and without having anything to shewSp for it. They have not, for instance, a fine house, but they hire two houses at a time; they have not a hot-house in their garden, but a shrubbery within doors; they do not gamble, but they purchase a library, and dispose of it when they move house. Can Delete "house." Might be easier to read as separate sentences. A princely benefactor provides them with lodgings, where, for a time, you are sure to find them at home: and they furnish them referent is unclear. in a handsome style for those who are to come after them. With all this sieve-like economy, they can only afford a leg of mutton and a single bottle of wine, and are glad to get a lift in a common stage; whereas with a little management and the same disbursements, they might entertain a round of company and drive a smart tilbury?. But they set no value upon money, and throw it away on any object or in any manner that first presents itself, merely to have it off their hands, so that you wonder what has become of it.
Use new paragraph to indicate change in topic, persons, places or times.
The second class above spoken of not only make away with what belongs to themselves, but you cannot keep anything you have from their rapacious grasp. If you refuse to lend them what you want, they insist that you must: if you let them have anything to take charge of for a time (a print or a bust) they swear that you have given it to them, and that they have too great a regard for the donor ever to part with it. You express surprise at their having run so largely in debt; but where is the singularity ? while others continue to lend? And Delete "and." how is this to be helped, when the manner of these sturdy beggars amounts to dragooning you out of your money, and they will not go away without your purse, any more than if they came with a pistol in their hand? If a person has no delicacy, he has you in his power, for you necessarily feel some What? towards him; and since he will take no denial, you must comply with his peremptory demands, or send for a constable, which out of respect for his character you will not do. These persons are also poor - light come, light go - and the bubble bursts at last. Yet if they had employed the same time and pains in any laudable art or study that they have in raising a surreptitious livelihood, they would have been respectable, if not rich. It is their facility in borrowing money that has ruined them. No one will set heartily to work, who has the face to enter a strange house, ask the master of it for a considerable loan, on some plausible and pompous pretext, and walk off with it in his pocket. You might as well suspect a highwayman of addicting himself to hard study in the intervals of his profession.
There is only one other class of persons I can thing Sp of, in connexion Sp with the subject of this Essay - those who are always in want of money from the want of spirit to make use of it. Such persons are perhaps more to be pitied than all the rest. They live in want, in the midst of plenty -- dare "daring"? not touch what belongs to them, are afraid to say that their soul is their own, have their wealth locked up from them by fear and meanness as effectually as by bolts and bars, scarcely allow themselves a coat to their backs or a morsel to eat, are in dread of coming to the parish all their lives, and are not sorry when they die, to think that they shall no longer be an expense to themselves - according to the old epigram:
"Here lies Father Clarges,
Who died to save charges!"
It is hard to evaluate your work, because you are using many phrases and terms from your culture, which do not seem to be used in mine. If these terms and phrases fit the intended reader(s), don't change them.
However, your sentences are excessively long. As a reader, I often got lost in these sentences. Many of the behavioral examples can be expressed as separate sentences.
I would also recommend starting out by mentioning all three categories, using at least a paragraph for each category.
I hope this helps. Thanks for asking.
can some one help me understand this passage
it is from hazlitt
On the want of money
Certainly! The passage you provided is from William Hazlitt's essay titled "On the Want of Money." In this essay, Hazlitt discusses different classes of people who struggle with money and provides observations about their behavior.
The passage begins by introducing two classes of people who are not as distinct as they may seem: those who cannot keep their own money and those who cannot keep their hands off other people's money. The first class of people always seems to be in want of money, even though they are not sure what they do with it. They spend money without any method or purpose and have nothing to show for it. For example, instead of owning a fine house, they end up renting two houses at a time. They do not have a hot-house in their garden but maintain a shrubbery indoors. Instead of gambling, they buy a library and eventually sell it when they move house. Despite their erratic spending, they can only afford basic necessities like a leg of mutton and a bottle of wine. Hazlitt suggests that with better management, they could entertain guests and enjoy a more comfortable lifestyle.
The second class of people, on the other hand, not only squander their own money but also have a tendency to take from others. If you refuse to lend them something, they will insist that you must. If you entrust them with something temporarily, they will claim ownership and refuse to return it. Hazlitt mentions that their borrowing behavior often leads them into debt, and while this may surprise some, it is not uncommon as long as others continue to lend to them. These individuals are relentless in their pursuit of money and can be very persuasive in getting others to part with their own. Hazlitt compares their tactics to that of a highwayman, as they manipulate and coerce others into giving up their money.
Finally, Hazlitt mentions a third class of individuals who are always in want of money because they lack the spirit or courage to make use of it. These people live in a state of scarcity even when surrounded by plenty. They are afraid to touch what belongs to them, hesitant to claim ownership of their own possessions, and lack the confidence to assert themselves. Their fear and meanness lock up their wealth, preventing them from using it for their own benefit. As a result, they live in constant deprivation, barely affording basic necessities and even fearing the possibility of becoming dependent on others in their old age.
In this passage, Hazlitt explores different perspectives on the want of money and highlights the behaviors that contribute to the financial difficulties faced by these different classes of people.