0

In the first chapter of Walden, Economy, Thoreau writes:

It is very evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, for my sight has been whetted by experience; always on the limits, trying to get into business and trying to get out of debt, a very ancient slough, called by the Latins aes alienum, another's brass, for some of their coins were made of brass; still living, and dying, and buried by this other's brass; always promising to pay, promising to pay, tomorrow, and dying today, insolvent; seeking to curry favor, to get custom, by how many modes, only not state-prison offenses; lying, flattering, voting, contracting yourselves into a nutshell of civility or dilating into an atmosphere of thin and vaporous generosity, that you may persuade your neighbor to let you make his shoes, or his hat, or his coat, or his carriage, or import his groceries for him; making yourselves sick, that you may lay up something against a sick day, something to be tucked away in an old chest, or in a stocking behind the plastering, or, more safely, in the brick bank; no matter where, no matter how much or how little.

Having done the research on the usage, I can't stop wondering whether the sentence rewritten by me, [...]seeking to curry favor, to get custom, by how many modes, by only no state-prison offenses; lying, flattering,[..], is correct? Does using not in the original sentence give it different meaning from my version?

Improve this question
5
  • 2
    It is pretty unclear. But generally, not and no will not have the same scope and you can't replace one by the other. I think he means "only [not state-prison] offences", qualifying and limiting the offences he is talking about. Your rewording is even less clear.
    – Colin Fine
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 9:26
  • 1
    Yeah, it's not very clear: Thoreau is aiming as much for the general impression of a long list of things, as by a specific meaning for each clause. Maybe "by how many modes, everything except state prison-offences", but I wouldn't be confident of his exact meaning without more background study. I don't know if you'd get a better answer on Literature SE; it tends to not get many visitors, although the question would fit in well there.
    – Stuart F
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 10:58
  • 2
    Perhaps his publisher should have advanced him some more full stops.
    – Phil Sweet
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 11:03
  • 1
    First, it's a wild ride of stream of consciousness, so overanalysis is unfair. And the "lying" list follows after a semicolon, so it's maybe a detailing of such offenses, maybe not.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 15:11
  • 1
    If this passage appeared on the webpage of some present-day blogger, it probably wouldn't be worthy of analysis, and this question would deserve to be closed. Given that it appears in a widely read text of a highly esteemed author, however, there are likely to be quite a few people who would profit from its being explained on this site, if that is possible. The question should therefore remain open. If the research and analysis that some of the regular contributors to this site may be able to undertake does not produce an explanation, that itself will be worth posting as the answer.
    – jsw29
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 20:49

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

Follow the semicolons . . .

(a paraphrase) :

I know, based on experience, that many of you are:

  • trying to get out of debt;
  • still dying for the coin;
  • promising to pay tomorrow and dying insolvent today;
  • seeking to curry favor by [any mode] [short of] state-prison offenses;
  • lying, flattering, voting, [etc.];
  • making yourselves sick to get a sick day;
  • . . .
Improve this answer
0

As I read it (with much of the verbage removed):

It is very evident what mean and sneaking lives many of you live, for my sight has been whetted by experience; always on the limits, trying to get into business and trying to get out of debt,… [You are] always promising to pay, … seeking to curry favor, to get custom. By how many modes [do you do this?], only [you do not do it by offenses that would put you in state-prison; [but by] lying, flattering, voting, …, that you may persuade your neighbor to let you … import his groceries for him; [You work] so hard that you make] yourselves sick, that you may lay up something against a sick day, … in the brick bank; no matter where, no matter how much or how little.

Improve this answer
8
  • OK, but is 'you do not do it by offenses that would put you in state-prison' meant to leave it open that 'you' do it by offenses that would put you in, say, a local (county) jail? in other words, is 'state-prison' qualification meant to do some serious job here, or is it just a pointless embellishment?
    – jsw29
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 16:05
  • @jsw29 that would put you in, say, a local (county) jail? No... it means "by criminal means".
    – Greybeard
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 16:11
  • People do get put in local jails for committing crimes (only less serious ones than would put one in a state-prison); that's one of the purposes of jails.
    – jsw29
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 16:14
  • Yes but Thoreau is saying that these people do not use criminal means - they use immoral (or at least, dubious) means.
    – Greybeard
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 17:23
  • I agree that it is likely that that's what he had in mind, but then what he is trying to say is that they do not do it by offenses that would put them in any kind of prison/jail. Incarceration in a state prison is not the only kind of incarceration that there is (at least in the U.S.), and his use of the term state-prison is, at best, pointless, and, at worst, confusing. A full analysis of this passage should say so.
    – jsw29
    Commented Mar 26, 2023 at 18:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .