Question

Hello! This is another sentence from the book Crutch, the page by George Alfred Townsend which meaning I doubt of. Would anybody help me by explaining|rephrazing in plain English? "Harder to get both than a 'pintment in these crowded times on a opposition recommendation when all ole Virginny is yaw to be tuk care of," said Hon. Fitzchew Smy, of the Old Dominion.

Thank you!!!

Sijay · Accepted Answer

I'll leave most of this to others for the moment, but I can point out that "ole Virginny" and "the Old Dominion" are both older colloquialisms for the state of Virginia—where I happen to live.

Edit: I have no time to explain the whole thing right now, but I will try to later in the morning.

Lazurda · Answer

Thank you Sijay! Why don't you try the whole phrase? Pleeeease...

Lazurda · Answer

Hey, Sijay! What about the rest of the text?

"Gentlemen," said the Chairman of the Committee, Jeems Bee, "it 'pears to me that there's a social p'int right here. Reybold, bein' the only Whig on the Lake and Bayou Committee, ought to have something if he sees fit to ask for it. That's courtesy! We, of all men, gentlemen, can't afford to forget it."

"You're right, Bee!" cried Box Izard. "You give it a constitutional set."
"Reybold," continued Jeems Bee, thus encouraged, "Reybold is (to speak out) no genius! He never will rise to the summits of usefulness. He lacks the air, the swing, the pose, as the sculptors say; he won't treat, but he'll lend a little money, provided he knows where you goin' with it. If he ain't open-hearted, he ain't precisely mean!

"Further on, it may be said that the framers of the gov'ment never intended all the patronage to go to one side. Mr. Jeff'son put that on the steelyard principle: the long beam here, the big weight of being in the minority there. Mr. Jackson only threw it considabul more on one side, but even he, gentlemen, didn't take the whole patronage from the Outs; he always left 'em enough to keep up the courtesy of the thing, and we can't go behind him. Not and be true to our traditions. Do I put it right?"

Sijay · Answer

Hi, I have a moment to try to explain.

As you may already know, this character is using a kind of speech called simile—explicitly comparing one thing with another thing of a different kind, to make the description more colorful. Simple simile is common in colloquial American English:

tough as nails
quick as a wink
dumb as a post
slower than molasses

So Mr. Smy is saying that the task of "getting both" (part A) would be harder than (the comparison) another difficult task (part B).

What he's describing in (B) is complicated. Here's my best guess:

[... getting] an appointment₁ in these crowded times₂ on opposition recommendation₃ when all ole Virginny is yours to be taken care of₄.

1. getting appointed to a political office (or possibly, being granted an audience with someone in such an office),
2. when there is a lot of competition for such an appointment lately,
3. and you only have the political opposition recommending you,
4. and the position carries great responsibility–the care of a whole state.

But often times, extended, complicated simile like this is done only for humorous effect, and the specifics don't matter that much. Mr. Smy is just saying that "getting both" will be very difficult.

Sijay · Answer

lazurdaWhat about the rest of the text?

I'm afraid I don't have time to rephrase the whole book for you.

But feel free to ask new questions about specific parts!

You appear to be doing well with a fairly challenging text if you've gotten this far. Best of luck!

Lazurda · Answer

Hi Sijay from the Old Dominion!

Thanks a lot for your comments and explanations on the first paragraph. I am glad that you have confirmed my suspicions about its meaning.

I hope to be no burden... Would you please just confirm whether I am on the right track with the following:

1. he won't treat, but he'll lend a little money = he won't pay the whole amount but he'll lend a little money
2. the framers of the gov'ment never intended all the patronage to go to one side = (members of the) government never intended to allocate all the seats in the Congress to the winning party
3. didn't take the whole patronage from the Outs = didn't leave the Republicans without seats (in the Congress)?

Thank you in advance for your reply!!!

Sijay · Answer

Specific questions are much easier to address!

These are all very close—but in 2 and 3, patronage probably does not refer to actual seats in Congress but to the degree of influence that those minority seats hold. The President does not have control over who occupies Congressional seats/offices; those are elected positions, determined by a vote of the people represented by that office.

So the idea here is that while the members of the minority party ("the Outs") may find themselves few in number, the "framers of the government" and the President intend Congress to be accommodating of minority opinions and the needs of the people they represent, and not leave them without influence altogether.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions