Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1886-11-11
GENIUS AND BUSINESS.
THE IMPRoVDENcE OF SOME MEN
OF LITERARY TASTES.


less Expenditure Among the Authors
of Modern Times-English Writers and
Our own Literary Men.
Coming down TO more recent times we find
among the modern men Of genius compare
lively few examples Of real improvidence.
Leigh Hunt is usually considered as one of
this class, for he was poor all his life and al
ways in debt, and at one time considered not
overscrupulous in payment. William HaZlitt
lived all his life from hand to mouth, and
would never write an article OF do any kind
of literary work as long as he had guinea in
his purse Gentle Kit North was another
man who had little regard for money. He
never looked at or touched money in the
usual way. No one for its own sake or for
his own purposes ever regarded riches with
such perfect Indifference.
Byron, who was born to debts and an in
numbered estate, had lords scorn of earning
money. There were nine executions in his
house during his brief married life, and he in
dignantly sent back check to his publishers
at the very time when the officers were pre-
siding over his establishment.
Carlyle was too canny Scotchman not to
know how to take care of himself, although
he was miserably poor in the early days. He
carried the economies Of his youth a little
beyond the time they were necessary, and
made it somewhat harder for Mrs. Carlyle
than there was need of all the way
through, much to his own regret after her
death. Lord Tennyson has never disdained
to make money from his work; indeed, he has
seemed extremely anxious to do so, and has
succeeded even beyond his hopes He has
probably received the largest prices for liter
ary work of any man living, and he has care
fully husbanded his gains.
Thomas de Quincy was a man almost de-
void of financial knowledge or ability of any
kind. He almost starved in the streets of
London when young, although his father was
wealthy man. Later in life he so misman-
aged money, and was so conscious of it him
self, that he gave up all management of his
expenses to a daughter, then but a young
girl, after which his affairs were kept in better
order. Walter SCOTS pecuniary troubles
have become historical, but they may per-
haps be attributed as much to misfortune as
to incompetency. Charles Lamb, although
overgenerous, could not be called improvi-
dent By bis own unaided exertion he cared
for himself and afflicted sister through life,
and even made provision for Mary after his
death.
Macaulay was prudent although a gen
erous, man. He amassed considerable for
tune, although he cared for his entire family
for large portion of his life, and was very
open to calls upon his resources from those
who had no particular claim upon him.
Wordsworth was a man prudent even to par
simony, standing almost alone among the
records of genius in this respect. In the early
e h. hol
been absolutely necessary, and he had ac-
quired such habit of practicing them that
he could not drop them when they ceased to
be necessary; as is so often the case with
other people beside poets. Unlike Words
worth in this respect was Sydney Smith, who
practiced close economy while it was needful,
but spent his money very hberally, though
always wisely, after he became rich.
Douglas Jerrold was a man very liberal
of his money when he had any. Tom Hood
was always poor and always sick, yet he was
possessed of sturdy independence which re-
fused the assistance of friends though ten
dered ever so delicately, and of a generous
heart which gave to others even out of his
pittance.
Charles Dickens was keen, business man
almost too keen, it was thought, in his
later years. II was known at the time-to
himself as well as to his friends-that he was
seriously injuring his health by his reading
tours, yet it seemed almost impossible for him
to give them up as long as they were so i'm
mensely profitable. Thackeray was a man
who combined prudence with generosity, and
who skilfully managed all his business affairs;
and yet he was open handed to his needy
friends. He saved for his daughters a very
comfortable fortune out of his literary gains.
Our own literary men of note-if we except
Poe-have all been men of thrift and practi-
cal sense in business affairs. Washington
Irving cared for himself and a large family
of sisters out of his literary profits, and left a
moderate fortune besides. Bryant saved
quite fortune for his time, and was esteemed
a shrewd business man. Emerson had the
Yankee good sense and economy, and, though
be "hitched his wagon to a star" never lost
his hold on mundane things Longfellow was
good man of business, and in his latter years
was reputed wealthy. Even Whittier, who
gave so much time and strength unselishly
to the anti-slavery reform, has always been
well-to-do, and has none of poets disregard
for worldly affairs Prescott and Motley and
Bancroft were all shrewd men of affairs, as
are Lowell ard DR.. Holmes. Mark Twain
has a genius for money making, and Howells
and Aldrich are prosperous men. Mr.. Alcott,
the philosopher, is our only visionary of the
old school, 1 think, unless we should mention
Thoreau in that connection. Hawthorne was
poor and had no love for the task of money
getting, yet he could not be called improvi-
dent or devoid of good sense in financial
affairs Altogether the modern man Of
genius may be trusted to take care of himself,
and seems to succeed in worldly matters quite
as well as his brethren less favored by the
gods-Hattie Tying Griswold in Chicago
Tribune