Hello everyone, I met another question in the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". Thanks a lot for everyone's help in advance.

[李曉冬]

Hello everyone, I met another question in the novel " To Kill a Mockingbird ". I met the question in the paragraph below.

Being Southerners, it was a source of shame to some members of the family that
we had no recorded ancestors on either side of the Battle of Hastings. All we had
was Simon Finch, a fur-trapping apothecary from Cornwall whose piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess. In England, Simon was irritated by the
persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
liberal brethren, and as Simon called himself a Methodist, he worked his way
across the Atlantic to Philadelphia, thence to Jamaica, thence to Mobile, and up
the Saint Stephens. Mindful of John Wesley's strictures on the use of many words
in buying and selling, Simon made a pile practicing medicine, but in this pursuit
he was unhappy lest he be tempted into doing what he knew was not for the glory
of God, as the putting on of gold and costly apparel. So Simon, having forgotten
his teacher's dictum on the possession of human chattels, bought three slaves and
with their aid established a homestead on the banks of the Alabama River some
forty miles above Saint Stephens. He returned to Saint Stephens only once, to find
a wife, and with her established a line that ran high to daughters. Simon lived to
an impressive age and died rich.

I met the problem in the sentence " In England, Simon was irritated by the
persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
liberal brethren ".

Does " at the hands of their more liberal brethren " mean " because of their more liberal brothers " in the sentence " In England, Simon was irritated by the
persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
liberal brethren "?


Thanks a lot for everyone's help in advance. I really appreciate it.

http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Jan-22 16:33, 李曉冬 wrote:

> Does " at the hands of their more liberal brethren " mean " because of their more liberal brothers " in the sentence " In England, Simon was irritated by the
> persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more
> liberal brethren "?

"At the hands of" implies that it was the liberal brothers who were
doing the persecuting. Apparently the liberals were persecuting the
Methodists.

I'm not sure who the liberals would be in this context. Probably people
who had a more liberal interpretation of Christianity. The Methodists
were strict about things like moral purity, so they probably appeared
extreme to mainstream Christians.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[李曉冬]

Hello Dear Mr. Moylan, thank you very much for your help. I really appreciate it.

Does the sentence " In England, Simon was irritated by the

persecution of those who called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more

liberal brethren " mean " The fact that in England the more liberal brothers were persecuting the Methodists, irritated Simon "?

Thank you so much for your help again.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The reason Simon left England and came to America (and founded the
Finch family in America) is that he feared the persecution that
might come on him because he was Methodist -- and very pious (his "piety was
exceeded only by his stinginess").

In this passage there is a great deal of allusion to the Bible, to emphasize
his piety -- but this is knocked down by "made a pile [of money]," a
very colloquial and non-biblical expression to suggest that he was not
so pure or pious as he probably thought he was.

Note also that you cannot say "I met this question." You can say "I have a
question about this passage," for instance. You could say "I found a
problem" or even "I encountered a problem" (a more literary way
to say it).

[CDB]

Yes. The writer is mocking the religious quarrels of the time.
"Brethren" is a special form of "brothers" that is used mostly in
religious contexts. They were all "brethren" because they were all
Protestant Christians.

The "persecution" by more liberal church-goers was probably that they
prevented Simon's Methodists from punishing people severely for offenses
against their strict religious rules.

[David Kleinecke]

John D. Rockefeller imagined himself a paragon of morality and taught
Sunday School most of his life.

[Peter T. Daniels]

And tried to give away his money as fast as he could make it.

[David Kleinecke]

He had to be coerced into giving dimes to school children instead of
pennies.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You may have heard of the University of Chicago? (He would not allow them
to call it Rockefeller University.)

I'm more familiar with the philanthropies of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., who
financed (inter alia) the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Colonial Williamsburg, and the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem.

[David Kleinecke]

We seem to have rather different opinions of Rockefeller, Sr. In my
world he is the real life "Mr. Burns" - a grasping evil old man.

[Peter T. Daniels]

What do you know about the Leland Stanford who "founded" a Junior University
out your way? (Actually his widow did it, IIRC.)

And the Andrews -- Carnegie and Mellon -- whose steel-based universities
merged in Steeltown, PA?

For an ultra-extreme view of Rockefeller, see the recent book about Henry
Folger and his obsession with First Folios. The author is an economist,
and she devotes an utterly irrelevant three-page footnote to defending
robber-baronism. (Folger was one or JDR's closest associates.)

It confirmed that economists, almost without exception, are rightwing nutcases.

[David Kleinecke]

Krugman?

[Peter T. Daniels]

That would be the exception. And Keynes (and Galbraith), I suppose, but I used
the present tense. (Is Robert Reich an economist by profession?)

I thought the Freakonomics guys would be, too, but they aren't.

[bill van]

In article <1b3b1cef-1f34-43f3...@googlegroups.com>,

Galbraith?
--
bill

[David Kleinecke]

I read Krugman's columns faithfully and he has fellow thinkers whom
he names - but I forget them all except Brad deLong who has a
interesting blog (which I read via Huffpost Politics).

[Marius Hancu]

You should have gone to Google Books and searched for:
"at the hands of" idiom
Several idiom dictionaries show up with the appropriate idiom definition.

--
Marius Hancu

[Lewis]

In message <a990f113-05d9-4d81...@googlegroups.com>

Marius Hancu <marius...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 12:33:37 AM UTC-5, 李曉冬 wrote:
>> In England, Simon was irritated by the persecution of those who
>> called themselves Methodists at the hands of their more liberal
>> brethren,

>> Does " at the hands of their more liberal brethren " mean " because
>> of their more liberal brothers " in the sentence " In England, Simon
>> was irritated by the persecution of those who called themselves
>> Methodists at the hands of their more liberal brethren "?

I'm not sure which is your question. It means the more liberal brethren
persecuted those who called themselves Methodists.

>> Thanks a lot for everyone's help in advance. I really appreciate it.
>>
>> http://www.penfield.edu/webpages/jgarbarino/files/to_kill_a_mockingbird_text.pdf

> You should have gone to Google Books and searched for: "at the hands
> of" idiom Several idiom dictionaries show up with the appropriate
> idiom definition.

That too.

NOAD says:

at (or by) the hands (or hand) of
through the agency of: tests he would undergo at the hands of a senior
neurologist.

Which is good enough.

--
M is for MAUDE who was swept out to sea
N is for NEVILLE who died of ennui