Skip to main content

What kind of business was Jacob Marley in?

Jacob Marley was Scrooge’s business partner in the counting house. 


Jacob Marley died seven years before the book began.  Before that, he was the closest thing that Scrooge had to a friend.  The two of them were partners in Scrooge’s current counting house, called Scrooge and Marley.  A counting house is like a bank.  Scrooge and Marley would lend money to people.


After Marley died, Scrooge did not change the name of the business.  He did not even change the sign.



Scrooge never painted out Old Marley’s name. There it stood, years afterwards, above the warehouse door: Scrooge and Marley. The firm was known as Scrooge and Marley. Sometimes people new to the business called Scrooge Scrooge, and sometimes Marley, but he answered to both names. (Stave 1)



Although Scrooge seems entirely unsentimental, leaving Marley’s name up could be a small bit of grief sneaking in.  Scrooge is definitely happy to see Marley’s ghost when he shows up, once he gets over the shock.  Marley wants to help Scrooge out while he is still alive.  Now that he is a ghost he has some perspective and realizes that it is not all about money.



“ … I cannot rest, I cannot stay, I cannot linger anywhere. My spirit never walked beyond our counting-house—mark me!—in life my spirit never roved beyond the narrow limits of our money-changing hole; and weary journeys lie before me!” (Stave 1)



Marley arranges somehow for Scrooge to get a chance at reclamation.  He will be visited by ghosts who will show him his past, present, and future so he can come more quickly to the realization that Marley came to—while he is still alive.  Scrooge tells Marley that he was a good businessman.  Marley’s response is that mankind should have been his business.  He should have been more interested in helping people than making money off of them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more