Eric H. answered • 06/26/19
Writing Tutor
My review of sources related to this topic suggest that Mr. Radley's occupation was never revealed throughout the course of the book. If I recall correctly, and I believe that I do, Radley's occupation wasn't revealed in the film or by the author either. Extensive online research yielded the same conclusion. In addition, my lengthy review of this topic suggests that the contents of the brown paper bag were never revealed.
My interpretation of the text always led me to believe that Mr. Radley supported himself by reaping the benefits of public welfare. By virtue of how he evidences that he is not without means (via possession of modest worldly things), and in the complete absence of indications that he was independently wealth, I have come to this conclusion.
When I say "modest worldly things," I mean, for example, clothing that (by being not completely worn out in a suggestion of homelessness) doesn't point to the most acute and advanced forms of pauperism. While it is true that Mr. Radley is not in any way rich, I have always thought his austerity was religiously-motivated, and not contingent upon limited financial resources. Recall that at one point he was referred to as a "foot-washing Baptist." (The term suggests devotion to Christian tradition. It seems to be an allusion to how Christ, immediately before the Last Supper, washed his Disciples' feet in a consummate gesture of love and service in John 13:1-11.)
Allow me to turn to the meaning and origin of the phrase "bought cotton," as an examination of this phrase reveals that its negative connotation goes beyond the mere suggestion that one is unemployed.
Bear with me for a moment. I rarely engage resources that are not readily used by the academic community. I prefer that my research begin, and remain mostly within, well-recognized publications. However, I couldn't find a comprehensive observation about the origin of the phrase "bought cotton" anywhere but on the following forum:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/wordoriginsorg/bought-cotton-t10429.html
It is a completely non-professional forum, and take what is said within it with a grain of salt. However, I was dissatisfied with the simple interpretations of the phrase that I found elsewhere. These sources merely said that the phrase refers to the absence of employment.
By contrast, one of the contributors on the forum interpreted it in a creative way, which makes sense. He writes the following, as he responds to someone's question about the origins of the phrase:
"[The expression] possibly [goes] back to a time when households commonly made their own cloth, and using store-bought stuff might signify (esp. to those who couldn't afford it, and preferred to think of themselves as industrious rather than poor) laziness [...]"
Refer to the aforementioned link to access this statement, which I located myself in the last thirty minutes today, June 25, 2019.
While "buying cotton," as the forum contributor says, suggests the possession of money to buy actual cotton, the point of his statement is that hard work is suggested by the use of one's own home-grown cotton, and not the store-bought variety. However, we know that Mr. Radley collected welfare checks. In other words, it makes more sense that he is, as is consistent with the interpretation of "buying cotton" found in To Kill A Mockingbird, unemployed. However, in light of what this forum contributor says, the negative connotation goes even further to suggest that Mr. Radley is lazy.
I really loved your question. I hope this answers it.
