Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
of his position on the subject and then focuses on his attack on utilitarianismʼs role in the architecture of the New Poor Law of 1834. Finally, economistsʼ opinions on Carlyleʼs statements on utilitarianism are reviewed. It bears mentioning that when reading Carlyle one is as likely to ask, âIs this what he meant?â as to say, âThis is what he meant.â His writing style is so challenging that Emerson ([1843] 1941, xi) described it as reminiscent of that of a sick giant. William Henry Smith ([1843] 1971, 217), in a review of Carlyleʼs Past and Present, described him as an author who can be âwhimsical and absurd, can deal abundantly in obscurities and contradictions, and can withal write the most motley, confused English of any man living.â Examples of Carlyleʼs whimsy are found in Sartor Resartus ([1834] 1937, 220), where he calls utilitarians the most owlish of owls; and in a notebook (1972, 143â144), where he asks if it is true that âof all quacks that ever quacked . . . in any age of the world, the Political Economists of this age are, for their intrinsic size, the loudest?â3 But buried within these whimsies are sharp attacks
History of Political Economy – Duke University Press
Published: Jun 1, 2006
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.