2017/03/17 by Alexander Jordan · 1 citation
Social Sciences · Economics, Econometrics and Finance · #Political Economy and Marxism #Economic Theory and Institutions #Economic Theory and Policy
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/ehr/cex068
openalex publication_date 2017/03/17 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/05/21
Abstract Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881) is notorious for his description of economics as ‘the dismal science’. In the existing literature, Carlyle is portrayed as an ignorant and philistine critic, who rejected the science from the outside, on purely ‘moral’ grounds. In contrast, the current article offers a close, comprehensive, and contextualised reading of Carlyle’s oeuvre, continually following up his sources, interlocutors, and reception. In short, it argues that Carlyle was relatively well-informed, participating in some key debates within political economy. The article begins by situating Carlyle in 1820s Edinburgh. Whereas Smith had understood political economy as a subordinate branch of the ‘science of the legislator’, Stewart and McCulloch drew a sharp distinction between political economy and politics. Having established political economy as an independent science, they called upon the legislator to withdraw from economic life. Having expressed severe misgivings, Carlyle found an alternative in Sismondi and the Saint-Simonians, who sought to shift the emphasis away from the production of material wealth, and towards distribution, morality, and ethics. Having reconstructed the controversies in which Carlyle engaged with specific political economists, the article argues that it was not altogether unreasonable for Carlyle to consider certain strands of political economy a ‘dismal science’. The article then examines the reception of Carlyle’s writings amongst Owenites, Chartists, and scholars of ancient Greek. It also shows how Carlyle won over some political economists, notably John Stuart Mill. Finally, the article explores the influence of Carlyle upon advocates of a ‘social science’, and upon some later nineteenth-century economists.