Gospel of Mammonism (p.480)

In Thomas Carlyle’s lecture, Gospel of Mammonism, he told the grim tale of an Irish Widow and her three children who were forced to “solicit help from the Charitable Establishments of that City.” (p.480) Carlyle told how the woman was refused each time she attempted to get help for herself and her children.  Eventually, broken and sick, the woman contracted typhus-fever and died.  When she died she “infected her Lane with fever, so that “seventeen other persons” died of fever there in consequence.” (p.480) The tragic story served as an example of how heartless Carlyle believed the post-industrial society had become.  The societal focus on wealth; the polarization of the rich and poor; made stories like this one too commonplace for Carlyle to bear. 

I thought this lecture by Carlyle was a bit of a change, albeit a subtle one, from his work in Past and Present.  Carlyle asked, “Would it not have been economy to help this poor Widow?” (p.480) Carlyle’s question was attributed to a character he called the “humane physician.”  I thought Carlyle purposely identified the speaker who asked the question any compassionate reader would ask as the humane physician to call attention to a mass of people in his day who were deemed inhumane.  Similarly, I thought Carlyle went an extra step to point out that the seventeen other persons who died after being infected by the widow did so as a consequence of their failure to help her rather than as a consequence of her illness.

By pointing out the consequence of their failure to help a needy widow, Carlyle brought in principles learned in his Calvinist upbringing.  The notion of a God who punishes sin was clearly brought home when Carlyle pointed out the widow’s cry for help, “Behold I am sinking, bare of help: ye must help me!  I am your sister, bone of your bone; one God made us; ye must help me!” (p.480-481) The failure to help the widow was not caused by an inability to help but was caused by a refusal to help.  That refusal in the face of obvious need was viewed by Carlyle as an affront to God, since it was God who made all people.  The brotherhood of man and their denial of that sisterhood they shared with the widow was clearly identified when her illness spread and killed seventeen people.  Those seventeen, we must assume, were not other poor widows but were healthy, and possibly wealthy individuals.  The sickness affected them regardless of their standing in society and proved their guilt for denying a sister in need.

Carlyle was not advocating a welfare state but believed it was a natural occurrence, and a duty for the “government of the Poor by the Rich”. (p.481) Carlyle disagreed with the post-industrial standard of “Supply-and-demand, Laissez-faire”(p.481) direction as a substitution for a government run by the rich who could mentor the poor and direct them into positive action.  The government of the poor by the rich carried forth Carlyle’s belief that the rich possessed an intellect, a heart and a desire to lead.  A supply and demand business model for leadership presented society with no heart and no soul.  The laissez-faire leadership model simply created a competition for profit and not a benevolent leader.  In the absence of such leadership Carlyle said the population was aimless.  His comment on behalf of the people who denied the Irish Widow some assistance, “Nay, what wouldst thou thyself have us do?”(p.481) begged the answer Carlyle was advocating from the government, “Nothing, my friends,--till you have got a soul for yourselves again.  Till then all things are “impossible”.”(p.481)

I subscribe to Carlyle’s idea that there are often segments of the population that need assistance to get beyond a setback.  I disagree that the rich are somehow more capable of leading because it is not the size of one’s bank account that identifies fitness to lead.  If the idea is that the rich are better educated, more motivated and better equipped to lead, then I could see his point.  I believe the will of the people often needs some adjustment, a reminder to be gracious, and some direction to a common goal.  There are always costs to be paid when we fail to act properly and certainly a price to be paid when we refuse to be humane.  We pay those costs every day and whether it is on an individual or societal level, the price is high.  When the price reaches a point where it is painful to pay, action ensues.  In Carlyle’s story, the price was seventeen infected people dying from typhus-fever.  I don’t know if that cost changed the minds of those who refused to aid the Irish Widow, but I would hope the seventeen did not die in vain.