How we cite our quotes: Citations follow this format: (Book.Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #7
'I would advise you (since you ask me) to consider this question, as you have been accustomed to consider every other question, simply as one of tangible Fact.[…] Now, what are the Facts of this case? You are, we will say in round numbers, twenty years of age; Mr. Bounderby is, we will say in round numbers, fifty. There is some disparity in your respective years, but in your means and positions there is none; on the contrary, there is a great suitability. Then the question arises, Is this one disparity sufficient to operate as a bar to such a marriage? In considering this question, it is not unimportant to take into account the statistics of marriage, so far as they have yet been obtained, in England and Wales. I find, on reference to the figures, that a large proportion of these marriages are contracted between parties of very unequal ages, and that the elder of these contracting parties is, in rather more than three-fourths of these instances, the bridegroom. It is remarkable as showing the wide prevalence of this law, that among the natives of the British possessions in India, also in a considerable part of China, and among the Calmucks of Tartary, the best means of computation yet furnished us by travelers, yield similar results.' (1.15.22)
OK, think about what's happening here this way: your friend is asking for advice about dating a creepy old guy. Do you a) try to talk to her about her feelings, or b) bust out some info about how prehistoric humans used to select their mates? Yes, Gradgrind's ideas are meant to be complete, crazy nonsense. But we think it's funny that even Gradgrind's math and logic are off. Taking him and his analysis seriously: there is no evidence that age disparity is equivalent to financial disparity (where are the statistics showing this?). Moreover, although there is data showing that many marriages are between people of unequal ages, there is no data demonstrating that these marriages are successful!
Quote #8
For the first time in her life Louisa had come into one of the dwellings of the Coketown Hands; for the first time in her life she was face to face with anything like individuality in connection with them. She knew of their existence by hundreds and by thousands. She knew what results in work a given number of them would produce in a given space of time. She knew them in crowds passing to and from their nests, like ants or beetles. But she knew from her reading infinitely more of the ways of toiling insects than of these toiling men and women. Something to be worked so much and paid so much, and there ended; something to be infallibly settled by laws of supply and demand; something that blundered against those laws, and floundered into difficulty; something that was a little pinched when wheat was dear, and over-ate itself when wheat was cheap; something that increased at such a rate of percentage, and yielded such another percentage of crime, and such another percentage of pauperism; something wholesale, of which vast fortunes were made; something that occasionally rose like a sea, and did some harm and waste (chiefly to itself), and fell again; this she knew the Coketown Hands to be. But, she had scarcely thought more of separating them into units, than of separating the sea itself into its component drops. (2.6.40-41)
The deeply dehumanizing language here is striking. The workers aren't even 'Hands" any more – they are just a mass of "something," even less interesting to study than "toiling insects."
Quote #9
He sat writing in the room with the deadly statistical clock, proving something no doubt — probably, in the main, that the Good Samaritan was a Bad Economist. (2.12.2)
Dickens loves to turn a Biblical quotation on its head to demonstrate the problems with the profit motive and self-advancement as motivators. Here, we are forced to consider the parable of the Good Samaritan from the point of view of financial gain. (FYI, the Good Samaritan story is one of Jesus' parables. It goes like this: A guy is robbed, beaten, and left for dead in the road. Two otherwise honorable people pass by him but do not stop to help. The third guy who passes is a Samaritan, one of an oppressed minority group, but he stops and helps the wounded man.)