Thoreau and
Machiavelli initially seem to be polar opposites in regard to their respective
philosophies. Thoreau discusses his idea that the people must rebel against the
government if they feel that they are being treated unjustly, while Machiavelli
explores the philosophy that the government or person in power must do anything
to stay in power. Although Thoreau speaks to the masses and Machiavelli aims
his philosophy at the ruling government, both stress that every person must
stand up for what they think is right and not be taken advantage of by anyone.
Thoreau and
Machiavelli clearly have very different audiences. In his essay, Civil Disobedience, Thoreau is speaking
directly to the public. Machiavelli, on the other hand, aims his philosophy in The Prince towards the government or person
in power. Another difference between the two writers can be seen in their
opinions on violence and when it is appropriate. Machiavelli says that
executions are an acceptable way to punish subjects. On the contrary, Thoreau’s
philosophy is all about nonviolent methods of rebellion. He provides an example
in telling his story of being thrown in jail for a night for refusing to pay
the poll tax. While Thoreau provides reasoning to practice “civil disobedience”
in times of injustice, Machiavelli sees no problem in using violence if it is
necessary to staying in power.
Despite the
different audiences and opinions on violence, Thoreau and Machiavelli do share
common ground. Both philosophers emphasis that one cannot let anyone take
advantage of him. Who that “one” refers to differs from Thoreau to Machiavelli,
but the idea is more or less the same. In Civil
Disobedience, Thoreau writes, “The only obligation which I have a right to
assume, is to do at any time what I think right.” Similarly, in The Prince, Machiavelli says, “a wise prince should establish
himself on that which is in his own control and not in that of others.” Both
writers imply that it is imperative for their respective audience to stand up
for themselves and do what they think is right, regardless of what other people
think. In Machiavelli’s case, the prince cannot be taken advantage of, and he
must do whatever is necessary to stay in power. In Thoreau’s case, the people
must stand up for themselves and not allow injustice to continue. He argues
that it is the obligation of the people to rebel against these injustices.
Although the overall messages of both writers seem contradictory, they are
relaying the same idea to both of their audiences. A combination of both
philosophies could actually result in a more balanced government where neither
the public nor the government lets the other become too powerful.
Both
Thoreau and Machiavelli introduce very absolute philosophies. Both men feel it
is the duty of their audience to act a certain way. For the prince, he must stay in power regardless of the
circumstances. For the people, they must
rise up against injustice. Neither
philosophy is perfect, but they share certain ideas.
