Machiavelli and Thoreau are both very influential men that discussed their views on how to govern. However each is writing to a different audience therefore their ideas clash. Thoreau writes as a person being governed while Machiavelli writing is aimed at the person ruling.
Both focus on the relationship between the people and their leader. Machiavelli strongly believed in prudence and instilling fear. Machiavelli took the view of a prince and said that rule needed to focus on efficiency over morality. Thoreau believed in objecting anything we think is morally wrong. He wanted to take action against an unjust government. Thoreau says that free man is one who is imprisoned by an unjust government. That person isn't living the lies or following the rule. That person is fighting for what they think is right. Thoreau has faith in humanity. He believes some people will take a stand to fight against and fix the government. He thinks the action you take matters more than the result. He himself was thrown in jail for taking action against paying taxes. Machiavelli thinks a prince doesn't have to worry about taking action. They only need to maintain their rule whether or not it is morally correct as long as the people believe it is.
Machiavelli sees the public as "ungrateful, false, fickle, and covetous." He believes people are bad and that you need to manipulate them rather than being manipulated. Machiavelli writes a guide on how to manipulate men. He represented the view of people in power while Thoreau represented the general public. This is why the two are polar opposites. Thoreau believes people should have more power because he believes in humanity and its ability to detect evil. But Machiavelli shows the view of the people of high power with complete control.
Chandler, this is a fine start but climb into that scuba gear and dive deeper. You're right about the different audiences, that is very important here. But find a way in. If it's efficiency, talk about efficiency in both texts. If it's the idea of "man," talk about "man" in both texts. Then you have a point-by-point comparison, and a much richer reading.
ReplyDelete