A Comparison of Machiavelli and Thoreau

Two drastically different philosophers have entered my life in the last week: Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian political theorist, and Henry David Thoreau, the American Transcendentalist. In the two readings my class was given, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, the word “man” seems to have a one meaning for one man and another for the other.

First and foremost, there is a clear difference in the meaning of the word “man” to Machiavelli and Thoreau. In “Civil Disobedience”, the government is blamed for being “inexpedient”, and is therefore putting the rights of man in jeopardy. Off the bat you see that Thoreau has a view of man that is one of freedom; that man deserves to be treated right. He says a man should have the ability to take what he sees as right to the government as opposed to voting, which Thoreau sees as a game. Machiavelli, on the other hand, sees man as nothing more than a subject. That is made clear alone in the tone he has when he speaks of citizens who his hypothetical prince must govern. Although “man” is not the focus of his writing, Machiavelli occasionally explains the negative impact that a successful prince has on his people, thus making his thoughts on what man is clear. Machiavelli wants the reader to know that his ruling, if done right, will make “men” into subjects, or slaves even. This creates a clear contrast between the two philosophers: one is clearly more concerned with equal rights and the fair treatment of all, and the other with earning, and more importantly keeping, power over the people. Now does this mean that one is worse than the other? Not necessarily in my eyes.

Machiavelli, the supposed “worse” of the two thinkers, came from a time of turmoil. He was in prison for treason when he wrote “The Prince” as a result of the Medici rule returning to Florence, his hometown. Machiavelli writes to explain to Medici how to do it better in his second go at ruling the city, and knows that Medici will need fear in order to fully control his people. He is not throwing “man” under the bus so much as he is simply trying to help out his new leader. Thoreau, on the other hand, was angry at his supposedly oppressive government and thus illustrated man as a free entity, not as a “machine” like those in the government are. Instead of having some sort of resentment towards Machiavelli for making man a subject and praising Thoreau for making man seem like a caged bird, vying to be free, I think that they both have very valid views on society, as they were both a product of their times.

“Man” is whatever one makes of it, whether it be free, or subjugated by a fear-mongering tyrant. Thoreau and Machiavelli make it perfectly clear with their thoughts combined that one’s perception of “man” is simply a matter of when and where one is.