Sarina MatsonBlueDecember 21st, 2014Thoreau-Crane PaperHenry David Thoreau, in Walden, and Stephen Crane, in Maggie: Girl of the Streets agree in their views of philanthropists and contrast in their views of philanthropy and material possessions. Walden is about Thoreaus views on material possessions, philanthropy, and self-reliance, in the setting and perspective from when he lived alone in the woods of Walden Pond. Maggie: Girl of the Streets is about a young Irish-Catholic girl growing up on the streets of New York, when eventually her extreme poverty drives her to prostitution. Even though this is a work of fiction, Crane exemplifies his views through the perspective of Maggie and her family.Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would agree that philanthropists are hypocrites. Thoreau says, if their philanthropy do not help us in our best estate, when are we most worthy of being helped? (62) this demonstrates that philanthropists are hypocrites and they deem who should be helped rather than the people who need it. He says, [That the philanthropists] goodness must not be a partial and transitory act, but a constant superfluity, which costs him nothing and of which he is unconscious (Thoreau 63). This exhibits what Thoreau believes to be a true philanthropist and in Walden he says he has never come across a philanthropist like this, showing that most are hypocritical. In Maggie: Girl of the Streets, Crane writes about one of the fake philanthropists Thoreau had come across whose, eyes shone with good will (87). Maggie came across this man when Pete had left her and she had become a prostitute. She tried to ask for his help, But as she timidly accosted him, he gave a convulsive movement to save his respectability by a vigorous side step. He did not risk it to save a soul (Crane 87). In the story the man is a preacher who is supposed to be a philanthropist, but wants to be dignified so he does not help the girl in need. In another scene Maggies brother, Jimmie, and other poor people were waiting to get soup at a church but, You are dammed, said the preacher. And the reader of sounds might have seen the reply go forth from the ragged people: Wheres our soup? (Crane 46). Here Crane is saying that the people who are supposed to give, and help people rebuild their lives are not following their words up by actions and are full of empty promises. Both Thoreau and Crane believe that philanthropists are almost always hypocritical and do not mean the best for the people they are supposed to help.While Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane agree in some aspects, they contrast on their views of philanthropy. Although they both agree that philanthropists are hypocritical, Thoreau believes that philanthropy is not needed while Crane believes that it is. Thoreau says that, Philanthropy is almost the only virtue, which is sufficiently appreciated by mankind. Nay it is greatly overrated (63) and Often the poor man is not so cold and hungry as he is dirty and ragged and gross. It is partly his taste and not merely his misfortune (63). Both of these quotes show that Thoreau does not feel as if there is need for philanthropy and everyone can live off of the land as he has. Crane believes that one needs philanthropy as well as shelter and food, which are the resources that Thoreau believes are needed, to survive. In Maggie: Girl of the Streets, Maggies brother, Tommie, dies and at the funeral, His small waxen hand [was] clutching a flower that the girl, Maggie, had stolen from an Italian (Crane 43). In this quote Maggie performs an act of philanthropy by simply giving her dead brother a flower. Crane exhibits that this small action meant so much, and was needed in order to make her brothers passing significant. This idea is also exemplified when Maggies mother and father are yelling and hitting at her and her two brothers and Jimmie, her elder brother, escapes and finds an old woman. Crane says, He stumbled, panic-stricken, to the next floor. An old woman opened the doorEh Jimmie, she said. Go on like a dear an if yer mudder raises ell at night yehs can sleep here (46). Here, Crane is showing that without the old womans philanthropy Jimmies parents would have probably beaten him. By writing these two small, but necessary, acts of kindness, Crane is saying that without philanthropic actions some people would have no hope. Thoreau and Crane disagree about the necessity of philanthropy, although they agree that typical philanthropists are hypocritical. Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane would also disagree about the significance of material items. On being given pieces of limestone, Thoreau writes that he, was terrified to find out that they required to be dusted daily, when the furniture of [his] mind was all undusted still, and threw them out the window in disgust[He] would rather sit out in the open air, for no dust gathers on grass, unless where man has broken ground (32). He also says, I would rather sit on a pumpkin and have it all to myself than to be crowded on a velvet cushion (33). Both of these quotes exemplify that Thoreau thinks that material possessions are trivial and superfluous. In Maggie: Girl of the Streets, Maggie picks out a fancy curtain so that her crush, Pete, will think she is worthy of being his girlfriend. Crane writes, She spent some of her weeks pay in the purchase of a flowered cretonne for a lambrequin. She made it with infinite care and hung itshe studied it from different points in the room (54). The object of the lambrequin means a lot for Maggie because, to her, it is what will make Pete love her. Maggies brother, Tommie, dies and at the funeral, His small waxen hand [was] clutching a flower that the girl, Maggie, had stolen from an Italian (Crane 43). Tommie would have passed away insignificantly, but the flower that Maggie gave him was a symbol of love and remembrance that he would carry with him into the grave. Through these two passages, Crane says that objects can mean a great deal and are not trivial. Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane contrast on their views of material possessions; Thoreau believes them to be superfluous, and Crane thinks they can have lasting value and can be significant is ones life.Through Walden and Maggie: Girl of the Streets, Henry David Thoreau and Stephen Crane develop their ideas on philanthropy, philanthropists, and material items. Their views compare with philanthropists, but contrast on philanthropy and material possessions. In regard to philanthropists, Thoreau and Crane both feel that the traditional good doers are hypocritical in what they say versus what they do. Although they agree on this, Thoreau believes that philanthropy is not needed, while Crane believes that people do need acts of goodwill in their lives. They also disagree on the use of material items; Thoreau thinks that they have no significance and are superfluous, while Crane feels that they have a great influence on people and are a necessary part of life. These two writers agree that philanthropists are hypocritical but disagree on the importance of philanthropy and material items.

Works CitedCrane, Stephen. Maggie: Girl of the Streets. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 1893. Print.Thoreau, Henry David. Walden. Philadelphia: Running Press, 1987. Print.