Natural philosophers in every century of human existence have asked what we owe to each other, to society, or to government. In The Origin of Civil Society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argues that the only natural form of duty is to one's family, and all other obligations are based on agreement (57). Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, wrote in Resistance to Civil Government (sometimes known as Civil Disobedience), “it is not the duty of a man, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any wrong, even the most enormous; he may still have other concerns involving him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it and, if he no longer thinks about it, practically not to give him his support” (143). This type of conflict, which has accompanied all men in the great changes of society, is what drives the conflict in Bartleby, the writer of Herman Melville. Melville, like the Byzantine architects, creates a work of art that studies a microcosm of the macrocosm. That is to say, by looking at the relationship between two people, Melville is able to explore the broader context surrounding them, particularly the radical change in society in the mid-19th century. Like Thoreau, Bartleby's famous word, “I would rather not,” sends shockwaves through contemporary expectations and shapes how a person approaches a situation. Bartleby and Thoreau are both transcendentalists and seek to return to a Rousseauian state of nature. Both have arrived there after a journey of self-examination – certainly in Thoreau's case, and quite possibly in Bartleby's – and their nonconformist attitudes raise questions about what is expected of people regarding their duty to society and to others . Bartleby in particular makes the anonymous... middle of paper ...... say that Bartleby did nothing, but passive resistance is a powerful tool, thanks to which laws have been changed and governments have the upper hand. Thoreau wrote “[a] man has not everything to do, but something; and since he cannot do everything, he need not do anything wrong [emphasis in original]” (145). Bartleby, following in the footsteps of the Transcendentalist, does nothing and thereby makes a profound statement. Perhaps it was fate that Bartleby should die that way. After all, the narrator has consulted the eminent theologians of predestination Priestley and Edwards, and admits that he believes that Bartleby's presence "had been all predestined from eternity" and that "it was not for such a mere mortal as [the narrator] to fathom" ( 167). Accepting the idea that Bartleby is a microcosm of the macrocosm would imply that change is inevitable.