For every historical event, there are numerous interpretations as to why it occurred.   The UN Mandate to create the State of Israel involved a complexity of issues and complications whose ramifications continue to resonate in the world today.  The reasons for the creation of the Mandate and the resulting fate of the Palestinian people began long before the actual Mandate itself.  To analyze why the UN created Israel, we have to consider several contributing factors:  the force and desires of the Zionist movement,  the Balfour Declaration,  the relationship between Britain, the United States and various Arab countries, British and American interests in Palestine and the impact of the Holocaust.

According to researcher, Walid Khalidi, the push for the Jewish State began in the late 19^th Century long before the Mandate ever took place.  At that time, prominent Zionist, Theodor Herzel published the draft for a ‘Charter’ to colonize Palestine.  This draft was the product of the First Zionist Congress in 1897 (6).   Therefore, half a century before the Mandate ever took effect forces were in place for the creation of the State of Israel.

If we are to understand events in relative chronological order then the next event to impact on Palestine was the Balfour Declaration.  Researcher, Joe Stork contends that although the Declaration was humanitarian in tone it was almost the opposite in its intent. 

He wrote:

Nevertheless, on November 7, 1917 the British government 

would come out in open support of the creation of a Jewish 

homeland in Palestine, by issuing the Balfour Declaration in

the form of a letter from the Foreign Secretary Balfour to 

Lord Walter Rothschild. (10)

In fact, Stork opines that contrary to the spirit of the Declaration, “those British statesmen most closely connected with the Declaration were almost openly anti-semitic[…]”  (Stork 9).   According to Stork, Lord Mark Sykes (a key player in the Declaration) saw the Zionist movement and moving the Jews to Palestine as a means of solving “the Jewish Question” (Stork 8).   British interests in Palestine and their desire to rid the U.K. of Jews who had successfully assimilated into British culture were, according to Stork, definite factors in the push to create Israel.  Also, the Zionists pleased many of the players involved with the Balfour Declaration with what they perceived of as a ‘pro-British’ stance.  Another fact of the times was the British government’s perception of not only the Zionists, but also world Jewry in general.  According to Stork, the British were convinced that “the Jews represented significant power and influence” (Stork 11).

The actions of Lord Balfour also signaled the beginning of Britain’s attempts to distance themselves from Palestinian interests and ally themselves with the needs of the Zionists.  In the original Declaration, there was a condition on the establishment of a Jewish homeland that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” (Chomsky  90).   However, two years later, Balfour’s words were quite different and his stance was entirely pro-Zionist.  In the space of only two years, Balfour had essentially abandoned the Palestinian people and any interests or claims they had in Palestine.    In a memorandum, Balfour wrote:

The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, 

be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition,

in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than 

the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit

that ancient land. (Chomsky 91)

One can already see that the Balfour Declaration, in tandem with Zionist interests were working together to take over Palestine.   If Stork’s recounting of historical events is accurate then in fact the British government and the Zionists saw an opportunity to use each other.  Thus, they could satisfy their mutual interests in taking over Palestine. 

Another key element in this saga (that continues to have strong ramifications today) was the fate of the Palestinians living in Palestine at the time.  Again, according to Stork, “[…]the Zionist leaders saw no contradiction between their project for an autonomous Jewish state and the self-determination of the people then living in Palestine.  The element of colonization was central to the Zionist program, and colonization depended on imperial power” (13).

Again, British and Zionist interests were working together.  Britain’s desire to control that region of the world fit in nicely with the plans of the Zionist movement to create a Jewish state.  However, according to Stork’s quote above, neither of these groups seemed particularly concerned with the fate of the Palestinians.  In fact, researcher, Walid Khalidi, points out that the British attitude during the time of its Mandate in Palestine (1917-1947) were contrary to any of the interests or needs of the Palestinians living in Palestine.  Khalidi contends that the British military put down all Palestinian resistance in order to facilitate the Zionist power (Khalidi  6). 

According to researcher and professor, Ilan Pappe, the resistance was not only a response to British rule.  The Palestinian population was becoming increasingly concerned with the significant increase in Jewish immigration to Palestine.  Pappe contends that this increase by Jews into Palestine was fueled by fear of Nazi policies in Germany  (9).  Nevertheless, the Palestinians revolted but were put down by the British.

Noam Chomsky also mentions the revolt in his own work.  However, he argues that the Palestinian revolt grew out of years of frustration at previous attempts to get the attention of the British.  “In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a nationalist revolt after the failure of a long strike, which was ignored and ineffectual”  (91).   Chomsky then points out that David Ben-Gurion recognized the revolt for what it was, an attempt by the Palestinians to assert their claim to Palestine, and let the Zionists know they would not simply accept what they deemed to be an intrusion onto their land”  (Chomsky  91).    However, despite Ben-Gurion’s recognition of this truth, his actions, according to Khalidi, were quite the opposite.  

We [also] learn from the official history of the Haganah that in the summer of 1937, ten years before the UN partition resolution, Ben-Gurion ordered the Haganah commander of Tel Aviv, Elimelech Silkowitz to draw up a plan for the military takeover of the entire country in anticipation of Britain’s withdrawal from Palestine expected in the wake of the Peel Report. (7)

One of the great questions that emerged from that time in history and the events that were to unfold is the impact of the Holocaust on the creation of Israel.   Once the realities of the Holocaust set in, events in Palestine began to change quite drastically.  Khalidi argues that American interests in the area were suddenly asserted by President Truman in a very aggressive manner.  He contends that Truman put “persistent harassment and pressure on Britain during 1945-46 to let as many Jews as it is possible to let into the country [of Palestine]” (8).   However, Khalidi does not believe that Truman did so out of any sympathy for the fate the Jewish people suffered in Nazi-occupied Europe.   Rather, he suggests that Truman, who would face re-election in 1948 was courting the Jewish vote.  Also, he states that Truman’s actions could have been interpreted as humanitarian if “Truman had simultaneously urged the admission of Jewish refugees into the United States.  In the years 1932-43, the vast continent of the United States had received 170,883 Jews, while the miniscule Palestine had received 232,524 during the same period”  (9).  

Professor Ilan Pappé is not as certain in his interpretation of Truman’s actions.  Nevertheless, he points out the various forces impacting on Truman and his behavior at the time.  He says:

Some assert that the Zionist movement benefited from frictions between the USA and Britain on various global matters, which pushed the American administration into a more pro-Zionist  attitude.  Others emphasize that Truman’s sincere concern for the plight of European Jewry played an important role in the pro-Zionist policy of his administration.  Michael Cohen points out that Truman had other more mundane reasons for airing his sympathies for the Jewish victims.  As a non-elected president eager to succeed in his own right […] Truman could hardly have failed to be less than hypersensitive to this question. (12)  

The late Palestinian author, Edward W. Said, describes how the push to create Israel assumed almost mythical proportions in light of the events of World War II.  He points out that the Zionists had been settling Palestine for decades prior to the UN Mandate and the Holocaust.  However, the events in Europe empowered the Zionists and those who worked with them to reinterpret the settling of Palestine as a drama of redemption.  It was no longer a political message or even a spiritual one that laid claim to the land on religious grounds.   “Later the redemptive message of the reconstruction was changed to meet the situation created by the concrete horrors of the Holocaust; Palestine as refuge, as affirmative action for those dispossessed Jews not massacred by Germany” (Said  103).   In other words, Jewish settlements in Palestine were no longer about the politics of the Zionist movement, but an attempt to save a people from genocide.  

While Said acknowledges the horrors of the Holocaust, he undeniably argues that the creation of Israel was a colonial movement.  

Because the Palestinian, who may seem only picturesque 

to most people, is a reminder that before the state of Israel

existed there were natives in Palestine; rather than acknow-

ledge that Israel rules a colonial population, the philosopher

must now go back over his own earlier arguments against

colonialism, discover merits in the colonizing community,

and then say that since colonialism is, after all, practiced

by a community of people with undeniable moral rights,

it cannot be so bad. (141)  

Another post-World War II factor was the emergence of Russia as an ally for the Zionists.  Ilan Pappé proposes that the shift in Soviet attitude paved the way for partition.  Once the US realized that the Soviets would vote for partition, they had to support it as well.  In Pappé’s theory, the US was especially concerned that the Soviets would wield too much power in the region if the US was not also involved.  Therefore, they both ultimately voted for partition. (20)   

Pappé also argues that the Exodus affair may have been the single event that enabled partition to be a certainty.  

The Exodus was a Jewish refugee ship which had sailed 

from France to Palestine in the summer of 1947 and tried

to break through the British blockade to bring its passengers

ashore.  The ship’s arrival coincided with UNSCOP’s visit.

There could not have been a better demonstration of the

ineluctable link between the fate of European Jewry and

that of the Jewish community in Palestine. (24) 

The Exodus affair altered the world’s opinion and created greater sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of European Jews seeking entrance into Palestine.  The fact that the British remained absolutely unmoved by the plight of the Jews on Exodus certainly underscored the desires of the Zionist Movement.  The British could have shown mercy and allowed the Jews through the blockade.  They did not.  With the members of UNSCOP in the area at the time, Britain’s actions seemed heartless and no doubt pushed the members of the Committee into favoring partition (Pappé  24-25).

However, if the Exodus incident had not occurred then the visit by UNSCOP to the Displaced Persons Camps would have swung the vote in the Zionist’s favor.  There, the Committee members had to face over 350,000 Holocaust survivors.  No matter what land claims the Palestinians had in their favor, the Committee could not bring themselves to ignore the plight of those who had survived the Nazi death camps.  The Committee became convinced that a Jewish state was now the only solution  (Ibid 25).  

According to researcher, Shlomo Slonim, although the White House was firm in its support for partition, there were last minute efforts by the US State Department to derail partition.  In fact, the State Department was extremely concerned that partition was “[…]contrary to the interests of the United States.  He  warned of the loss of friendship in the Arab world […] Henderson and other State Department officials obviously felt that Truman’s propartition stand was misguided  and would seriously endanger American interests in the Middle East” (502). 

According to Noam Chomsky, the American efforts to support partition may have been in part a humanitarian stance.  However, there was no doubt that Zionists, especially the American Zionists wanted to create the State of Israel.  Chomsky asserts that the push for the Jewish state was in due in part to the fact that no other alternatives was being offered even though many European Jews may have preferred a different choice, preferably to live in America.

As the vote moved closer, the Arab delegation unfortunately did not help themselves.  Their refusal to meet with UNSCOP sealed their fate in the minds of the UN. 

When the committee arrived in Palestine it was warmly 

welcomed by the Jews and boycotted by the Arab Higher

 Committee.  This tilted the committee to the Jewish 

side and it was also impressed by the military strength 

of the Jews and their achievements in expanding their settlements. 

After the visit to Palestine most committee members agreed

with the Zionists that the demographic situation of the Jews

in Europe had to be linked with that of the Jewish settlement 

in Palestine. (Pappé 12)

At this point, those in the world which had previously supported, or tried to protect Palestinian interests now turned away and supported the Zionist push for the State of Israel.  The various forces described above – the Balfour Declaration, the Holocaust, American and British interests all played a strong role in the push for partition.  As a result, the Palestinian people became a non-entity in their own land.  As hundreds of thousands of European Jews poured into Palestine, spurred on by world sympathy (and possibly guilt for their fate), the Palestinians were now constructed as the ‘outsiders’ in Palestine.  Although they had lived there continuously for centuries, owned the highest percentage of land and were the majority culture, they no longer belonged in their own country.  Someone had to be sacrificed in order to accommodate the world’s growing push for partition and the Palestinians were the ones fated to be those people.  

In his book, After the Sky,  Edward W. Said relates this sad story of his own mother’s fate in 1948:

Immediately after she and my father were married at the

mandatory government’s registry office, a British official

ripped up her passport.  To her remonstrations and queries

he replied, in effect, this negation of your separate identity

will enable us to provide a legal place for one more Jewish

immigrant from Europe. (78)

The world could only turn away from the Palestinian people and their fate by reconstructing them as the ‘others’ – those who no longer belonged in Palestine unless they would agree to live under the laws of the Jewish State.  Whether or not the world truly cared about what had happened to European Jewry in the Holocaust no longer mattered.  While Arab states made one last ditch effort to prevent partition, it failed.  The General Assembly of the United Nations voted in favor of the creation of the State of Israel on November 29, 1947.  Truly, an extraordinary series of events had taken place in order for this to occur, and ramifications that are even more dramatic have taken place since. 

In the end, the UN voted for partition of Palestine in 1947 because they could no longer refuse not to.  Too many forces were in place pushing for partition and whether or not the Palestinian people would suffer as a result had sadly become a non-issue.

 UNSCOP is the acronym for the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine

Endnotes

1. According to Stork: “The demand of world Jewry, under Zionist leadership, for a British-administered mandate, would help provide the necessary diplomatic leverage.  France could thereby be removed from any post-war position in Palestine…British interests would be protected and represented without the complications of direct annexation”, Stork, Joe. Understanding the Balfour Declaration, 13, 1972, 9-13.

2. “…while the Balfour Declaration did not represent any sort of quid pro quo arrangement between the Zionists and the British War Cabinet, it was issues with the interests of the Empire uppermost in mind”, Ibid, p. 13. 

3. “Equally forgotten in historical invisibility is the crushing by British military might of the desperate Palestinian national rebellion against the Royal Commission (Peel) Report of 1937 calling for the partition of the country and the consequent destruction of all effective Palestinian political and military organizations”, Khalidi, Walid. Revisiting the UNGA Partition Resolution., (6).   

4.  In his book, The Fateful Triangle, The United States, Israel and the Palestinians,  Chomsky quotes Ben-Gurion’s recognition of the situation as one of deep discontent by the Palestinian people.  “[…]let us not ignore the truth among ourselves […] The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside.  The revolt is an active resistance by the Palestinians to what they regard as a usurpation of their homeland by the Jews…Behind the terrorist movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self sacrifice” (91-92).

5. Khalidi contends that Truman’s constant insistence on large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine began a path of deserting any Palestinian interests in the area.  “But it was his use of this demand as a battering ram against the British and his public support on Yom Kippur (4 October 1946) for a Jewish Agency plan for partitioning Palestine that destroyed all possibility of Anglo-American cooperation in the resolution of the Palestine problem […] This contributed decisively to Britain’s resolve to abandon the [British] Mandate and remove itself as a buffer between Jew and Palestinian – a strategic objective of Ben Gurion’s sat least since 1930” (9).  

6. Here, Slonim refers to Mr. Loy Henderson, head of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs in the Department of State (496).

7. According to researcher, Yuen-Li Liang, During the session from September 23-November 29, 1947, “[…]the legal aspects of the whole Palestine problem and the competence of the United Nations to implement proposals for partition were brought up by the representatives of several Arab States who challenged the legality that the United Nations lacked the necessary power to decide to partition Palestine” (650).

Bibliography

Chomsky, Noam. The Fateful Triangle The United Sates, Israel and the Palestinians.  Boston: South End Press, 1983. 

Khalidi, Walid, “Revisiting The UNGA Partition Resolution” Journal of Palestine Studies  27.1 (1997): 5-21.

Liang, Yuen-Li. “The Palestine Commission” The American Journal of International Law 42  (1948): 649-656.

Pappé, Ilan. The Making of The Arab-Israeli Conflict 1947-1951. London, New York: I.B. Tauris, 1992. 

Said, Edward W. After the Last Sky.   New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. 

Slonim, Shlomo, “The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine” Political Science Quarterly 94  (1979):  495-514.

Stork, Joe, “Understanding the Balfour Declaration”, Middle East Research and Information Project Report  13  (1972): 9-13.

Firstly, what Plato believed about reality was very different from Aristotle’s ideology. Plato imagined that there existed an ideal or perfect world beyond our own physical earth. Our earthly world is full of unevenness, imperfections, and impurities which have been copied from the true ideal world which is beyond us. Plato further believed that our physical world and its Forms participate or imitate the real Forms in a disorderly way. He claimed that there was a relationship between the realm of Forms and our world. This relationship revealed to us mortals the forms and brought order to life ⁵.

Aristotle objected to Plato’s view, arguing that one cannot know the type of interaction which is occurring between the two Forms. If the “real or ideal forms” are eternal, pure and unchanging then how do they relate to the material objections or Forms on earth with all their physical imperfections? This participation or imitation link between the real and the imaginary (which Plato claimed existed) is erroneous thinking as no one can/has established such a link – real or otherwise. And even if a link is established it fails to explain all the Forms in the material world. At some point Plato fails to explain how this greater Form was controlled- how can Form control things? Was there energy in “Forms”?

Aristotle’s assumption of the Theory of Forms was intimately integrated with his belief that we develop some type of biological and scientific wisdom of a primary substance (be it plant, animal, rock, etc) only when we know what are usually called its “causes.” The

^a.The name of this aspect of Plato’s thought is not modern and has not been extracted from certain dialogues by modern scholars. The term was used at least as early as Diogenes Laertius, who called it (Plato’s) “Theory of Forms:” Πλάτων ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν ἰδεῶν ὑπολήψει…., “Plato”. Lives of Eminent Philosophers Book III. Paragraph 15.

Greek word, aitia, which is translated as “causes,” is probably better rendered as “that which explains.” What that means is that our knowledge of something only occurs once we have ascertained why the “thing” is there and what its uses are (the primitive scientific method). Thus, if the essence of being a humanoid includes being a biped, we are able to explain our two legs by appeal to the form of humanness which is in us. So knowledge of the form or essence is in effect knowledge of the thing’s causes, of what explains why it is what it is. In this way Aristotle’s theory of knowledge was integrated with his metaphysics or scientific method ⁶.

Plato postulated that once the humans rose above their physical environment, they would understand the Forms which were present in the invisible world ^b. Whether he meant this would occur after death or during life remains a mystery. Aristotle on the other hand believed that everything was right here on earth and one could find the Form if one developed a scientific method to apprehend it ^7.

I believe the Forms which Plato believed in were not real. He claims that what we see on earth are mimics of the real thing, only with a lot of imperfections. In his Allegory of the Cave, outlined in The Republic, he called mimics artificial replicas of the real thing. In real life all that is seen is an illusion (smoke) of the real thing ^8.

On the other hand, Aristotle believed that our natural world itself was real and physical. Aristotle, having studied some biological and physical phenomenon during his work as a teacher, came to understand that our world was made up of many natural Forms, even though not all of the Forms were ideal, pure or perfect. He argued that with our sense(s) we could identify all the natural Forms on earth. The big question which Aristotle and everyone else asked about Plato’s theory of Forms was ‘what are the two separate realms and what do they mean and how do they explain life as it is?’

No matter how one analyses Plato’s theory, it simply fails to explain our physical world, its evolution and the order of things. Why some things are permanent remains a central question in his philosophy ^c. How was the knowledge about our own world derived from the “ideal Forms”? One can understand that genetic traits can be passed on to future generations of humans and animals, but how does this information pass on to inanimate objects like the stone, rock, sand or water? How could these physical properties with no “Brain” understand the ideal world? I can understand that perhaps some humans may have ESP and perceive (with a lot of good luck) the past or the future, but how can a rock know that it was a rock in the ideal world first and now is a manifestation of the rock in our world?

^b Plato to a large extent identifies what today is called  insight with recollection: “whenever on seeing one thing you conceived another whether like or unlike, there must surely have been an act of recollection?” - Phaedo paragraph 229. Thus geometric reasoning on the part of persons who know no geometry is not insight but is recollection. He does recognize insight: “… with a sudden flash there shines forth understanding about every problem …” (with regard to “the course of scrutiny”) - The Seventh Letter 344b.

^c Fine, Gail (1992). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford University Press.  ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0198235496″ ISBN 0198235496.  Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993).  http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.05.25.html http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1993/04.05.25.html Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms (html). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

Another argument against Plato’s theory of Forms is the resemblance of two objects. Plato explains that those two objects look like each other due to their cooperative

contribution in a common Form. A black dog and a black book, for example, resemble each other in goodness by being copies of the “Form” of black. Because the dog and book are copies of the form black, they also bear a resemblance to this form. But this resemblance between the black object and the form of blackness must also be explained in terms of another form. What form does a black object and the form of blackness both copy to account for their similarity? Is everything black a book or is everything black a dog? One quickly gets the idea that Plato’s theory of Forms falls apart ^9.

Since Plato never did write down what he meant and a lot of the material is lost, the translation of his thoughts have taken many meanings. The major evidence for Plato’s theory of Forms has always been limited primarily to intuition, and is not grounded in anything apprehensible.  Aristotle wisely judged the efficacy of Forms on their use and matter of Particulars. He believed in the scientific method in a reverse process.  However, even Aristotle’s philosophy leaves some questions unanswered.  What if something was non existent and needed to be developed? What happens then? Humans only have a limited capacity of senses and many discoveries are made serendipitously. Neither Plato nor Aristotle explains the role of chance in their Form theories.

In conclusion, Plato’s imaginary “Real Forms Theory” remains speculative at best. It is difficult to believe that life exists in the Forms postulated by Plato. We live in a practical world where we have learned to employ our reason, we use methodology to explain and discover things, we reason to think of what can and will happen, we understand the scientific method and when the experiment is done- we understand the process. The majority of us believe in the Greater being, but this does not prevent us from thinking on our own. What we create is controlled by us and not by someone else or a Form.  We live in a different era of time from Plato and Aristotle. We have accomplished a lot in the past 50 years.  We have traveled further, climbed higher, seen more moons and stars (and even visited one), have developed ingenious technology and have become practical individuals with the ability to think scientifically.  When it comes to theories- they are just that. There is no right or wrong, just personal beliefs and not everything has to be psychoanalyzed. I personally believe that neither Plato nor Aristotle is right or wrong- they just had different beliefs and ideology.

References for Further Reading

1. Fine, G. “The One Over Many.” The Philosophical Review 89, no. 2 (April 1980):

197-240.

2. Fine, Gail (1992). On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198235496.  Reviewed by Gerson, Lloyd P (1993). Gail Fine, On Ideas. Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms (html). Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.05.25. Bryn Mawr Classical Review.

3. White, NP, “Plato’s Metaphysical Epistemology.” In The Cambridge

Companion to Plato, edited by Richard Kraut. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

4. Silverman, Allan (June, 2003).  HYPERLINK “http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-metaphysics/”Plato’s Middle Period Metaphysics and Epistemology (html). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysical Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University.

5. Watt, Stephen (1997), “Introduction: The Theory of Forms (Books 5-7)”, Plato: Republic, London: Wordsworth Editions, pp. pages xiv-xvi.

6. Annas, J. “Aristotle on Inefficient Causes.” The Philosophical Quarterly 32, no. 129 (October 1982): 311-326/

7. McElroy S. A comparison of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. (2003) http://home.telepath.com/~wanderer/school/HSCI%203013%20- %20Plato%20vs %20Aristotle.pdf.

8. Oakes W. The Function of the Forms: Examining Plato’s Conception of Aitia Against the Criticisms of Aristotle. http://www.sewanee.edu/Philosophy/Capstone/2004/oakes.pdf.

9. White, F.C., “Plato’s Middle Dialogues and the Independence of Particulars.” The

Philosophical Quarterly 27, no. 108 (July 1977): 193-213.

Thanks to Siam for contributing this paper.

I believe that Augustus and Niccoló Machiavelli would certainly agree much more so than disagree on how to be an effective ruler. The young Augustus seems to be an excellent example of a ruler whose actions agree with Machiavelli’s guidelines enunciated in The Prince. Machiavelli’s education included studying the “classics”, so it is not hard to make the connection that he was probably influenced by reading Suetonius’ account of the life of Imperator Caesar Augustus.

One of Machiavelli’s guidelines that he detailed in The Prince is that, “A wise man ought to follow the paths beaten by great men, and to imitate those who have been supreme”(paragraph 1). Augustus admired his Uncle Julius Caesar. He observed him, learned from him and tried to follow in his wake. One such lesson was how Julius Caesar had successfully arranged for his rival, Pompey the Great to marry his daughter Julia to form a bonding friendship between the two triumvirs. Augustus, whether wanting to or needing to reconcile with Marc Antony, arranged for a marriage between his lovely sister Octavia and Antony. It is noted that he was “deeply attached to his sister, who was, as the saying is, a wonder of a woman”(Everitt 112). So although, like Julius Caesar and Pompey, the marriage was politically motivated; Augustus’ desire to heal the relationship with Marc Antony appears sincere.

In The Prince, Machiavelli offers sage advice in dealing with subordinates which could have been written specifically with young Augustus in mind. Machiavelli writes; “Those who bind themselves (to you), and are not rapacious, ought to be honored and loved”(paragraph 8). Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, as a loyal, trustworthy and devoted friend, was bound to his school chum Augustus, and was rewarded generously for this. Along with money and land, “Agrippa, who had masterminded the Sicilian victory, was given a probably unprecedented honor – a corona rostrata, or golden crown decorated with ships’ beaks, which he was entitled to wear whenever a triumph was celebrated”(Everitt 144).

Machiavelli also warns that when “subordinates bind themselves to you for their own ambitious ends, it is a sign that they are giving more thought to themselves than to you. A prince should guard against such, and to fear them as if they were open enemies, because in adversity they always help to ruin him”(paragraph 8). Although this does describe the strained and mistrustful relationship between Marc Antony and Augustus, I think that Quintus Salvidienus Rufus is a better contrast example to Agrippa.

Prior to the triumvirs, Antony and Augustus mending their relationship, Augustus’ fickle “friend” and supporter “opened a secrect correspondence with Antony, hinting that he might be ready to switch sides”(Everitt 112). Salvidienus’ faith in Augutus’ success was wavering and he appears to be trying to cover all of his bases by appealing to Antony. However, Antony could smell a rat and alerted Augustus.

Augustus was a man who was “loyal to a fault, but if a friend betrayed him he was merciless”(112). He summoned Salvidienus to Rome, “arraigned him before the Senate and had him condemned both an inimicus (a personal enemy) and a hostis (a public enemy), and put to death”(113). Augustus could have had Salvidienus assassinated quietly, but I would argue that he wanted the proceedings to be very public and humiliating as a warning to others to not betray him. This may have been Machiavelli’s inspiration for the question if it is better for a prince to be feared or loved. Machiavelli reasoned that it was “much safer to be feared” because “men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage. But fear preserves you by a dread of punishment”(paragraph 18).

However, Augustus was always careful, especially publicly. He instilled just enough fear to maintain respect and order, but was able to avoid igniting hatred. Machiavelli says that “when it is necessary for him (a prince) to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause” (paragraph 19). The way that Augustus orchestrated the Salvidienus situation illustrated the cunning sophistication of a seasoned politician more likened to Cicero, than what would be expected from young Augustus.

Being Julius Caesar’s adopted son and chosen heir opened the door to Augustus and paved the way for him. Augustus used this to his advantage, but stepped out from Caesar’s shadow and became a respectable man in his own right after the Sicilian victory. Machiavelli suggests that “a new prince has a greater necessity to earn renown than a hereditary one”(paragraph 36). I believe that Augustus would agree completely with that statement. The Sicilian victory was a turning point in which he proved to the citizens, soldiers, and senate of Rome that he was more than just Julius Caesar’s nephew, but that he had the makings to be a great leader.

The one lesson of Machiavelli’s that Augustus did not follow was in regard to Livia Drusilla. Machiavelli warns that a prince should abstain “from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women”(paragraph 19). Augustus was said to be “a young man with a reputation for copious adultery”(Everitt 119).

He was already married to Scribonia, but divorced her on the day that she gave birth to their daughter Julia in order marry Livia. However, Livia was currently married to Tiberius Claudius Nero and pregnant with their second son. This made for juicy, scandalous gossip, but Augustus was able to navigate any waves that this union caused publicly.

Augustus is an ideal model for Machiavelli’s The Prince. I believe that the two men would heartily agree on the essential qualities and guidelines that are necessary for an effective ruler.

Works Cited

• Machiavelli, Niccolo. Excerpts from The Prince. 1516
• Everitt, Anthony. Augustus: The Life of Rome’s First Emperor.
  Random House. New York 2007
• Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars
  Oxford University Press. New York 2000

Take care, Brothers, lest you fail the people of Rome!  I, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, am prepared to fight for and defend the sacred ancestral traditions of this great Republic.  As our borders continue to expand, the number of land owners continues to dwindle.  You must protect our land, for all fear that greed will destroy our great traditions, as well as our freedom!1  That is why I stand here before you today, to push for my agrarian law reforms.  Many of you Present here have heard of what I intend to do, but do not fully understand my purpose.  Many who oppose me have tried to convince you that I am merely trying to steal from and cheat you, and bring the lowliest Romans up to your status, but that is not true.  My reforms will indeed help those of lower classes, but I believe, my dear citizens, you too shall benefit from my laws!

You all know who I am, the honor carried and passed through the generations by my fathers.  My father showed great honor and sacrifice when he chose to sacrifice himself so that his wife might live, by killing “his” snake.2  His wife, my mother, Cornelia, then showed great discretion and noble values herself by rejecting the proposals of marriage by Ptolemy, king of Egypt, preferring to remain a widow, and a true Roman, denying any association to a monarchy, such as there was in the beginning from which this great Republic arose.3  As for myself, I have continued to make this great state proud, following the path set forth by my fathers before me.  By the time I reached manhood, I had already possessed a reputation considered worthy of election to the priesthood of augurs.  I served under the great general Scipio Africanus in Africa, learning from his great virtues, courage and discipline. 4  And while serving in the operations against the Numantia under the consul Gaius Mancius, my reputation of great honor and virtue, as well as the reputation of my father, preceded us, as in the hour of need, they would speak with no Roman other than myself.  This shows that not only am I held with such high esteem here in Rome herself, but also among the people of many lands throughout the Republic.5

The problem is this, there is far too much land owned by far too few men, leaving the masses to be left with no land of their own.  “The wild beasts that roam over Italy have their dens and holes to lurk in, but the men who fight and die for our country enjoy the common air and light and nothing else.  Is it their lot to wander with their wives and children, house-less and homeless, over the face of the earth?  And when our generals appeal to their soldiers before a battle to defend their ancestors’ tombs and their temples against their enemy, their words are a lie and a mockery, for not a man in their audience possesses a family altar; not one out of all those Romans owns an ancestral tomb.  The truth is that they fight and die to protect the wealth and luxury of others.  They are called masters of the world, but they do not posses a single clod of earth which is truly their own.”6

While some of you believe that this is how the world should be run, and it is simply their ill fate to fight and die so that you may continue to gain land, others of you, my fellow citizens, are far wiser and nobler, men of real virtue, you know this is wrong, a real injustice to the whole of Rome.  Not merely because it is unfair to the poor soldier and landless men, but because it undermines the very foundation this great culture was based on!  There are some men who have been trying to convince you otherwise, such as Marcus Octavius, and those whom he speaks for, who do not speak for the good of Rome, according to our laws and customs, but for their own financial benefit, according to their own greed and selfishness.7  It is no secret that there is a law which dictates who may receive land, and how much they may acquire, yet it is completely ignored.

It had long been our custom to put up a part of land annexed in wars against neighboring peoples for auction, while the rest was made common land, and distributed among the poorest and neediest of citizens.  These men would then be allowed to cultivate it and pay a small rent to the public treasury.8  This worked well for a time, until the rich at once became greedy. They began to out bid the poor for their land by offering higher rentals, forcing the law to be altered.  The new version of the law stated that no one individual may hold more than five hundred jugera of land.  This law also saw success, but once again, the rich became greedy and found ways to cheat the poor.  They began to use fictitious names of tenants for the purpose of transferring these new holdings into their own names.  As this became the common, although illegal practice, the rich finally took to openly hording the land for themselves without suffering any penalties.9

Now I stand before you here today, Gentlemen, pleading my case to your wise and noble hearts, that you may accept my reforms, and put them into practice.  You may already know that I am not the only man desiring reform, nor was I the first.  Gaius Laelius, a friend of Scipio’s, also attempted to push for an end to these injustices, but was pressured into silence, and is now referred to by many as “the prudent”.10  I then took it upon myself to right these wrongs, and with the aid of several great men, including my father-in-law, Appius Claudius, who had held offices of censor and consul,11 current consul, Mucius Scaevola, and the Pontifex Maximus, Crassus.12  Together, we came to the conclusion that all offenders of these laws should give up all unjust acquisitions, for which they would be compensated, so that the poor and deserving citizens in most need of land may possess it.13  However, once again the greed of these men prevailed, and they refused to accept these terms, and even accused me of attempting to undermine the foundations of this very state which I love so dearly, and incite a general revolution.  These same men even recruited my fellow tribune, Marcus Octavius, to try to prevent my laws from passing.14

Fortunately, they could not fool everyone, as it is undeniable that what I was attempting was indeed honorable and just!15  It was then that my hand was forced into stripping Octavius of his powers, but you were all witnesses to my continued pleas, urging him to reconsider and aid in the noble cause which we were pursuing.  As you all saw, he refused time and time again, until we were left with no choice but to take his powers so that he may no longer hinder the progress we were making.16

I am sure that some of you may still not be convinced that what I am pushing for is right, even though you can see that it is completely legal, and what is best for the whole of Rome.  I ask you then, if any man has no land to call his own, how should he make a living?  How will he support his family?  If we are lucky, he might become a merchant, a trader, or some other lowly class of man, which we all know is not considered the “Roman Ideal”, and is a far cry from what Cato the Elder would expect of his fellow Romans.  Remember if you can, that Cato the Elder molded his son in the pursuit of virtue using his own hands, teaching him what he new, and his son later became an excellent soldier, the goal of every young Roman boy growing up.17  Could this have been accomplished had Cato not been a land owner?  I do not see how, since he would have had to spend all his time running a business, worrying about making money, instead of being able to educate his son.  If is also no secret that as there is less and less land available for the poorer men, fewer are willing to fight in the army.18  Men do not wish to fight when they feel they have nothing to fight for, and how great could Rome be if she had no soldiers to fight for her?  If you do not feel any pity knowing that so many men are left without what it rightfully theirs, at least feel fear knowing that there are fewer and fewer men willing to fight for Rome, willing to fight for your lands!  How rich could you remain if you had no lands left, since there would be nobody left to defend them for you?

Remember also the great sacrifice made centuries ago by the noble Lucretia!  She too embodied the ideal of a Roman when she elected to kill herself, rather than be used as an excuse by other women no to take responsibility for their actions.19  Are you to tell me that you are not willing to make a sacrifice of land, while a woman was willing to take her own life?  Please tell me that Rome is not so infected by greed!  Earn the respect of your fellow countrymen, and prove that greed has not filled your hearts so!  That there is a place for our great state still left in there!

I have said just about all I can on this topic, and I can only pray to the gods that they will find a way to deliver my message into your hearts.  I have tried to demonstrate to you that it is the just and noble thing to do, returning the land to those who need it most, and further more, it is in accordance with our laws and customs!  I have also tried to make you see that no matter how great a sacrifice you feel you would be making in parting with your land, others have sacrificed far more to ensure that virtue and honor remain in Rome, as well as all those brave soldiers who have fought for her, even when they had no land of their own to defend!  You already know, Gentlemen, that I am no common man who has merely taken the floor in front of you to speak his mind, but am a very highly respected man, honored throughout the Republic and abroad, and have tried no wrong against any of you, nor have I acted alone.  Everything that I have done, I have done for the good of Rome, and with the assistance and support of former and current consuls, as well as from other men of high rank and esteem.  May the gods help guide you towards the right path, and help you accept my reforms which I have proposed to you here today!

___________________________________________________________________________________

1 Peter V. Jones & Keith C. Sidwell, Reading Latin: Grammar, Vocabulary and Exercises
Cambridge University Press, 1998), 365

2 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 153

3 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 154

4 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 156

5 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 157

6 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 162

7 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 162

8 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 159

9 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 160

10 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 160

11 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 156/160

12 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 161

13 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 161

14 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 162

15 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 162

16 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 164-165

17 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 142

18 Plutarch, Makers of Rome
(Penguin Books, 1965), 160

19 Livy, The Early History of Rome
(Penguin Books)