The Deity of Fortune

 I found Machiavelli’s discussions on Fortune a curious subject that we may have grazed over too quickly in our talk of good intentions.  The topic proved dear to our author, who discusses in detail in Chapter XXV (p.113) the havoc wreaked by Fortune.  He first depicts Fortune as his “‘His Majesty King Chance’” as in the opinion of Frederick the Great and immediately follows up with a scene of floods and chaos throughout the land as Fortune’s embodiment.  These immediately suggest that Machiavelli connotes violence and misfortune as the tools of Fortune, setting any positive repercussions of this deity away from the discussion.  He later makes note of this lack of positive functions for Fortune in two statements, first: “I will leave his [Pope Julius the Second] other actions alone, as they were all alike, and they all succeeded…” (p.116).  Here he admits that he has chosen only to discuss Fortune’s negative actions, and thus an implication that Fortune has either no positive exploits, or that those are few and far between and not entirely recognizable.  Secondly, he concludes with “She is, therefore, always, womanlike, a lover of young men, because they are less cautious, more violent, and with more audacity command her” (p.116); thus explaining that Fortune preys only on those who can be easily tormented and avoids interaction of the positive sort.  Fortune has only contempt as an intention.

            I was likewise interested in his accreditation to Fortune, an amount no less than “one-half of our actions” (p.113) are under the jurisdiction of chance; a sum less than that theorized by Frederick the Great, who attributed “three-quarters of the business of this miserable universe” (p.113).  While neither man believes Fortune a constituent of positive actions, it can be observed that Machiavelli gives more credit to man in managing his own deeds.  Perhaps, in a deviously subtle manner, our author is claiming that his text is indeed worth reading, since man has most nearly half of the responsibility for his actions.  If only a fourth of our actions were under our control, how significant would reading a guidebook like The Prince be?

            Wherein Machiavelli cites Frederick the Great, it may also be found that the pair disagree on the subject of Fortune’s gender.  This may perhaps be in concordance with their proposed jurisdictions:  Frederick claiming Fortune as the Prince of all, delegator of the majority of life’s aims and thus suitably personified as a king; and Machiavelli depicting a half and then some of governance.  Machiavelli’s claim gives light to a series of interpretations:  perhaps a cultural development in the appreciation of women, a claim that men are ruled by their counterparts, and/or a statement about the author’s personal experience with the opposite sex.  What do you all think about Machiavelli's depiction?