Machiavelli, PO235 PDF

THE FOX ATOP FORTUNE’S WHEEL: MACHIAVELLI
AND MEDIEVAL REALIST DISCOURSE
Bee Yun*
Abstract: Machiavelli’s ongoing reputation as a master thinker in the history of Western political thought
owes much to the assumption that he is the first modern realist thinker who faithfully followed the objective
logic of reality to finally uncover the truth of politics that remained concealed by the moral and religious
rhetoric of the Middle Ages. This study provides a reassessment of this claim through the reconstruction of
the historical continuity of realist ideas from the Middle Ages to Machiavelli’s time. It highlights the im-
agery of the fox and its confrontation with Fortune as a leading metaphor of Machiavelli’s conception of the
art of politics, and relates it to a tradition of a similar symbolism that had been used in connection with
realist ideas since the late twelfth century in the transalpine countries. On this basis, this study demonstrates
that Machiavelli’s ideas should be understood in the context of the continuing realist tradition in Western
Europe.
Keywords: Machiavelli; The Prince (Il Principe); political realism; Fortune; On Fortune (Di Fortuna);
Fortune’s wheel; the fox; the fox and the lion; the fox atop Fortune’s wheel; Roman de Renart.
1. INTRODUCTION
“Political realism” (hereinafter, also realism) is a designation given by modern
commentators of politics to a form of political discourse that revolves around a clear
and sharp distinction between what is morally right, acceptable, or legitimate versus
what is politically expedient, with the latter being given preference over the former.
What is considered to be politically expedient or beneficial signifies what can best
guarantee and promote security and power under certain conditions, while all sorts of
normative claims such as moral and religious prescriptions come to be subject to prag-
matic scrutiny. In view of the increasing importance of this discourse both as a tool for
explaining and as a rationale justifying amoral actions in political literature as well as
especially in political practices since the late nineteenth century, scholars have at-
tempted to trace its historical origin and trajectories.
In the prevalent lineage of the realist tradition, which extends from Thucydides and
the Sophists of Greek Antiquity to Thomas Hobbes and other modern thinkers, a spe-
cial place is allotted to Machiavelli. As stated by Maurizio Viroli, there seems to be no
serious objections among scholars of Machiavelli to categorizing him as a realist
political thinker.1 In his discussion of the principles of political success, notoriously,
but not exclusively, in The Prince [Il principe], Machiavelli underscores a detachment
from conventional moral and religious prescriptions and advocates partaking in strate-
gic thinking at all times. He does not even hesitate to recommend pre-emptive actions
in the absence of visible provocations and threats from opponents and enemies, when
required by interest. It is inapposite in the characterization of Machiavelli as a realist
that he renders the republican self-rule the highest legitimacy in the Discourses [Dis-

*
Department of Political Science and Diplomacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul. I am particularly grate-
ful to Vasileios Syros who gave me a chance to present a previous version of this essay in the workshop
“Politics in Times of Machiavelli” (University of Jyväskylä, 4 Dec. 2013) and assisted me with his advice
and encouragement. I also owe appreciation to Johannes Helmrath, Jörg Feuchter, Hwa-Yong Lee, Yong-Jin
Hong, Albert Al, and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. I also thank Jan Dumolyn who
kindly helped me with his expertise in the medieval Dutch language. This essay was supported by Sungkyun
Research Fund, Sungkyunkwan University, 2010.
1
Maurizio Viroli, “Machiavelli’s Realism,” Constellations 14 (2007) 466.
Viator 47 No. 2 (2016) 305–330. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.111235

306 BEE YUN
corsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio], projecting the common good or utility as the
highest goal of political action, or that with his realist teaching he never intended to
vindicate the blind, relentless pursuit of power by tyrants, as demonstrated by his
vehement accusation of Agathocles, the ancient tyrant of Syracuse, in chapter eight of
The Prince.2 In Machiavelli’s view, a noble cause does not exonerate a political leader
from the necessity of exercising the most immoral means, following the requirements
of a given situation.
Furthermore, discussions about Machiavelli’s realism have especially focused on its
allegedly scientific character. Many influential scholars who brought about a Machia-
velli Renaissance in the early twentieth century, such as Friedrich Meinecke, Leonardo
Olschki, and Ernst Cassirer, have pointed out that he had a modern scientific mind
with a “cool-headed, matter of fact acceptance of apparent necessity.”3 In a number of
scholarly works, Machiavelli has frequently been portrayed as a “scientific” pioneer.
The legacy of this narrative about Machiavelli’s scientific genius is still weighed heav-
ily, despite the shift of focus in research carried out during the last few decades to
Machiavelli’s republicanism, often receiving special illumination and bolstering, and
casting its shadow here and there.4
Beneath this evaluation of Machiavelli’s scientific thinking lies a historiographical
scheme which was very popular until recently, and has not yet lost its influence en-
tirely, that describes the evolution of Western culture in terms of a drama of the birth,
death, and rebirth of the rationalist and empiricist mode of thinking. According to this
vision, the tradition of rationalism and empiricism originated with the Greco-Roman
civilization, but evanesced under the domination of religion and morality during the
Middle Ages. People had to live in a state of ignorance or illusion until the tradition

2
The idea that Machiavelli conceived his realist maxims to be put in the service of public good, not for
private interest was represented by Isaiah Berlin, “The Originality of Machiavelli,” Against the Current.
Essays in the History of Ideas (New York 1979) 25–79.
3
Friedrich Meinecke, Die Idee der Staatsräson in der neueren Geschichte, 4th ed. (Munich 1976, origi-
nally published 1924) 45. Leonardo Olschki, Machiavelli the Scientist (Berkeley 1945); Ernst Cassirer, The
Myth of the State (New Haven 1946) 135–137. These three authors are only representative examples of this
line of Machiavelli’s interpretation. Maurizio Viroli rightly commented, “a complete list of the scholars who
have remarked on the scientific character of Machiavelli’s style of thinking and writing about politics would
be endless.” See Maurizio Viroli, Machiavelli (Oxford 1998) 195. The quoted expression is derived from
Hans Baron, The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance (Princeton 1966, originally published in 2 vols.
1955) 152.
4
See Roger D. Masters, Machiavelli, Leonardo, and the Science of Power (Notre Dame 1996) 5:
“Machiavelli’s understanding is also shaped by a reflection on the primacy of political practice and an
awareness of the new scientific perspective explored by Leonardo da Vinci. The result is a this-worldly
view of history, opening the hope that events can be partly controlled or shaped by human intelligence, art,
and choice. Our world of science and technology seems but a development of this perspective, according to
which humans can create new things just as, in Genesis, Yahweh created the heavens, the earth, and all
living things.” Consider also Joseph V. Femia’s similar remark in Machiavelli Revisited (Cardiff 2004) 62:
“Machiavelli’s realism, as much as his commitment to the empirical method, stemmed from his rejection of
metaphysics and teleology. ... In determining how people ought to live, we must be guided by how they do
live, by their actual thoughts and behavior. With scientific detachment, the objective observer sweeps away
the web of illusion people spin round themselves and concentrates on factual evidence.” Needless to say,
this interpretation is most influential among scholars with a German background. See, for instance, Herfried
Münkler, Machiavelli: Die Begründung des politischen Denkens der Neuzeit aus der Krise der Republik
Florenz (Frankfurt/Main 1981); Peter Schröder, Niccolò Machiavelli (Frankfurt/ Main 2004).
THE FOX ATOP FORTUNE’S WHEEL 307
was miraculously revived after a millenary silence in the blooming secular culture of
Italy starting in the thirteenth century, which is called the “Renaissance.”
The aforementioned modern commentators of political realism, some of whom were
also proponents of realist politics like Meinecke, found in this historiographical
scheme a useful device for explaining the historical evolution of realism and the re-
lated implications in the history of Western civilization. They argued that realism is
ultimately related to a culture of rationalism and empiricism, which caused people to
discredit all moral and religious teachings, which could not promote their own tangible
interests, as sheer fiction. The rationalist and empiricist culture of the Renaissance
unleashed a culture of egoism, endemic interest conflicts, and fragmentation of society,
finding its discursive expression in Machiavelli’s realism. In these terms, Machia-
velli’s realist conception of politics was not the personal frivolity of an immoral
scoundrel, but rather an expression of the Zeitgeist. It was in this assessment of the
historical position of the realist tradition that Machiavelli came to be perceived as a
“master thinker,” finally freed from the long-time suspicion mixed with blame with
which he had been hailed in the name of sound morality and religion. Not wholly un-
like the founding framers of modern natural science, it was argued that this framer of
modern political realism felt his way out, solely trusting his own eyes and experiences
through aid of the teachings and observations of several ancient authorities, but
unhampered by the traditional notions of politics. Machiavelli came to be established
in the pantheon of great thinkers, beside such great philosophers, scientists, and artists
as Copernicus, Leonardo da Vinci, and Galileo Galilei, who were commonly believed
to have ushered in a modern era with a succession of path-breaking natural scientific
discoveries and technological advances.
However, this evaluation of Machiavelli’s political ideas and the concomitant
reconstruction of the history of realism are as problematic as the underlying
historiographical scheme of the evolution of rationalist and empiricist culture, which
has repeatedly been subject to criticism as being wrought from a mixture of the French
Enlightenment’s ill-intentioned criticism of Christianity and the Romantic fantasy of
the Middle Ages.5 This view wrongly presupposes the realist conception of politics as

5
On the genesis and problems of the negative conception of the Middle Ages in modern historiography,
see Klaus Arnold, “Das “finstere” Mittelalter. Zur Genese und Phänomenologie eines Fehlurteils,” Saecu-
lum 32 (1981) 287–300; Otto Gerhard Oexle, “Das Bild der Moderne vom Mittelalter und die moderne
Mittelalterforschung,” Frühmittelalterliche Studien 24 (1990) 1–22; idem, “Das Mittelalter und das Un-
behagen an der Moderne. Mittelalterbeschwörungen in der Weimarer Republik und danach,” Spannungen
und Widersrpüche. Gedenkschrift für FrantisČk Graus, ed. Susanna Burghartz, Hans-Jörg Gilomen, Guy P.
Marchal, et al. (Sigmaringen 1992) 125–153; idem, “Die Moderne und ihr Mittelalter. Eine folgenreiche
Problemgeschichte,” Mittelalter und Moderne. Entdeckung und Rekonstruktion der mittelalterlichen Welt,
ed. Peter Segl (Sigmaringen 1997) 307–364; Albert Zimmermann, ““Das finstere Mittelalter.” Be-
merkungen zu einem Schlagwort,” Die Bibliotheca Amploniana. Ihre Bedeutung im Spannungsfeld von
Aristotelismus, Nominalismus und Humanismus, ed. Andreas Speer (Berlin and New York 1995) 1–15;
Hans-Werner Goetz, Moderne Mediävistik. Stand und Perspektiven der Mittelalterforschung (Darmstadt
1999) 36–54; Constantin Fasolt, “Hegel’s Ghost: Europe, the Reformation, and the Middle Ages,” Viator 39
(2008) 345–386. A frequent target of criticism of this distorted notion of the Middle Ages is Jacob Burck-
hardt, whose book, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien),
written in 1860, was regarded as being responsible for popularizing the prejudiced image of medieval cul-
ture, both among historians and among the public. The changing milieu among researchers of the
Renaissance, and the increasing skepticism towards the Burckhardtian conception, can be glimpsed in the
308 BEE YUN
the timeless truth of politics, thereby ignoring the fact that the different meanings of
politics came to be negotiated differently in every age and society. 6 This kind of
hypostatization of the realist conception inevitably leads to the dismissal or stigmatiza-
tion of a substantial amount of political literature not only of the Middle Ages, but also
of the Modern Age, as “idealistic.”
Another (more historical) point of criticism concerns the exclusion of the entire
medieval period, absolutizing the domination of religious and moral teachings in vari-
ous medieval societies. As several scholars have shown, medieval culture was far from
being exclusively dominated by religious and moral views, and far from merely being
hostile to all sorts of “pragmatic” thinking. Gaines Post and other scholars have al-
ready pointed out that Machiavelli’s realism was preceded by pragmatist thinking in
the political and legal discourses of the Middle Ages, which claimed that “necessity
knows no laws (necessitas non habet legem).”7 It should be noted that the concept of
“necessity” encompassed a broad definition, so as to justify virtually any sort of viola-
tion against legal and moral codes. After careful discussion of the numerous abuses of
the concept of necessity in Later Medieval Germany, one researcher concluded that it
would be rather naïve to associate all of the frequent appeals to the right of expediency
in the sources, with the real existence of “extreme emergency (letzte not)”, or “ex-
treme necessity (extrema necessitas).”8 The concept was quite often invoked to pave
the way around the barriers of valid rules and positive laws. It is only by ignoring this
historical reality that Machiavelli can be described as having ushered in political real-
ism.
This essay will address that problematic reconstruction of the historical develop-
ment of political realism and the exclusion of the medieval period—and also sketch an
alternative position. It will focus on the political realist cultures and discourses of the

critical remarks of John Jeffries Martin on the Burckhardtian explication of the genesis of modern
individualism. See John Jeffries Martin, Myths of Renaissance Individualism (Basingstoke 2004) 1–7.
6
Quentin Skinner points out a “kind of historical absurdity” or a “form of non-history” which consists in
assuming that “Machiavelli thought about politics essentially as we do; this is his ‘lasting significance’. But
his contemporaries did not: this makes their political views ‘completely unreal.’” Quentin Skinner, “Mean-
ing and Understanding in the History of Ideas,” Meaning and Context. Quentin Skinner and Its Critics, ed.
James Tully (Princeton 1988) 29–67, at 35. I leave aside a detailed discussion of the problematic naturalistic
epistemology. For the relevant criticism of the naturalist position see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und
Methode: Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik, 2 vols. (Tübingen 1960); Jürgen Habermas, Zur
Logik der Sozialwissenschaften (Frankfurt/Main 1982) 15–85; Karl-Otto Apel, “Das Apriori der
Kommunikationsgemeinschaft und die Grundlage der Ethik. Zum Problem einer rationalen Begründung der
Ethik im Zeitalter der Wissenschaft,” Transformation der Philosophie, 5th ed., 2 vols. (Frankfurt/Main 1993)
2.358–435. See also criticisms from the radical constructivist positions in Der Diskurs des radikalen
Konstruktivismus, ed. Siegfried J. Schmidt (Frankfurt/Main 1987).
7
Gaines Post, “Ratio publicae utilitatis, ratio status and “Reason of State” 1100–1300,” Studies in
Medieval Legal Thought. Public Law and the State, 1100–1322 (Princeton 1964) 241–309; Johannes W.
Pichler, Necessitas. Ein Element des mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Rechts: dargestellt am Beispiel
österreichischer Rechtsquellen (Berlin 1983). Regarding development of the concept of necessity before
Machiavelli, also see Johannes W. Pichler, “Necessitas non habet legem,” Aus Österreichs Rechtsleben in
Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Ernst C. Hellbling zum 80. Geburtstag, ed. Dorethea Mayer-
Maly (Berlin 1981) 659–682; Ewart Lewis, “Natural Law and Expediency in Medieval Political Theory,”
Ethics 50 (1939–40) 144–163; Reinhard G. Kreuz, “Überleben und gutes Leben. Erläuterungen zu Begriff
und Geschichte der Staatsräson,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Geistesgeschichte 52 (1978) 173–187.
8
Pichler, Necessitas (n. 7 above) 129.
Middle Ages at the popular level, and relate Machiavelli’s political thought to it. I
believe that scholars have not paid enough attention to the source-related problems
inherent in medieval studies in their discussion on the presence or absence of political
realism during the Middle Ages. The majority of the documents and texts currently
read and given attention in academia represent hegemonic discourses, which were
regarded during their time as being decent and legitimate, and thus appropriate for
public presentation.9 Such texts were produced by a relatively small number of edu-
cated people, who shared the ideal of a cultured way of discourse on politics, and were
subject to censorship, imposed partly by political and religious authorities, and partly
by various intellectual traditions, conventions, and norms. As a result, the writings
produced during this period tend to be highly ritualized and are characterized by a
high degree of formalization in terms of structure, language, and content. In other
words, what appears in such sources may provide only a partial, or even distorted,
picture of medieval culture and ideas. Specific ideas and arguments that may sound
disturbing and scandalous according to the moral and religious standards of the time
were either censored or had to be toned-down and framed in language that conformed
to the conventions of the period. I believe that these restrictive discursive practices
provide an explanation for the scarcity of radical political realist expressions compara-
ble to those of Machiavelli in the sources of the previous and contemporary ages (also,
for a long period afterward). It may be, however, highly problematic and even
misleading to make any conclusions about the absence of political realism because of
the scarcity of such representations.
In light of these problems, the focus on the popular, more informal level of dis-
course and the consequent choice of the materials for analysis in this essay were
deliberate. This study leaves the familiar terrain of sources, such as mirror-of-princes,
advice literature, polemical treatises, and legal and theological commentaries, on
which historians of political ideas usually graze, and enter a land scarcely visited, of
proverbs, romances, and episodes recorded in various Chronica, with examination of
illustrations from the pages of manuscripts and printed books. Proverbs are collective
creations that come together over a long period of time, and often shed important light
on common sense and popular conceptions of life and society. Romances, written for
fun as well as for didactical purposes, tend to be less subject to the rules of “decent”
discourse. Chronicles, claiming to faithfully report real events that happened, often
provide vivid descriptions of the events, characters, and their actions. All these materi-
als can be helpful in attaining a richer sense of the realist culture present during the
Middle Ages.
This study gives particular focus on the symbolic dimensions of medieval realism.
In this context, special interest will be given to examination of some medieval illustra-
tions. As is generally agreed by commentators, symbols are an essential part of the

9
Many of the points to be made below were already made by the historians of “popular culture.” For a
useful summary and criticism of the discussions of the past thirty years on the relevant topics, see Peter
Burke, Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe, 3rd ed. (Surrey 2009), esp. the preface to the 3rd ed. Also
see Hans-Jörg Gilomen, “Volkskultur und Exemplar–Forschung,” Modernes Mittelalter. Neue Bilder einer
populären Epoche, ed. Joachim Heinzle (Frankfurt/Main 1994) 165–208.
310 BEE YUN
collective memory of a society.10 They are a “condensation” of the feelings and ideas
shared by the members of a society, which may not otherwise be clearly visible in the
world of written documents; thus, such feelings and ideas can be released when
properly decoded.11 Peter Burke is attentive to this value of symbolic expressions in
historical studies and highlighted the importance of paintings, statues and prints,
remarking that they allow us “to share the non-verbal experiences or knowledge of
past cultures. They bring home to us what we may have known but did not take so
seriously before.”12
At the center of discussion lies the metaphor of prudence, as was depicted in a se-
ries of illustrations representing the fox atop Fortune’s wheel that first appeared in the
late eleventh and early twelfth century in close relation to the daily realist discourse in
the medieval literary and artistic tradition. Sarcastically parodying the famous literary
and artistic motive of Fortune’s wheel that stood for the vision of life according to the
moral and religious teachings, the illustrations represented a different view of pru-
dence, underlining the inappropriateness of the traditional catalogue of virtue in real
life. As will be shown in the course of the discussion, this representation of prudence
is highly germane for the study of the history of realism. On one hand, it illustrates the
realist culture and discourse in the Middle Ages; on the other, it also anticipates, both
in its form and contents, Machiavelli’s symbolism of the same topic. By focusing on
the composition and ideas of the symbolisms of the medieval illustration and in
Machiavelli’s thought and their affinity this study will demonstrate how fallacious it
may be to exclude the Middle Ages from the scholarly scope over the history of real-
ism in the West.
This essay will begin with an exegesis of Machiavelli’s realist view of prudence
with an underlying picture of the world and proceed to analyze the fox metaphor that
alludes to its quintessence. Then, it will go over to the medieval metaphor of the fox
atop Fortune’s wheel, which displays a remarkable similarity to Machiavelli’s symbol-
ism in representing an ideal of prudent life. Through explication of the realist outlook
behind the metaphor, and aided by additional considerations of other clues about the
realist cultures and discourses in the Middle Ages, this study will examine the ongoing
development of realist culture and discourse in the Middle Ages and its possible influ-
ences on the realism of the Renaissance.

10
This conception of the meaning and function of symbols underlies the modern iconological project,
which is related to Aby Warburg. See Edgar Wind, “Warburg's Concept of Kulturwissenschaft and Its
Meaning for Aesthetics,” The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist Art, ed. Jaynie Anderson (Oxford
1983) 21–36, at 25–26. Also see Aleida Assmann, Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions,
Media, Archives (Cambridge 2011), esp. 206–229.
11
Assmann, Cultural Memory (n. 10 above) 215.
12
Peter Burke, Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence (Ithaca 2001) 13. For related
discussions, see W. J. T. Mitchell, What Do Pictures Want? (Chicago 2005), esp. chap. 4; Gottfried Boehm,
Wie Bilder Sinn erzeugen: Die Macht des Zeigens (Berlin 2007). In the field of modern philosophical re-
search, Hans Blumenberg’s project of Metaphorologie takes the insight that symbolic images and imageries
provide seriously. See Hans Blumenberg, Paradigmen zu einer Metaphorologie (Frankfurt/Main 1999).
2. THE FOX PRESIDING OVER FORTUNE’S WHEEL

In chapter eighteen of The Prince, Machiavelli represents politics with the image of a
battlefield. To survive there, a prince must learn that there are two ways of contesting:
by law, or by force. The former is human, but is insufficient for a prince, especially a
new prince, and must therefore be complemented by the latter. Machiavelli bolsters
his contentions by bringing up the legendary example of Chiron, a centaur, who
nursed great princes, which, according to him, signifies that a prince needs to encom-
pass the nature of both a human being and a beast.13 He then summarizes the entire
argument in a parable, which would remain influential in the history of Western politi-
cal thought:
Since a prince is compelled of necessity to know well how to use the beast, he should pick
the fox and the lion, because the lion does not defend itself from snares and the fox does not
defend itself from wolves. So one needs to be a fox to recognize snares and a lion to frighten
the wolves.14
It is important to note that in this parable the metaphor of the fox signifies more than
an act of deliberately deceiving others about one’s true ambition and intention or
purposively breaking promises and oaths. It designates the strategic mind that esti-
mates circumstances solely in light of reaching a goal, measuring the options in terms
of effects, methodically designing the course of action, and then relentlessly
implementing it. As Machiavelli discusses Severus in the succeeding chapter, whom
he calls “a very fierce lion and a very astute fox (uno ferocissimo lione e una
astutissima golpe),”15 he focuses on the strategic insight and planning that Severus
demonstrated in his rise to the emperor’s throne, not merely his superb skill at deceiv-
ing others. As a highly goal-oriented use of the intellect, the fox stands over the lion.
To speak figuratively, it can find, when necessary, a way to acquire and exhibit force
which it initially lacks. The lion, however, does not know how to properly use its
physical stength, muscles, teeth, and claws. Therefore, Machiavelli criticizes specifi-
cally “those who stay simply with the lion (coloro che stanno semplicemente in sul
lione)”16 for failing to grasp his lessons.17

13
Ezio Raimondi, “The Politician and the Centaur,” Machiavelli and the Discourse of Literature, ed. Al-
bert R. Ascoli and Victoria Kahn (Ithaca and London 1993) 145–160.
14
Niccolò Machiavelli, Il principe, Tutte le opere storiche, politiche e letterarie, ed. Alessandro Capata
(Rome 1998) 6–55, at 38: “Sendo dunque necessitato uno principe sapere bene usare la bestia, debbe di
quelle pigliare la golpe e il lione: perché el lione non si difende da’ lacci, la golpe non si difende da’ lupi;
bisogna adunque essere golpe a conoscere e’ lacci, e lione a sbigottire e’ lupi.” The Eng. trans. follows
Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince, trans. Harvey Mansfield, 2nd ed. (Chicago 1998) 69. I put the page num-
ber of the translation in brackets in the following.
15
Ibid. 42 (79).
16
Ibid. 38 (69).
17
It is therefore thoroughly understandable that researchers have concentrated on the fox. Timothy J.
Lukes, complaining about this concentration, seems to have failed to evaluate the semantic range of the
metaphor of the fox in Machiavelli’s thought, which is not confined to the symbolization of mere shrewd-
ness and deception. See Timothy J. Lukes, “Lionizing Machiavelli,” American Political Science Review 95
(2001) 561–575.
312 BEE YUN
Machiavelli devised this parable with polemical intentions. In addition to being a

symbol of the devil in the medieval Christian tradition, 18 the fox was the most
abominable creature in the humanist moral symbolism. Cicero, the hero of the human-
ists, wrote in De Officiis that “while wrong may be done, then, in either of two ways,
that is, by force or by fraud, both are bestial: fraud seems to belong to the cunning fox,
force to the lion; both are wholly unworthy of man, but fraud is the more contemptible
(Cum autem duobus modis, id est aut vi aut fraude, fiat iniuria, fraus quasi vulpeculae,
vis leonis videtur; utrumque homine alienissimum, sed fraus odio digna maiore).”19 In
The Prince Machiavelli playfully turns this famous bestiary parable of Cicero upside
down.20 His contemporaries could scarcely have missed the provocation in his reversal
of Cicero’s parable.
However, Machiavelli’s deployment of the fox metaphor is, in his entire argument,
more than a mere symbolic refutation of the humanist tradition.21 The metaphor of the
fox is an integral part of a distinct body of Machiavelli’s symbolism, as it is inter-
locked with other metaphors and motifs of his thought in various ways and degrees,
thus its signification must also be assessed in this context. Particularly notable here is
its close association with the metaphor of Fortune, which occupies a central place in
the famous twenty-fifth chapter of The Prince.
The central importance of the metaphor of Fortune in Machiavelli’s thought hardly
needs a detailed explication. It provides a symbolic summarization of Machiavelli’s
grave woes over the fundamental limitations imposed on human conduct by the radical
contingencies that befall human affairs. 22 As the dispenser of worldly goods with
limitless whims defying every sort of logical understanding, Fortune has been charged
since antiquity in numerous verses and proses for the vicissitudes of human affairs, not
the least of which includes the rise and fall of great politicians, generals, cities, states,
and empires.23 Machiavelli acknowledges Fortune’s overwhelming power in human

18
Hans-Jörg Uther, “Fuchs,” Enzyklopädie des Märchens (Berlin 1987) V.447–478. Eng. trans. “The
Fox in World Literature. Reflections on a “Fictional Animal,” Asian Folklore Studies 65 (2006) 133–160.
19
Cicero, De Officiis, ed. and trans. Walter Miller (Cambridge, MA 1961) 1.13.41.
20
In addition to Cicero, Michael Stolleis mentions Plutarch’s Lysander as a possible source of Machia-
velli’s parable. See Michael Stolleis, “Löwe und Fuchs. Eine politische Maxime im Frühabsolutismus,” in
idem, Staat und Staatsräson in der frühen Neuzeit. Studien zur Geschichte des öffentlichen Rechts (Frank-
furt/Main 1990) 21–26.
21
On Machiavelli’s reversal of Cicero’s parable and his intentions, see Marcia Colish, “Cicero’s De Of-
ficiis and Machiavelli’s Prince,” Sixteenth Century Journal 9 (1978) 81–93; Quentin Skinner, Machiavelli
(Oxford 1981) 31–47; idem, The Foundation of Modern Political Thought, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1978) 1.128–
138; Harvey Mansfield, Machiavelli’s Virtue (Chicago 1996), esp. 28–36; Gennaro Sasso, Machiavelli e gli
antichi e altri saggi, 4 vols. (Milan and Naples 1997) vol. 4, chap. 4; J. Jackson Barlow, “The Fox and the
Lion,” History of Political Thought 20 (1999) 627–645; Janet Coleman, A History of Political Thought, vol.
II: From the Middle Ages to the Renaissance (Blackwell 2000) 250; Viroli, Machiavelli (n. 3 above) 52–54.
22
On the concept of Fortune and its significance in Machiavelli’s thoughts, see Skinner, Machiavelli (n.
21 above) 24–31; Hanna Penichel Pitkin, Fortune Is a Woman. Gender and Politics in the Thought of
Niccolò Machiavelli (Chicago 1984); Sebastian de Grazia, Machiavelli in Hell (Princeton 1989) 202–215;
Anthony J. Parel, The Machiavellian Cosmos (New Haven 1992) chap. 4; Coleman, A History of Political
Thought (n. 21 above) 252–266; Viroli, Machiavelli (n. 3 above) 20–21; Cary J. Nederman, Machiavelli
(Oxford 2009) 28–72.
23
On the medieval and Renaissance idea of Fortune, see Alfred Doren, “Fortuna im Mittelalter und in
der Renaissance,” Vorträge der Bibliothek Warburg 1 (1922–3) 71–144; Howard Rollin Patch, The Goddess
Fortuna in Mediaeval Literature (Northhampton, MA 1922); Jerold C. Frakes, The Fate of Fortune in the
Early Middle Ages. The Boethian Tradition (Leiden 1988); Charles M. Radding, “Fortune and her Wheel.
affairs; nevertheless, he is not entirely fatalistic, but believes that human beings can
still influence the outcomes of an enterprise; according to him, Fortune is arbiter of
only half of human actions, but the other half or so is left to the human beings to gov-
ern.24 For Machiavelli, politics is figuratively a game with Fortune.
Machiavelli metaphorizes the confrontation with Fortune by using several symbols.
For example, to stress decisiveness and audacity, Machiavelli compares Fortune to a
woman. He says: “It is better to be impetuous than cautious, because Fortune is a
woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her
down. And one sees that she lets herself be won more by the impetuous than by those
who proceed coldly.”25 In another place, Machiavelli compares Fortune to a river that
destroys everything in times of flood, unless controlled by the construction of defenses
and barriers, underlining foresight and preparation.26
However, it is important to note that neither the image of macho-type tough guy nor
that of a clever dam constructor entailed by these metaphors of Fortune represents
Machiavelli’s ideal warrior against Fortune. In his view, it is impossible to succeed
and continuously flourish by adhering to and applying the same method, however effi-
cient it might have been on several occasions. For Machiavelli, the war against For-
tune requires an exceptional quality that adroitly changes one’s tactics and strategies,
as the situation demands. In the course of the discussion, Machiavelli asks why a
fortunate prince of today is found at the bottom of society tomorrow. He looks for
answers in the functional relation between actions and the related circumstances.
According to Machiavelli, when a mode of action accords with the circumstances, its
outcome will be positive; however, when it does not, the results will be negative. Thus,
for instance, “if one governs himself with caution and patience, and the times and af-
fairs turn in such a way that his government is good, he comes out happy; but if the
times and affairs change, he is ruined because he does not change his mode of
proceeding.”27 This function of the quality of action and circumstances also accounts
for this discrepancy: “One also sees two cautious persons, one attaining his plan, the
other not; and similarly two persons are equally happy with two different methods,
one being cautious, the other impetuous.”28
Accordingly, the power of adaptation to the changing conditions and needs occupies
a central position in Machiavelli’s consideration of the truly prudent political leader.

The Meaning of a Medieval Symbol,” Mediaevistik 5 (1992) 127–138; Joerg O. Fichte, “Providentia-Fatum-
Fortuna,” Das Mittelalter 1 (1996) 5–19; Hans-Werner Goetz, “Fortuna in der hochmittelalterlichen
Geschichtsschreibung,” Das Mittelalter 1 (1996) 75–89; Elisabeth Mégier, “Fortuna als Kategorie der
Geschichtsdeutung im 12. Jahrhundert am Beispiel Ordericus’ Vitalis und Ottos von Freising,”
Mittelalterliches Jahrbuch (1997) 49–70. On Fortune in medieval and Renaissance visual arts, see Eh-
rengard Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna. Die Göttin des Glücks im Wandel der Zeiten (Munich and Berlin 1997).
24
Machiavelli, Il principe (n. 14 above) 51 (98).
25
Ibid. 53 (101): “sia meglio essere impetuoso che respettivo: perché la fortuna è donna ed è necessario,
volendola tenere sotto, batterla e urtarla. E si vede che la si lascia più vincere da questi, che da quegli che
freddamente procedono.”
26
Ibid. 51–52 (98–99).
27
Ibid. 52 (100): “se uno, che si governa con rispetti e pazienza, e’ tempi e le cose girano in modo che il
governo suo sia buono, e’ viene felicitando: ma se e’ tempi e le cose si mutano, rovina, perché e’ non muta
modo di procedere.”
28
Ibid. (99): “vedesi ancora dua respettivi, l’uno pervenire al suo disegno, l’altro no; e similmente dua
equalmente felicitare con diversi studi, sendo l’uno rispettivo e l’altro impetuoso.”
314 BEE YUN
Certainly, Machiavelli is aware of the limitation imposed by nature and habit on the
human power of adaptation. He laments that a man may not be found so prudent as to
always know how to accommodate himself to the change of times and affairs,
“whether because he cannot deviate from what nature inclines him to or also because,
when one has always flourished by walking on one path, he cannot be persuaded to
depart from it.”29 Nevertheless, Machiavelli does not entirely give up the possibility of
being able to effectively counterbalance the contingencies of life by overcoming the
limitation of inborn nature and the effects of habit. An ambitious leader has to culti-
vate the ability to carefully evaluate every situation and adopt the appropriate tactic
and strategy and never be afraid of abandoning the familiar ways if he were to be a
master of Fortune.
The symbolic interconnection between the metaphors of the fox and Fortune be-
comes apparent in this context of Machiavelli’s highlighting of the power of adapta-
tion. As is discussed above, in Machiavelli’s symbolism, it is the fox that represents
the power of strategic thought and calculation. Indeed, the metaphor of a wise builder
of a dam may also be related to the intellectual capacity and judgment required in this
endeavor; it is, however, too “meager and lukewarm” to fully represent the relentless
means-end reasoning that can ignore the problems such an adaptation process will
necessarily incur with its breach of morality.
It may be objected that Machiavelli does not mention the fox directly in relation to
Fortune in chapter twenty-five. However, in reconstructing the symbolic field of an
author’s thought, it is often necessary to go beyond what is immediately expressed in
the text. The deeper meaning and function of individual metaphors can be fully illumi-
nated only in the context of the entire symbolism which they collectively constitute.
In fact, the confrontation between the fox and Fortune is represented by Machiavelli,
as he illuminates the power of adaptation as a necessary means for defense against
Fortune’s whim after introducing the beast parable in chapter eighteen. He comments
on Pope Alexander VI to illuminate his argument that among the princes “the one who
has known best how to use the fox has come out best (quello che ha saputo meglio
usare la golpe, è meglio capitato).”30 For him, Alexander is a prominent proof of his
contention that the prince has to master the skill to deceive others and occasionally
renege on his promises. The new prince especially has to learn that he is sometimes
necessitated to act against faith, charity, humanity, and religion.31 Then, he adds, “And
so he needs to have a spirit disposed to change as the winds of Fortune and variations
of things command him, and as I said above, not depart from good, when possible, but
know how to enter into evil, when forced by necessity.”32 This passage does not only
highlight the crucial importance of the theme of the value of adaptation in The Prince
which is predominantly concerned with the conduct of a new ruler. It also clearly

29
Ibid. 52–53 (100): “Sì perché non si può deviare da quello a che la natura lo inclina, sì etiam perché,
avendo sempre uno prosperato camminando per una via, non si può persuadere che sia bene partirsi da
quella.”
30
Ibid. 38 (70).
31
Ibid. 38–39 (70).
32
Ibid. 38 (70): “E però bisogna che egli abbia uno animo disposto a volgersi secondo che e’ venti della
fortuna e la variazione delle cose gli comandano; e, come di sopra dissi, non partirsi dal bene, potendo, ma
sapere entrare nel male, necessitato.”
demonstrates how central the imagery of the confrontation between the fox and For-
tune is in Machiavelli’s symbolism.
The same imagery is also present in the extensive discussion of the deeds and fate
of Cesare Borgia, Alexander’s illegitimate son and inarguably one of the central fig-
ures of The Prince. While discussing the cases of princes who rose to power with the
aid of others’ arms and Fortune in chapter seven, Machiavelli describes Borgia’s rise
and fall thoroughly in terms of interacting and vying with Fortune: Borgia owed his
initial rise and success to Fortune’s favor, since he was Alexander’s son; he soon real-
ized the fragile nature of his position, however, and set out to create and strengthen his
own power basis by making sagacious use of all the available chances and possibilities
from a strategic perspective and almost constructed a new state in central Italy; he
failed finally, however, on account of his and his father’s sudden illness which
Machiavelli designates as “extraordinary and extreme malignity of Fortune (estraordi-
naria ed estrema malignità di fortuna),”33 in addition to the blunder of allowing his
enemy to wear the Pope’s tiara.34
Machiavelli ascribes to Borgia all the abilities he will try to explicate eleven chap-
ters later by means of the fox metaphor. He shows how Borgia used power for more
power and let fraud and perfidy take the lead in the process with perfect skill. Espe-
cially noteworthy is a phrase contained in his admonition to the new princes to imitate
Borgia. He notes that a new prince who finds it necessary to “conquer either by force
or fraud (vincere o per forza o per fraude)”35 cannot find a stronger example than Bor-
gia. In this remark, which is evocative of his characterization of Severus as “a fierce
lion and astute fox”36 in chapter nineteen, Machiavelli is clearly applying the image of
the fox to Borgia. For Machiavelli, Borgia’s entire political career can be represented
as the story of a fox’s interaction with Fortune.
All these examples illustrate how central the metaphor of the confrontation of the
fox with Fortune is to the discussions in The Prince. Wherever Machiavelli thinks
about Fortune, it may be said, he also envisions the fox as an ideal warrior against her
power, although he may not mention this directly. This signifies the implicit presence
of the image of the fox in his treatment of Fortune’s tyranny over human affairs and
the methods for resisting her influence in chapter twenty-five.
This symbolism of the duel between the fox and Fortune finds an important
predecessor in his earlier verse that was titled, On Fortune [Di Fortuna], where
Machiavelli presents a rich symbolic elaboration of his idea of mastering Fortune.37 In
this small tract, which has attracted very little scholarly attention, Machiavelli dis-
cusses, in a manner quite evocative of chapter twenty-five of The Prince, the fate of
the glorious ancient empires and kingdoms (the Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians,

33
Ibid. 17 (27).
34
Ibid. 20 (33).
35
Ibid. 20 (32.)
36
See n. 15 above.
37
Machiavelli, Di Fortuna, Tutte le opere (n. 14 above) 853–857. I cite the work by the line number.
The Eng. trans. follows Machiavelli: The Chief Works and Others, trans. Allan Gilbert, 3 vols. (Durham
1965) 2.745–749.
316 BEE YUN
Greeks, and Romans) and their great politicians (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar,
Cyrus the Great, and Pompey), employing the metaphor of confrontation with Fortune.
There, he first acknowledges Fortune’s overwhelming power over human affairs:
“With what rimes and what verses shall I sing of the kingdom of Fortune and her
chances favorable and adverse? ... By many this goddess is called omnipotent, because
whoever comes into this life either later or early feels her power.” 38 Machiavelli
mourns over the arbitrary and incalculable nature of Fortune’s government. She often
keeps the good beneath her feet, while raising up the wicked; she overturns states and
kingdoms as she pleases; she deprives the just of what is good, while freely giving it to
the unjust; she often sets the undeserving on a throne, which she denies to the deserv-
ing.39 The very same metaphors employed in chapter twenty-five of The Prince reap-
pear there. Fortune shifts the world’s affairs, “as a rapid torrent, swollen to the utmost,
destroys whatever its current anywhere reaches, and adds to one place and lowers an-
other, shifts its banks, shifts its bed and its bottom, and makes the earth tremble where
it passes.”40 The metaphor of Fortune as a woman prone to manliness is also in the
lines: “We well realize how much he pleases Fortune and how acceptable he is who
pushes her, who shoves her, who jostles her.”41
What is notable in this verse is the appearance of the metaphor of the wheel that has
been most frequently related to Fortune since Antiquity but, curiously enough, never
appears in The Prince. Machiavelli uses this famous metaphor to describe figuratively
how the adaptive powers will appear. In an earlier part of the verse, Machiavelli de-
scribes many wheels turning in Fortune’s palace.
“Within her palace, as many wheels are turning as there are varied ways of climbing to those
things which every living man strives to attain. … That man most luckily forms his plan,
among all the persons in Fortune’s palace, who chooses a wheel befitting her wish, since the
inclinations that make you act, so far as they conform with her doings, are the causes of your
good and your ill.”42
In this passage, Machiavelli modifies the traditional image of Fortune’s wheel; instead
of a single wheel, he introduces a multiple number of wheels, each of which favors a
specific nature and character. It turns out that Machiavelli’s intention with this
modification is to illustrate the power of adaptation, which he stresses as the utmost
weapon against Fortune’s malicious caprice in The Prince. As one and the same wheel
both raises and pulls down a man on it by its circular movement, one method that once

38
Ibid. lines 1–3, 25–27: “Con che rime giammai o con che versi/ canterò io del regno di Fortuna, / e de’
suo’ casi prosperi e avversi? / … Questa da molti è detta onnipotente,/ perché qualunche in questa vita viene,
/ o tardi o presto la sua forza sente.”
39
Ibid. lines 28–38.
40
Ibid. lines 151–156: “Come un torrente rapido, ch’ al tutto/ superbo è fatto, ogni cosa fracassa /
dovunque aggiugne il suo corso per tutto; / e questa parte accresce e quella abbassa, / varia le ripe, varia il
letto e ’l fondo, / e fa tremar la terra donde passa.”
41
Ibid. lines 163–165: “quanto a costei piaccia, / quanto grato le sia, si vede scorto, / chi l’urta, chi la
pigne o chi la caccia.”
42
Ibid. lines 61–63. 100–105: “Dentro, con tante ruote vi si gira/ quant’ è vario il salire a quelle cose /
dove ciascun che vive pon la mira. / ... Colui con miglior sorte si consiglia, / tra tutti gli altri che in quell
loco stanno, / che ruota al suo voler conforme piglia; / perché gli umor ch’ adoperar ti fanno, / secondo che
convengon con costei, / son cagion del tuo bene e del tuo danno.”
brings about a success may become a cause of a ruin in the next moment. Therefore, it
is necessary to incessantly adjust one’s tactics and strategies according to the change
of circumstances. In the verse Machiavelli compares that action of adaptation to the
exercise of hopping from one wheel to another. He specifically says: “a man who
could leap from wheel to wheel would always be happy and fortunate.”43
This depiction of prudence, standing atop Fortune’s wheel by hopping from one
wheel to another is significant, because it helps reconstruct a form the metaphor of the
fox could take in Machiavelli’s thinking. It embodies the image of the fox’s struggle
against Fortune into the image of the fox that climbs to and retains the top position of
Fortune’s wheel by adroitly changing its places. Although this image is not explicitly
formulated (and therefore has never been discussed by the scholars), it most likely
existed in Machiavelli’s mind, as he is elaborating the image of the prudence and the
prudent ruler in the pages of The Prince.
In addition to illuminating the symbolic components of Machiavelli’s realism, these
metaphors of prudence and the prudent ruler, the fox’s confrontation with Fortune and
the fox standing atop Fortune’s wheel, are relevant to the history of realism in the
West; Machiavelli was certainly not the first to formulate the idea of prudence in these
imageries. They strongly resemble an ensemble of metaphors of prudence that were
constructed much earlier beyond the Alps in connection with realist discourse. Focus-
ing on the medieval metaphors and explicating the underlying inspiration, perspectives,
and ideas that may be termed realistic, I will illuminate in the following the epoch-
and border-crossing continuity of realism in the West.
3. THE FOX ATOP FORTUNE’S WHEEL

An illustration, included in a thirteenth-century manuscript in the Bibliothèque
Nationale de France, contains a symbolic description of life in a decadent world (fig.
1). 44 A large wheel, controlled by Fortune, signifies the collapse of the world under
the weight of evil. What may happen in that kind of world is illustrated by the figures
in the scene: Haughtiness (Orghius), the figure on a horse on the left side, Fraud
(Dame Ghille), the female figure riding an ass on the right, and Deceitfulness
(Fausetes), the figure immediately under Haughtiness, are all in ascendency. In con-
trast, all the Virtues are in a miserable state, and descending: Loyalty (Loiautes), the
naked figure holding a scale at the bottom (the attribute of justice), Charity (Carites)
and Humility (Humilites), the two figures beside Loyalty, and finally, Faith (Fois), the
figure falling down, with a chalice in hand. High on a throne at the top of the wheel
sits a fox, wearing the costume of the Templars and the Hospitallers. As the final
instigator of these corruptions, it is the master of this decaying world. The two figures,
flanking the fox in the cowls of the Dominicans and the Franciscans, respectively, are
its sons, which suggests, along with the fox’s costume, the perversion of religion. In
this scene, Fortune is not turning the wheel. In the accompanying text, the goddess

43
Ibid. lines 116–117: “sarebbe un sempre felice e beato, / che potessi saltar di rota in rota.”
44
For an explanation and discussion of the miniature, see Marc René Jung, “Satirische, komische und
realistische Literatur der Romania,” Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft, vol. 7: Europäisches
Hochmittelalter, ed. Hennig Krauss (Wiesbaden 1981) 397–424, at 419–421; Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna (n.
23 above) 96–99.
318 BEE YUN
shows her favor to the fox by promising not to turn her wheel anymore, so that it may
remain on top permanently.
The manuscript is the Renart le Nouvel by Jacquemart Giélée (1298), which was
created on the basis of an older Old French epic, the Roman de Renart. 45 The latter
appeared sometime between 1175 and 1250, and enjoyed continental popularity,
consequently being translated into several vernaculars, with numerous local adapta-
tions and peer works in France, Germany, the Low Countries, and Italy. It sarcastically
comments on the evils and foolishness of the world in its episodes, which are
conventionally termed “branches.” Renart the fox, 46 the hero of these stories and a
noble of the animal kingdom, is a most crafty and evil trickster, who uses all kinds of
treachery, fraud, and intrigue to satisfy its sinful lusts. Renart’s antagonists and vic-
tims—Noble the lion, who is the king, Ysengrin the wolf, Brun the bear, and other
beasts, who are all Noble’s nobles, as well as humans of various professions, including
monks and farmers—represent the absurdities and vices of the world. They are often
too greedy, proud, vainglorious, and absurd to see through Renart’s evil schemes.
Consequently, they fall prey to the schemes, at one time or another. The motif of so-
cial criticism, present in the original work, also tended to be stressed in the adaptations
and peer works, even assuming a fatalistic and apocalyptic tone. Giélée’s work is an
instantiation of this development. In the miniature, the fox’s enthronement in the cos-
tumes of the two knightly orders, as well as the two religious orders assisting it, serve
as a parody of the legend of the Antichrist, the ultimate hypocrite and false prophet in
the medieval apocalyptic tradition.
The miniature from the Renart le Nouvel is not a unique case wherein the enthroned
fox is depicted atop Fortune’s wheel. There are several instances from the Middle
Ages that present basically the same symbolism. A one-sheet woodcut from the latter
part of the fifteenth century, on display in the Albertina in Vienna, is one such case
(fig. 2). 47 Here, the fox is in the pope’s tiara, sitting atop Fortune’s wheel, and is
flanked by two beasts out of the Renart stories: a wolf clothed as a Dominican,
symbolizing Stinginess (Geitikeit), and a bear as a Franciscan, as a representation of
Avarice (Geyrheit). The naked figure at the bottom of the wheel is Constancy
(Stetikeit), while the farmer couple beside him depicts Charity (Lieb), the man, and
Humility (Demutikeit), the woman. The young man, with a sickle sitting on the rising
side of the wheel, symbolizes Falsehood (Falscheit), while the cleric on the sinking
side is Faith (Gotlich Glaub). The two riding figures represent Haughtiness (Hoffart)
and Hatred (Haß)). On the banner at the feet of the fox is the following verse: “I am
called Renart the fox./ All powers lie in my hand/ and nobody can rule there/ There-

45
For an introduction to the development of the Renart stories, see Kenneth Varty, The Roman de Re-
nart: A Guide to Scholarly Work (Lanham 1998); Reynard the Fox: Social Engagement and Cultural
Metamorphoses in the Beast Epic from the Middle Ages to the Present, ed. Kenneth Varty (Oxford 2000).
46
The name “Renart” was spelled differently from one language zone to another. In English-speaking
areas, Renart is Reynard; however, throughout this essay, the original French name “Renart” has been used
to avoid confusion while mentioning various versions written in various languages.
47
Wolfgang Harms, “Reinhart Fuchs als Papst and Antichrist auf dem Rad der Fortuna,”
Frühmittelalterliche Studien 6 (1972) 418–440; Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna (n. 23 above) 98–100; Mitchell B.
Merback, The Thief, the Cross, and the Wheel: Pain and the Spectacle of Punishment in Medieval and
Renaissance Europe (Chicago 1999) 79–80.
fore I am subject to nobody in nothing. (Fuchs reinhart pyn ich genant./ Alle reich
sten in meiner hant,/ in den nymant geherschen kan,/ So ich im nit wil pei gestan).”
Despite certain differences in detail, this woodcut is astonishingly similar to the minia-
ture in the manuscript of Renart le Nouvel.
Not all depictions of the fox atop Fortune’s wheel were related to the tradition of the
Renart stories. An illustration that was created around 1465–1470 for the Latin and
Dutch manuscript, Natuurkunde van het Geheelal, demonstrates that the metaphor had
been known at the time, and circulated outside the tradition of the Renart stories (fig.
3).48 The illustration depicts the moon, in the form of a human head. Inside, the fox is
shown at the top of Fortune’s wheel; however, this time, it is literally looking down
upon another figure, a lion with a crown on its head—the well-known medieval sym-
bol of legitimate regal power.49 The lion’s position at the bottom of Fortune’s wheel
signifies the reality of politics, in which true regal virtues and qualities are neglected
and ignored. This illustration indicates that the fox placed over Fortune’s wheel some-
times had patently obvious political connotations.
These metaphors depart radically from the mainstream of symbolic tradition of For-
tune's wheel, as may be demonstrated by comparison with a miniature in the Liber ad
honorem Augusti by Petrus de Ebulo (1197).50 In this illustration, which addresses the
issue of the virtues of an ideal ruler (fig. 4), the entire space was divided into two parts.
The upper left side provides a depiction of the glory of the Holy Roman Emperor,
Heinrich VI, who is surrounded by the allegories of the four cardinal virtues. In con-
trast, the lower right side provides a representation of the misery of Tancred, the king
of Sicily and enemy of Heinrich VI, who is being crushed beneath Fortune’s wheel.
The critical point in this illustration is the distance of these two rivals from Fortune’s
wheel. Heinrich VI’s distance signifies his avoidance of indulgence in worldly desire,
with a cultivation of virtue. In the inscriptions, Fortune calls on the virtues surround-
ing Heinrich VI for friendship, but she is rejected. Coveting Fortune’s favor, Tancred
acts in the opposite way, approaching her wheel, and finally facing ruin.
The three medieval images of the fox on Fortune’s wheel reverse this narrative. The
distance separating the prudent ruler from Fortune’s wheel in Ebulo’s illustration com-
pletely disappears, together with the allegories of the cardinal virtues, and the figure of
the fox atop Fortune’s wheel highlights the will to attain and preserve worldly goods
by shrewd maneuver, which are glorified.

48
Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna (n. 23 above) 100–101.
49
Dirk Jäckel, Der Herrscher als Löwe. Ursprung und Gebrauch eines politischen Symbols im Früh-
und Hochmittelalter (Cologne 2006).
50
Petrus de Ebulo, Liber ad honorem Augusti sive de rebus Siculis. Codex 120 II der Burgerbibliothek
Bern. Eine Bilderchronik der Stauferzeit, ed. Theo Kölzer and Marlis Stähli, annotated and trans. Gereon
Becht-Jördens (Sigmaringen 1994); an Eng. trans. with the Latin text in parallel is Pietro da Eboli, Book in
Honor of Augustus (Liber ad Honorem Augusti), trans. Gwenyth Hood (Tempe 2012); F. P. Pickering,
Literatur und darstellende Kunst im Mittelalter (Berlin 1966) 135 ff; Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna (n. 23 above)
60; Sybil Kraft, Ein Bilderbuch aus dem Königreich Sizilien. Kunsthistorische Studien zum “Liber ad hono-
rem Augusti” des Petrus von Eboli (Codex 120 II der Burgerbibliothek Bern) (Weimar 2006); Barbara
Schlieben, “Disparate Präsenz. Hybridität und transkulturelle Verflechtung in Wort und Bild: Der ‘Liber ad
honorem Augusti,’” Europa in der Welt des Mittelalters. Ein Colloquium für und mit Michael Borgolte, ed.
Tillmann Lohse and Benjamin Scheller (Berlin 2014) 163–188.
320 BEE YUN
Machiavelli’s imageries of prudence bear a similarity to the three illustrations, with

the symbolization of antagonism of the fox as an incarnation of prudence with Fortune,
and the imagery of the fox’s stepping over Fortune’s wheel, which was most probably
extant in his mind. Indeed, an examination of the textual tradition related with the
medieval illustrations demonstrates that the visible affinity at the symbolical level is
no accident. For instance, in the Reinaerts Historie, a Dutch adaptation from the sec-
ond half of the fourteenth century, the same realist maxims that can be read in Machia-
velli’s works appear, as follow.51 “According to the circumstances one must lie or
speak the truth to threaten, to flatter, to pray, to swear, to hit the weak spot of someone
(Dus moet men hier ende dair/ nu liegen ende dan zeggen wair,/ dreigen, smeken, bid-
den ende vloeken/ ende ellic op sijn hooft zoeken).”52 “One who speaks always the
truth, can never move freely around (Want die altoos die wairheit sprake,/ en conde
die strate nergent houwen).” 53 “One must lie, as necessity dictates, and thereafter cor-
rect it by council. For all trespasses there is salvation. Everyone sometimes deviates
from the straight path (Men moet wel liegen alst doet noot/ en dair na beteren by
rade./ Tot allen mysdoen staet genade./ Ten is nyement, hi en dwaelt bitiden).”54 “An
appeal becomes stronger in combination with a gift (Die bede is mitter giften coen).”55
“One shall learn to keep money to divert injustice in time of distress (Men sel den
penninck houden leren/ ter noot dat onrecht me te keren).”56 And “There are many
who can do more by tricks, than others do by force (Het is mennich die myt listen can/
meer dan sulc myt crachten doet).”57
Some later adaptations of the Roman de Renart even directly comment on politics in
radically realist terms, which is clearly reminiscent of Machiavelli’s voice in The
Prince to modern readers. The following monologue by Renart in a Middle English
adaptation, the History of Reynard the Fox, could just as easily have come from
Machiavelli’s pen: “The court may not stonde without me/ that shal the kynge wel
vnderstande. Though some be so felle to me ward/ yet it goth not to the herte/ alle the
counseyl shal conclude moche by me/ where grete courtes ben gadred of kynges or of
grete lordes.” 58 In these verses, Machiavelli’s cynical picture of politics is already
present. Rule is a business that includes intrigue and fraud in the list of programs for
apprentices. Every ambitious politician would understand that a foxy nature is
indispensable, and must be ready to play the fox when required.
One might then be tempted to ask how well Machiavelli knew these symbolic and
textual traditions. Was Machiavelli familiar with the traditions and intentionally used
their symbolism in his works? On the current basis of knowledge, there can be no

51
Reynaerts historie, ed. and trans. (into German) Rita Schlusemann and Paul Wackers (Münster 2005).
For a discussion on the proverbs and maxims in Reynaerts historie, see Donald B. Sands, “Reynard the Fox
and the Manipulation of the Popular Proverb,” The Learned and the Lewed: Studies in Chaucer and Medie-
val Literature, ed. Larry D. Benson (Cambridge, MA 1974) 265–278.
52
Reynaerts historie (n. 51 above) lines 4191–4194.
53
54
55
Ibid. line 4556.
56
57
58
The History of Reynard the Fox. Translated from the Dutch Original by William Caxton, ed. N. F.
Blake (London, New York and Toronto 1970) 11.24, lines 23–30.
decisive answer to this question, but it seems highly probable that Machiavelli knew
the tradition of Renart stories, together with the realist discourse surrounding them.
Besides the Italian adaptations and variations,59 he had plenty of opportunity to be
exposed to the Renart stories or other similar, related fox stories during his diplomatic
missions to the transalpine courts and the papacy, which was a center for all sorts of
facetious stories, as Poggio Bracciolini recollected in the conclusion of his Facetiae.60
Once acquainted with the stories, Machiavelli would not have missed their value for
illustrating his realist idea about the world, as well as true prudence. As a writer of
comedy, he was well aware that a good witticism might serve as an effective tool for
showcasing the truth about the world and life. He himself loved to embody his ideas of
prudence in the immoral, treacherous figures who triumphed over simple-headed vic-
tims in his comedies.61 In the prologue to Clizia Machiavelli writes that “Comedies
exist to benefit and to please the audience. It is certainly very helpful for anyone, and
especially young men, to observe an old man’s avarice, a lover’s madness, a servant’s
tricks, a parasite’s gluttony, a poor man’s distress, a rich man’s ambition, a harlot’s
flatteries, all men’s unreliability.”62 Several factors enumerated here as practical wis-

59
The earliest Italian adaptation, the Rainardo e Lesengrino, appeared during the thirteenth century. For
the edition of the text (the original French-Italian text has long been lost) and information, see Anna
Lomazzi, Rainaldo e Lesengrino (Florence 1972). For general information on the tradition of manuscripts,
also see Giulio Bertoni, Storia letteraria d’Italia, vol 2: Il Duecento, 7th ed. (Milan 1973) 77, 82–83, 91;
Aldo Rossi, “Poesia didattica e poesia popolare del Nord,” Storia della Letteratura Italiana, vol. 1: Le
Origini e il Duecento, ed. Emilio Cecchi and Natalino Sapegno (Milan 1987) 455–534, at 520–523; Corrado
Bologna, “Poesia del centro e del nord,” Storia della letteratura Italiana, vol. 1: Dalle origini a Dante, ed.
Enrico Malato (Rome 1995) 405–525, at 480–481. There is also a late thirteenth-century Latin work, the
Renart dans la Chancellerie. This text was edited and explicated in J. W. Muller, “Reinaert in de kanselarij,”
Tijdschrift voor nederlandsche Taal-en Letterkunde 29 (1910) 207–228. For discussion, see John Flinn, Le
Roman de Renart dans la littérature française et dans les littératures étrangères au Moyen Age (Paris 1963)
542–548; Lomazzi, Rainaldo e Lesengrino 55–56. On the tradition of the Renart stories in the folklore of
the Tuscan province, see Lomazzi, Rainaldo e Lesengrino 56–58. For iconographical evidence of the tradi-
tion of the Renart stories in Italy, see Lomazzi, Rainaldo e Lesengrino 63–74; Jung, “Satirische, komische
und realistische Literatur der Romania” (n. 44 above) 414; Jean R. Scheidegger, “Renart et Arthur à la
cathédrale de Modène,” A la recherche du “Roman de Renart,” ed. Kenneth Varty, 2 vols. (New Alyth 1991)
2.391–414. For more information about other aspects of the tradition of the Renart stories in Italy, see Luci-
ano Rossi and Stefano Asperti, “Il “Renart” di Siena: nuovi frammenti duecenteschi,” Studi francesi e
provenzali 84/85 (Romanica vulgaria 8–9) (1986) 37–64; Luciano Rossi, “A propos des fragments de
Sienne du Roman de Renart (ms. s),” The Fox and other Animals: Yearbook of the International Reynard
Society. Special Issue, ed. Brian Levy and Paul Wackers (1993) 157–167.
60
Poggio reveals in the conclusion of his Facetiae that most of the facetious stories contained there were
actually narrated within the precincts of the Pope’s court. He says that until the reign of Pope Martin, the
pope’s secretaries gathered in a secluded room and discussed various topics including the news of the day
and people and issues involved there, sometimes with serious intent. According to him, even the pope was
not spared the critical comments. Poggio Bracciolini, The Facetiae Or Jocose Tales of Poggio, trans. Isidore
Liseux (Paris 1879) 2.230–232.
61
See Martin Fleisher, “Trust and Deceit in Machiavelli’s Comedies,” Journal of the History of Ideas 27
(1966) 365–380. On Machiavelli’s Mandragola and its relationship to his idea of political life, see Mark
Hulliung, “Machiavelli’s Mandragola: A Day and a Night in the Life of a Citizen,” The Review of Politics
40 (1978) 32–57; Carnes Lord, “On Machiavelli’s Mandragola,” The Journal of Politics 41 (1979) 806–827;
Salvatore Di Maria, “The Ethical Premises for the Mandragola’s New Society,” Italian Culture 7 (1986–
1989) 17–33; Paul Geyer, “Intertextuelle Bezüge zwischen dem Theoretischen und dem Literarischen
Diskurs: Machiavellis Il Principe und seine Komödie Mandragola,” Italienische Studien 18 (1997) 91–102.
62
Machiavelli, Clizia, Tutte le opere (n. 14 above) 760–788, at 761. “Sono trovate le commedie, per gio-
vare e per dilettare alli spettatori. Giova veramente assai a qualunque uomo, e massimamente a’ giovanetti,
cognoscere la avarizia d’ uno vecchio, il furore d’uno innamorato, l’inganni d’uno servo, la gola d’uno
parassito, la miseria d’uno povero, l’ambizione d’uno ricco, le lusinghe d’una meretrice, la poca fede di tutti
322 BEE YUN
dom, a poor man’s distress, a rich man’s ambition, and the unreliability, fickleness,
and lack of constancy characterizing all human beings, are tools of Machiavelli’s
analysis of the history of ancient Rome in the Discourses. In this context, the witty
stories of the evil fox with their symbolism must have impressed him, and Machiavelli
may have remembered them in writing his works.63
Certainly, it cannot be finally excluded that the similarities between Machiavelli’s
metaphors of prudent ruler and the medieval tradition may be a pure coincidence; it is
possible that Machiavelli elaborated the metaphors of rivalry between the fox and For-
tune and the former’s stepping over the latter’s wheel on his own. It sounds, however,
more reasonable to suppose that the metaphors were influenced by the medieval sym-
bolic tradition in one way or another, which the three illustrations represent. Neither of
them can simply be reconstructed from the imageries of Fortune from the Greco-Ro-
man tradition, which does not seem to contain any literary topic like the confrontation
of the fox with Fortune,64 while they display a visible affinity to the literary motifs that
derived from the medieval tradition of the fox stories, as I discussed earlier.
Whatever may be the truth, the ideas expressed in the fox stories suggests the exist-
ence of distinct realist discourses in the Middle Ages comparable with Machiavelli’s.
This signifies that those paeans for Machiavelli’s genius, in allegedly viewing the
political world as it exists and deducing prescriptions for action solely based on
observation, cannot be wholly justified. The realism has been a part of the culture of
the Middle Ages.
One might still feel tempted to contend that the medieval precedents, the realist
maxims and metaphors, had satirical and critical intentions, whereas Machiavelli at-
tached pragmatic value to them. Can Machiavelli be accredited with a certain amount
of originality for resignifying the ideas and metaphors in realist terms? The discussion
in the next session will demonstrate that this is not exactly the case.
4. REALIST CULTURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

Widukind of Corvey, in his late tenth-century chronicle, the Res gestae Saxonicae,
narrates a story of treachery and deceit, which provides a glimpse of realist culture in
the early Middle Ages.65 It is an account of how Hatto, the archbishop of Mainz from
891 to 913, deceived Adalbert, the Graf of Babenberg, and brought him to the court of

gli uomini.” The Eng. trans. follows Machiavelli, Clizia, in Machiavelli: The Chief Works (n. 14 above)
2.822–864, at 824.
63
Additionally, it must be considered that the image of the fox from the Aesopian tradition also had
influences on Machiavelli. Antagonism between the fox, the wolf, and the lion was a motif not only in the
Renart stories but also in the Aesopian tradition with which Machiavelli was obviously familiar. His remark
about a fox in his letter to his friend, Francesco Vettori in Rome, dated 26 August 1513 (Machiavelli, Tutte
le opere [n. 14 above] 920) may be of the Aesopian origin.
64
Meyer-Landrut, Fortuna (n. 23 above) 9–36.
65
Gerd Althoff, “Gloria et Nomen Perpetuum. Wodurch wurde man im Mittelalter berühmt?”
Inszenierte Herrschaft. Geschichtsschreibung und politisches Handeln im Mittelalter (Darmstadt 2003) 1–
24, at 12–13; Thomas Zotz, “Odysseus im Mittelalter? Zum Stellenwert von List und Listigkeit in der Kul-
tur des Adels,” Die List, ed. Harro von Senger (Frankfurt/ Main 1999) 212–240, at 230–233; Heinrich
Fichtenau, Living in the Tenth Century: Mentalities and Social Orders (Chicago 1993) 405–406.
King Ludwig, who was seeking to remove him.66 Hatto visited Adalbert’s castle and
proposed that Adalbert travel to the king’s court, giving an oath to either mediate
peace with the king or bring Adalbert back to his castle safe and sound. Adalbert,
pleased with this contract, agreed to depart. After leaving the castle for the court,
Hatto, feigning hunger, complained that he could not travel all day long on an empty
stomach, and returned with Adalbert to the castle to eat something. After they left the
castle for the second time and arrived at the king’s court, Adalbert was arrested and
executed. At the site of execution, when Adalbert blamed him for breaking the oath,
Hatto answered that he had kept his oath, because they had already returned safely
together to the castle to have lunch.
Hatto’s treachery and shameless self-justification reveal that, even in the Middle
Ages, extreme tactical thinking and action (unconcerned with the moral quality of the
means) could grow from avowed noble causes. Even allowing for possible dramatiza-
tion and exaggeration of the original story, Hatto’s indifference to the moral quality of
the measure does not fall very short of being called “Machiavellian.”
No less “Machiavellian” is the positive assessment of Hatto’s perfidy given by
Widukind. He asks, “What is viler than this act of treachery? But it is true that by cut-
ting off this one head, the heads of many other people were saved. And what is better
than advice that resolves conflict and brings peace (Hac igitur perfidia quid nequius?
Attamen uno capite caeso multorum capita populorum salvantur. Et quid melius eo
consilio, quo discordia dissolveretur et pax rederetur).” 67 He preempts the
quintessence of Machiavelli’s realism, in which “the true way of going to Paradise
would be to learn the road to Hell in order to avoid it.”68 Not surprisingly, he declared
Hatto to be a “man of enormous prudence (vir magne prudentie).”69
In the context of realist discourse, two opposite representations could then be at-
tached to the metaphor of the fox used during the Middle Ages. While the fox re-
mained a symbol of vice, it could also be interpreted as an illustration of the types of
wisdom one needs to survive in this world. These two significations were not mutually
exclusive, and could be practiced simultaneously.
This paradoxical interpretation can be demonstrated by examination of an anony-
mous commentator on the Reynke de Vos. Overall, the commentator’s strong commit-
ment to traditional moral and religious norms is discernible. He interprets the episodes
of Renart’s adventures in terms of a moral and religious warning against indulgence in
vice, and of encouragement in the cultivation of virtues and abstinence. He sternly

66
Widukind, Die Sachsengeschichte. Res gestae Saxonicae, ed. Paul Hirsch and Hans. E. Lohmann,
MGH Scriptores 60, 5th ed. (Hannover 1935) 1. 22 (B), (A), (C), 30–34. An Eng. trans. is Widukind of
Corvey, Deeds of the Saxons, trans., intro., and notes Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach
(Washington, DC 2014).
67
Ibid. 1.22 (B), 33. The translation slightly modified the Eng. trans. presented n. 66 above, 33–34.
68
Machiavelli’s letter to Francesco Guicciardini on 17 May 1521, in Machiavelli, Tutte le opere (n. 14
above) 951: “io credo che questo sarebbe il vero modo ad andare in Paradiso: inparare la via dello Inferno
per fuggirla.” The Eng. trans. follows Machiavelli: The Chief Works (n. 14 above) 2.972.
69
Widukind, Die Sachsengeschichte. Res gestae Saxonicae (n. 66 above) 1.22 (A), 34. Of course, there
were indignant voices against Hatto’s boldest perfidy. For instance, Otto of Freising, the author of the fa-
mous twelfth-century Chronica, bitterly criticized the Bishop for snaring a Christian, even though it was for
a good purpose. Otto of Freising, Cronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus. Chronik oder Die Geschichte
der Zwei Staaten, ed. Walther Lammers and trans. Adolf Schmidt, 5th. ed. (Darmstadt 1990) 6.15, 452–455.
324 BEE YUN
admonishes the readers: “everyone should strive for wisdom, avoid evil and learn vir-
tue (Eyn yslyk schal syk tor wyszheyt keren/ Dat quade to myden. vnde de doegede
leren).”70
Accordingly, in his commentary, the fox, symbolizing evil and vice, appears as the
target of resistance. All those subject to its power will eventually experience ruin. In
one place, he remarks, as follows:
The bad end in the abyss of damnation in this world, and all the cheaters will be given under
the power of sword, that is, the most acrimonious verdict at the court of the Last Judgment,
and will share the same hardships with the fox, the devil, on account of their wickedness (De
boezen ghan dorch ere boeszheyt in de grunt der erden der vordomenisse vnde alle
bedregers werden ghegeuen in de ghewalt des swerdes. alze des scharpen ordels des lesten
gherichtes. vnde entfangen deel vor ere valscheyt in den pynen. myt den vossen. den boezen
geysten).71
At the same time, he is overtly aware of the defects of reality that make it impossible
to act through virtue alone. For him, to simulate evil is often the best method for
protecting oneself. The repeated manifestations of moral and religious commitment
are therefore coupled with intense concern for the practical wisdom that may be won
from the stories. He recommends, for instance, the following:
When somebody is in bad company where he can’t go away without concealing the truth, he
must be wise and must never say the words that harm himself. Rather, he must use friendly
language, even when they are not all true, to escape safe and sound (so we dar is manckt
quader vnghenochlyker selschop dar he vruchtet dat he nicht wech komen kan ane de war-
heyt to sparen. desse schal klok wesen vnde seen syck suluen wol vor dat he nicht enleghe
sodane loggen de yemande mochten to na syn men he mach bruken schoner worde. wo wol
de suluen nicht al war syn. vp dat he myt leue van dar kome).72
In his view, it is absurd to adhere to the principles of faith and integrity, shunning de-
ceit and disguise, when the latter are the sole means available at a given moment for
self-preservation. Wisdom includes the use of shrewdness, where it is judged to be
inevitable, in order to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of one’s options
solely in light of the given goal at that moment, with a separation from their moral
qualities.
This positive evaluation of strategic wisdom leads to the realist signification of the
metaphor of the fox. One such case can be found in a verse of the Edelstein, the Mid-
dle German collection of fables that were compiled by Ulrich Boner in the first part of
the fourteenth century.73 It reads as follows: “I must say it in truth, / where a great
malice is appearing, / one needs there a greater shrewdness. / Whoever will catch the
fox with the fox, / needs very good slyness (ich muoz ez in der wârheit jehen, / wâ vür
bricht grôziu schalkeit, / da bedarf man grôzer kündekeit. / Wer vuchs mit vuchs vâhen

70
Reynke de Vos, in Reynaerts Historie. Reynke de Vos, ed. Jan Goossens (Darmstadt 1983) 527, lines
6831–6832.
71
Ibid. 79, commentary after line 908.
72
Ibid. 467, commentary after line 6096.
73
Ulrich Boner, Der Edelstein, ed. Franz Pfeiffer (Leipzig 1844). On Boner and his Edelstein, see Klaus
Grubmüller, Meister Esopus (Munich 1977) chap. 9; and Doris Fouquet, “Einleitung,” Der Edelstein.
Faksimile der ersten Druckausgabe Bamberg 1461 (Stuttgart 1972) 7–13.
sol, / der bedarf guoter listen wol).”74 In this verse, the fox is not only a symbol of evil.
In a world where affairs cannot be dictated solely by the rules of religion and morality,
it is also a symbol of the practical wisdom which must be grasped, even if reluctantly
and sparingly.
The realist reinterpretation of the metaphor of the fox is also implicit in the
schadenfreude felt by a fourteenth-century scribe about a victim of Renart.75 In the
story, while roaming for food, Renart falls into a well and cannot escape. Ysengrin the
wolf, hearing Renart’s cries for help, stops to ask why it is at the bottom of the well.
Renart, deciding to take advantage of Ysengrin’s curiosity and simplicity, improvises
a lie that it is visiting the next world. Ysengrin naively trusts Renart, and becomes
eager to see the next world. Finally, the wolf climbs into a nearby basket to descend,
as instructed by Renart. Through the weight of Ysengrin's descent, Renart, in another
basket, is able to rise up and escapes, leaving Ysengrin helpless at the bottom.
In a thirteenth-century manuscript, the last scene reads as follows: “unexpectedly he
[Ysengrin] came over the deep well and there his body came into a great suffering
(unvirwanet kom er / uber den diefin sot, / des kom sin lib in groze not).”76 As sug-
gested by use of the expression “unexpectedly (unvirwanet),” Ysengrin is primarily
described here as an incautious and naïve victim of Renart’s treachery. It should have
been more cautious to avoid the ambushes along the path in this world. A fourteenth-
century manuscript sounds, however, a different tone. In describing the same situation,
the fourteenth-century scribe changed the wording as follows, thereby (most probably
unconsciously) revealing his true feelings about this naïve and poor wolf: “Now he
came over a deep well, but the idiot was deceived (nu ist er kumen/ uber den brunnen
vil tief, / do wart aber geeffnet der gief).”77 In denouncing Ysengrin as an “idiot (gief),”
the lack of sympathy of the scribe, and even some slight schadenfreude, is discernible.
The wolf is not sufficiently aware how dangerous place this world is, and how foolish
it can be to trust others. It has to blame itself for its misfortune before anybody else.
To the scribe, the wolf was more of a foolish failure than a victim, deserving mockery
and contempt rather than sympathy and pity. In his view, the failure to act with
appropriate stratagems deserves blame, which suggests that he may not consider Re-
nart as a simple villain to be cursed, but rather as an embodiment of the wisdom neces-
sary for life in this world.
This case of the scribe seems to hint at the semantic ambivalence surrounding the
fox figure in the medieval political and moral discourses. As well as enacting sarcastic
criticism of worldly decadence, it also came to be associated with the realist idea of
practical wisdom. The fox’s triumph, as was depicted, for instance, in the fox atop
Fortune’s wheel, symbolized, in this context, the result both of corruption of the world

74
Boner, Der Edelstein (n. 73 above) 125, lines 70–74. See Grubmüller Meister Esopus (n. 73 above)
345.
75
The following discussion heavily depends on the information and analysis of Karl-Heinz Göttert. See
Karl-Heinz Göttert, “Die Spiegelung der Lesererwartung in den Varianten mittelalterlicher Texte,”
Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 48 (1974) 93–121.
76
Heinrich de Glîchezâre, Reinhart Fuchs, ed. Karl-Heinz Göttert (Stuttgart 1987) 60, lines 864–866.
77
Göttert, “Die Spiegelung der Lesererwartung” (n. 75 above) 113–114.
326 BEE YUN
and of prudent living in such a situation. Realist ideas and symbolism had long been in
development during the Middle Ages, anticipating Machiavelli.
5. CONCLUSION
My analysis indicates that realist conceptions of the world and politics, as well as the
related metaphors, acquired popularity in medieval Western Europe. It is not true that
the pessimistic view of the world and politics, along with realist ideas, were almost
unknown or were exceptional before Machiavelli’s time. For many medieval observers,
the world was a pandemonium wherein one must know how to be evil. Some, like
Hatto and Widukind, justified in the name of the obvious and higher benefit and good
actions that were radically divergent from the moral and religious principles of good
behavior. The lack of sympathy towards the failure, as refracted by the anonymous
fourteenth-century scribe, suggests that there were not just a few people who viewed
the world to primarily be a place ruled by the law of the jungle. It must be noted that it
is not necessarily cold-blooded, villainous people who stood behind these gazes of the
world. The Dutch commentator of the Reynke de Vos, despite his commitment to the
morally and religiously colored codes of behavior, also castigates those, who do not
understand those stratagems, for their lack of culture.78
In light of the above, Machiavelli’s contribution to the development of realism in
the West should be reassessed. He is obviously the first western author who attempted
to create a sophisticated political program out of the realist wisdom, which had hardly
been seen as appropriate for and worthy of public representation. It is, however,
simply not true that he first discovered the realist perspective of politics with the help
of his miraculous facility of allegedly looking at reality and seeing the truth of politics
as it is. Machiavelli had many forerunners, that is, before Machiavelli, there had al-
ready been numerous “Machiavellis.”

78
Reynke de Vos (n. 70 above) 79, commentary after line 908.

FIG. 1. Renart the Fox atop Fortune’s Wheel. An illustration in Renard le Nouvel by
Jacquemart Giélée (1298), Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS Fr. 1581, fol.
57.
328 BEE YUN

FIG. 2. Renart the Fox as the Pope and Antichrist atop Fortune’s Wheel. A one-sheet
woodcut, Vienna (15th c.), Albertina, Vienna, Graphische Sammlung, Nr. 1957/24.
FIG. 3. The Moon with the Fox atop Fortune’s Wheel. A miniature by Meister Evert
Zoudenbalch in Natuurkunde van het Geheelal (ca. 1465–1470), Herzog-August-
Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, Cod. Guelf., 18. 2, Augu. 4°, Qu., fol. 123.
330 BEE YUN
FIG. 4. Illustration in Liber ad honorem Augusti by Petrus de Ebulo (1197),

Burgerbibliothek Bern, Cod. 120.II, fol. 146r.

Machiavelli, PO235 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Machiavelli, PO235 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THE FOX ATOP FORTUNE’S WHEEL: MACHIAVELLI

AND MEDIEVAL REALIST DISCOURSE

Viator 47 No. 2 (2016) 305–330. 10.1484/J.VIATOR.5.111235

2. THE FOX PRESIDING OVER FORTUNE’S WHEEL

Machiavelli devised this parable with polemical intentions. In addition to being a

3. THE FOX ATOP FORTUNE’S WHEEL

Machiavelli’s imageries of prudence bear a similarity to the three illustrations, with

4. REALIST CULTURE IN THE MIDDLE AGES

FIG. 4. Illustration in Liber ad honorem Augusti by Petrus de Ebulo (1197),

S-ar putea să vă placă și