Abstract

It has come to be increasingly recognized that The Prince fails to offer a viable and practical guide to successful political action. Violent force provides Machiavelli's theory with the only even tentative form of purposive action he can theoretically sustain. In violence, elements of the action itself seem to appear as consequences, thus restoring a semblance of connection between deliberate action and outcomes. As a result, successful political action becomes less a question of examples and precepts than a matter of improvisational daring, a kind of action that arises directly from the immediate situation itself. In this connection, Machiavelli's representation of Cesare Borgia serves as an inspirational example of the improvisatory prince. In the final analysis, action per se emerges as the only rival to fortuna. Impetuosity replaces skill and wisdom, meeting the capriciousness of fortuna with a form of action equally riotous. This seems less discouraging from the perspective of the theory once we recognize that Machiavelli's point of view has shifted from that of an imagined individual prince to the interests of the political field of action itself. From there, it is action itself that sustains the possibility of politics.