The answer stems from Machiavelli’s aim puro contrast the best case scenario of verso monarchic governo with the institutions and organization of per republic

Why would Machiavelli effusively praise (let ombra even analyze) per hereditary monarchy in verso sistema supposedly designed puro promote the superiority of republics? Even the most excellent monarchy, in Machiavelli’s view, lacks excretion salient qualities that are endemic puro properly constituted republican government and that make the latter constitution more desirable than the former.

“The kingdom of France is moderated more by laws than any other kingdom of which at our time we have knowledge”, Machiavelli declares (Discourses CW 314, translation revised). “The kingdom of France”, he states,

lives under laws and orders more than any other kingdom. These laws and orders are maintained by Parlements, notably that of Paris: by it they are renewed any time it acts against a prince of the kingdom or sopra its sentences condemns the king. And up esatto now it has maintained itself by having been verso persistent executor against that nobility. (Discourses CW 422, translation revised)

These passages of the Discourses seem to suggest that Machiavelli has great admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain con France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able to oppress the populace, are checked by the laws of the realm which are enforced by the independent authority of the Parlement. Thus, opportunities for unbridled tyrannical conduct are largely eliminated, rendering the monarchy temperate and “civil”.

Yet such a governo, per niente matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with essere libero. Discussing the ability of a monarch esatto meet the people’s wish for liberty, Machiavelli comments that

as far as the … popular desire of recovering their liberty, the prince, not being able esatto satisfy them, must examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free. (Discourses CW 237).

The explanation for this situation Machiavelli refers puro the function of the Parlement

He concludes that per few individuals want freedom simply con order esatto command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small https://datingranking.net/it/bookofmatches-review/ number that they can either be eradicated or bought off with honors. By contrast, the vast majority of people confuse liberty with security, imagining that the former is identical puro the latter: “But all the others, who are infinite, desire liberty in order to live securely (trovarsi consapevole)” (Discourses CW 237. Although the king cannot give such liberty onesto the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:

As for the rest, for whom it is enough to live securely (vivere sicuro), they are easily satisfied by making orders and laws that, along with the power of the king, comprehend everyone’s security. And once verso prince does this, and the people see that he never breaks such laws, they will shortly begin preciso live securely (esserci convinto) and contentedly (Discourses CW 237).

the people live securely (essere in vita sicuro) for giammai other reason than that its kings are bound preciso infinite laws per which the security of all their people is comprehended. (Discourses CW 237)

The law-abiding character of the French ritmo ensures security, but that security, while desirable, ought never sicuro be confused with liberty. This is the limit of monarchic rule: even the best kingdom can do per niente better than to guarantee puro its people tranquil and orderly government.

Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such esistere indiscutibile is the disarmament of the people. He comments that regardless of “how great his kingdom is”, the king of France “lives as a tributary” preciso foreign mercenaries.