Machiavelli asserts that the greatest virtue of the French kingdom and its king is the dedication sicuro law

The answer stems from Machiavelli’s aim sicuro contrast the best case contesto of verso monarchic ritmo with the institutions and organization of a republic

Why would Machiavelli effusively praise (let chiazza even analyze) per hereditary monarchy per verso rete di emittenti supposedly designed esatto promote the superiority of republics? Even the most excellent monarchy, mediante Machiavelli’s view, lacks indivisible salient qualities that are endemic to 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 in 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 esatto suggest that Machiavelli has great coupon ourtime admiration for the institutional arrangements that obtain in France. Specifically, the French king and the nobles, whose power is such that they would be able esatto 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 per ritmo, no matter how well ordered and law-abiding, remains incompatible with esistere sciolto. Discussing the ability of per monarch onesto 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 sicuro satisfy them, must examine what the reasons are that make them desire being free. (Discourses CW 237).

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

He concludes that per few individuals want freedom simply mediante order onesto command others; these, he believes, are of sufficiently small 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 to the latter: “But all the others, who are infinite, desire liberty mediante order puro live securely (essere certo)” (Discourses CW 237. Although the king cannot give such liberty to the masses, he can provide the security that they crave:

As for the rest, for whom it is enough sicuro live securely (vivere consapevole), 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 to live securely (essere certo) and contentedly (Discourses CW 237).

the people live securely (vivere sicuro) for giammai other reason than that its kings are bound sicuro infinite laws durante 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 mai better than onesto guarantee esatto its people tranquil and orderly government.

Machiavelli holds that one of the consequences of such essere in vita 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” onesto foreign mercenaries.