[ Page 26 ]

bad inclination of their corrupt nature do not for fear of them, to do harm & allow themselves to slip into all manner of vices, although they see the punishments prepared before their eyes, what will it be thus of a King, said they, who has nothing above him? Who disposes of the goods & persons of his subjects as he pleases? It is certainly difficult, and almost impossible, that he behaves as he should, alleging in this regard an infinity of examples from their neighboring Kingdoms in which no good King has been seen in four or five hundred years. Others held it was necessary to have one in order to come as close as possible to the government of this great universe governed by a single Monarch, because that which came closest to unity was always the most perfect since all consultations always return to a single & unique opinion: that besides these reasons, it was necessary to satisfy the people (who had been accustomed to living under Kings) by giving them one, if not in effect, at least in appearance.[1] That ambition would immediately seize the Spirits of the Senate who would command absolutely, seeing no one above them, which would restrain their greed, |
1. Such open talk of a limited, or neutered monarch, would have been treasoness, or near so, in 17th Century France. For
this alone the author wouldlikely have been forced to flee France.
|