The term “mirror of princes”, or “mirrors for princes”,1 “defies all attempts at definition, even at classification”.2 In fact, there is no consensus on its meaning.3 Some researchers prefer to speak of “arts de gouverner” (“arts of governing”),4 “advice literature”,5 “parenetic literature”,6 or “ethical and moral literature”. Why, then, dedicate a Companion to such an elusive subject, one that resists any attempt at typological classification, and whose very existence is debated among historians?
First of all, these texts offer a key to essential political thought of the past. Their ambiguous and problematic status enhances their interest. Moreover, there has been much scholarly work done in this field in the past few decades. However, despite this strong renewal of interest in the subject, there is a dearth of critical introductory texts. We do not presume, in this introduction, to undertake a general assessment of mirrors of princes; the vast nature of such a task will become apparent from the summary chapters in the first part of this volume. The aim, here, is to specify the new ways in which mirrors of princes can be considered as objects of history and to indicate the general perspective adopted in this Companion. To this end, we first briefly address the question of terminology and the definitions of the various historiographies. This will allow us to consider the inclusion of mirrors of princes in a broader view of global
1 A Controversial Issue
It is important to remember that the concept of Fürstenspiegel is a German historiographical construct from the beginning of the twentieth century, defined by Albert Werminghoff 8 and Ernst Booz,9 and systematized by Wilhem Kleinecke10 and then by Wilhelm Berges in his fundamental work published in 1938.11 The Latin expression speculum regum or speculum principum, appears at the end of the twelfth century, in Godefroy of Viterbo (1183). It refers to an ethical, spiritual and moral literature that goes far beyond the framework of texts intended for the prince. In parallel, it is generally acknowledged that the metaphor of the mirror runs through a wider literature of advice—even if the term speculum is not explicitly mentioned. In any way, these texts are like a mirror that is held up to the addressee, so that he can examine what he should be and how he should behave.12 Through the figure of the prince, the mirrors
These terms can be used in a rather loose sense, referring to a very wide range of sources, even narrative or iconographic ones, or parts thereof, carrying notions concerning rulership, or in a stricter sense limited to independent works explicitly aiming at instructing kings and lesser rulers about the virtues they should cultivate, their lifestyle, their duties, the philosophical and theological meaning of their office. They usually follow standard conventions so that their teachings about royal justice, princely virtues, and the like tend to give the impression of a continuous repetition of commonplaces.13
A broad definition of mirrors,14 such as the one proposed here, therefore applies to a wide variety of texts: treatises, political speeches, wills, dialogues, memoirs, sermons, letters, poems, panegyrics, but also philosophical treatises and historical works. Louise Marlow also suggests two levels of interpretation in her definition of the mirrors of the Arab-Muslim princes and points to a similar diversity of writing forms.
The term “Mirrors for princes”, following European practice, is given to works of literature that impart advice to rules and high-ranking administrators; such writings are abundant in Arabic, Persian, and Turkish. The designation “mirrors for princes” has often been used as a synonym for the more general category of advice literature and applied to a variety of written texts as long as they serve an advisory purpose and address a royal recipient; in this sense, the term has been applied to works of ḥikma (wisdom), mawʿiẓa (moral
The authors of the “mirrors to the princes” make extensive use of rhetorical resources, so a narrow definition of the genre risks locking us into too rigid a category. The question of literary genre remains, as the works are generally composite. What is very clear, however, is the purpose of these treatises, and it is for this reason that it seems preferable to adopt a broader definition of the corpus, “parenetic literature” intended for the prince, even if, for reasons of convenience, we retain the expression “mirror to the prince” or “mirror of the prince” […] established by historiography.16
2 Towards a Global Perspective
This shift towards a global and comparative perspective has been made possible by the recent evolution of research in three main and complementary directions: the study of manuscript traditions; the dissemination and testing of the term “mirror of princes” outside the West; comparatism and global history.
The manuscript traditions of the mirrors of princes are now in some cases considered to be an integral part of the history of the political thought conveyed by these texts.17 Numerous unpublished works have emerged, whether previously unknown mirrors or manuscript copies whose existence had not been discovered. Patient scholarly work has made it possible to establish complex filiations between texts,18 to reconsider intellectual traditions and moments of rupture—for example, the effect of rereadings of Aristotle in the West.19 This has led to a better understanding of the nuances and general of mirrors of princes.
At the same time, the definition of mirror of princes has been expanded. Initially used to describe texts produced in England, France, Italy and the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages,20 the expression was then applied
Lastly, many scholars have contrasted and compared mirrors of princes composed in different traditions, circulating in different spaces, times and political regimes. In an encyclopedic or genealogical perspective, several works have proposed a synoptic view of all writing related to the genre of mirror of princes from ancient Greece to the advent of humanism, via Byzantium, Persia, Islam and the medieval West. In this context, the emphasis has often been placed on the models of royal behavior contained in sacred texts (Bible, Hebrew sacred-writing traditions, Koran), an issue we have chosen to let the authors deal with from their own perspective. The research has also focused strongly on the connections or ruptures between the different traditions, over the long history of ideas and political thought.23
Other studies concentrate on a particular tradition of mirrors of princes, using another tradition as a counterpoint to reveal differences in definition. The aim is thus to reveal differences in definition, typology, trajectories and
A more systematic comparison and connected or transnational approaches allow a critical dialogue among the mirror traditions. “The voluminous nature of the mirror literatures in the Latin West, Byzantium and the medieval Islamic world provides ample scope for comparative studies”.27 Louise Marlow has argued strongly in favor of such an approach, facilitated by the many interconnections between the traditions concerned.28 Over the past decade or so, several historians have been exploring this avenue, with singularly different methods and results. The historian Linda T. Darling has identified great similarities in form and content in counseling literature from the West to India in the Middle Ages. According to Darling, the unity of this transnational phenomenon, which was broken only in the sixteenth century, can be explained first of all by common origins and by significant circulation between the traditions.29 This interpretation has been tested by comparing the texts of mirrors of princes from various traditions considered as data.30 In the absence of a critical interrogation of the genre and the effects implied by English translations,
Other approaches to mirrors of princes—comparative, global, transnational—nevertheless warn against monolithic interpretations or overly broad generalizations. For Regula Forster and Neguin Yavari, it is thus problematic to consider “commonalities in political thought amidst incongruous historical contexts in comparative frameworks”. According to these authors, it is preferable to adopt a global historical perspective that takes into account the singularities and relationships between the different intellectual traditions in which the mirrors of princes are embedded, sometimes successively, as in the case of the Kalila wa dimna, written in India and then adapted in Iberian sapiential literature in particular. In several recent collective works, notably on the concepts of ideal royalty,32 this simultaneous attention to the long-term, to the modalities of circulation, and to the singularities of each text testifies to the keen interest aroused by the mirrors of princes. This interest is also methodological, as the mirrors of princes constitute a remarkable object of comparative, connected, global or transnational history. The variety of perspectives adopted and results obtained prove the need to facilitate and deepen the dialogue between specular traditions and historiographies. This is one of the essential challenges of this volume. Hence the editors’ choice to open the study to the main spaces in relation to which the notion is not only used, but also debated. The aim is therefore to show the different scales of analysis of current research, general perspectives, and more experimental studies or studies that consider it critically, or even question its relevance. In this way, this Companion aims to reflect the scope of current research and the debates within the field.
Our work seeks to highlight the historicity of the mirrors of princes by situating them in their specific context. This approach considers both the textuality and the materiality of the texts, which reveal practices linked to modes of production, circulation, distribution and use.
We will therefore examine, through specific examples, the different models chosen by the authors of mirrors of princes in writing their texts, i.e. the materials with which they worked, but also the modalities of circulation, diffusion, networks of transmission, translation and re-appropriation of their works. Particular attention will be paid to the circulation of the French translations of Gilles de Rome’s De regimine principum and the Spanish translations of the Secretum secretorum. We will observe how different traditions entered into dialogue, coexisted and influenced each other, voluntarily or not.
Attention to the materiality and uses of manuscripts leads us to consider the polyvalent function of the texts. The great majority of mirrors of princes have in common that they address, through the figure of the ruler, the whole political community. As the dissemination and manuscript reception of De regimine principum shows, the mirrors were indeed read, heard and translated by audiences beyond the royal and princely courts. In monastic schools, universities, sermons, the mirrors of princes served as working tools, compendiums, manuals or even guides for conduct, from which it was possible to draw practical advice, touching all areas of life. In the West, the mirrors of princes were also objects to be envied and admired by the bourgeoisie. They conveyed the tastes and values of the upper classes and brought a certain prestige to their owners, who often ordered sumptuous copies. It was thus a question of appropriating the influence of counsel originally addressed to the sovereign. This advice could relate to political action but also, through it, to concrete aspects of child rearing, marital relations, and good family government in the broadest sense.
Our understanding of the content of mirrors therefore varies according to their specific context and their use in different social environments. This question henceforth invites us to reflect globally on the uses of time and periodization within different cultural traditions.
4 Time and Periodization
Can the mirrors of princes be confined to any time sequencing or historical periodizations? What temporalities does the life of the manuscripts suggest to us? What place do the mirrors give to time and history? These three issues will
The choice of periodization is particularly difficult in the case of mirrors of princes. Depending on whether one considers the West, Byzantium and Islam as a whole or separately, or whether one considers smaller areas, the boundaries and chronological divisions of the subject vary considerably. These divergences partly reflect differences in the evolution of political systems and the relationship between knowledge and power.33 For the West, it has been common since Wilhelm Berges’ classic and seminal work to distinguish several phases closely linked to the transformation of governmental regimes: the Carolingian mirrors; then, without any real continuity, the twelfth century, dominated by John of Salisbury’s Policraticus; forms of mirrors emerging from the thirteenth century onwards;34 then the productions of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries from polities with a developed and renewed organization. For Byzantium, if one adopts a broad understanding of the notion of mirrors of princes, they can be distinguished typologically by following the major moments in the history of the Empire.35 In Islam, the succession of dynasties and the evolution of forms of power could also serve as criteria for a history of mirrors, from the prolific production of the eighth- to tenth-century Abbasids to the nineteenth century.36
However, the evolution of political systems cannot, by any means, be used as the sole criterion to explain the transformations of mirrors of princes—understood in the broad sense—in the course of history. It is also essential to take the measure of other possibly decisive phenomena: Christianization, Islamization and confessionalization, the evolution of the relationship to the law in the societies concerned,37 the development of universities and
As we have said, understanding mirrors in their time also means placing them at the heart of the concerns of the society that produces them. Were there any circumstances that were particularly conducive to the writing of mirrors? While there is, unsurprisingly, no general rule in this respect, the role of moments of crisis is nevertheless significant, for example in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century France and England.41 The same is true of phases of refoundation or reconstruction of the broken ties of political societies, particularly after civil wars or tumultuous successions, during which the authors of mirrors, more diverse than was once thought, both in Islam and in the West,42 sometimes tried to influence current developments.43 The actual work of producing the mirror manuscripts could then require a great deal of time, especially when they were illuminated.44 Then comes the time of use, of possible
Finally, what place do the texts of the mirrors themselves give to time and history? Before the chapters that follow provide an insight into the problem in all its complexity and nuance, it is worth pointing out at the outset a general and recurring tension, in the mirrors as in the interpretations given of them, between invariability and movement. This tension can be observed on three levels. Many specialists have noted common features, a kinship, a “family resemblance,” and even repetition between mirrors of princes, developing reflections of a general nature with a striking resemblance. However, in the West as in Islam, the variety of texts is undeniable, and their indifference to the passage of time must be strongly relativized.45 Secondly, the texts studied here contain many passages from which history seems at first sight absent or at least secondary. They aim to formulate an ethic of behavior or of government,46 to emphasize the necessity of a virtue or the universal character
By focusing on several avenues recently explored by research—the global dimension, the materiality and uses of manuscripts, the relationship of mirrors to time—this volume aims to contribute to a better understanding of mirrors of princes as objects and stakes of history.
This Companion is divided into two parts. The first one proposes a general idea of some of the most important traditions, from Antiquity until the sixteenth century. Following a chronological and cultural order, each chapter
Whatever the particular angle adopted in the following chapters, they all seek to shed critical light on the multiple conceptions of the literature on mirrors of princes. Therefore, this Companion reflects the collective hope of the editors and contributors that this book will not only be a guide to understanding the complexity of this vast literature, but will also invite further cross-readings and critical dialogue between the different traditions of mirrors of princes.
…
We would like to express our gratitude to the series editor, Kate Hammond, and to the editorial team at Brill, in particular Marcella Mulder, for their support and expertise in bringing this volume to publication. For a variety of reasons, this project has taken longer to complete than expected. Therefore, we would like to thank all contributors for their patience and friendly cooperation. We are also grateful to Alba Canigna for the composition of the indexes, to Julie Sullivan, Lauria Sager, David Kämpfen, Manon Messner, Boris Siegfried and Léo Bulliard for their editorial assistance.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Al-Māwardī, De l’éthique du prince et du gouvernement de l’État, trans. Makram Abbès (Paris, 2015).
Abbès, Makram, “L’art de gouverner en Islam”, in Esprit (August–September 2014), pp. 161–171.
Abbès, Makram, Islam et politique à l’âge classique (Paris, 2009).
Anton, Hans-Hubert, Fürstenspiegel des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Darmstadt, 2006).
Anton, Hans-Hubert, “Fürstenspiegel”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 4 (1989), pp. 1040–1049.
Bagge, Sverre, The Political Thought of the King’s Mirror (Odense, 1987).
Berges, Wilhelm, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 2) (Leipzig, 1938, repr. 1952).
Bizzarri, Hugo O., “Del texto a la imagen: representaciones iconográficas de la realeza en un manuscrito de los Castigos del rey don Sancho IV (Ms. BN Madrid 3995)”, in Incipit XXII (2002), pp. 53–94.
Bizzarri, Hugo O., “Sermones y espejos de príncipes castellanos”, in Anuario de Estudios Medievales 42/1(January–June 2012), pp. 163–181.
de Benedictis, Angela (ed.), Specula principum (Frankfurt, 1999).
Blaydes, Lisa, Justin Grimmer and Alison McQueen, “Mirrors for Princes and Sultans: advice on the art of Governance in the Medieval Christians and Islamic Worlds”, in Journal of Politics 80/4 (2018), pp. 1151–1168.
Boccaccini, Enrico, “A Ruler’s Curriculum: Transcultural Comparisons of Mirrors for Princes”, in Knowledge and Education in Classical Islam: Religious Learning between Continuity and Change, 2 vol., ed. S. Günther (Leiden, 2020), pp. 684–712.
Booz, Ernst, Die Fürstenspiegel des Mittelalters bis zur Scholastik (Freiburg in Br., 1913).
Bratu, Cristian, “Mirrors for Princes (Western)” in Handbook of Medieval Studies (Berlin, 2010), pp. 1928–1930.
Briggs, Charles F., “Scholarly and Intellectual Authority in Late Medieval European Mirrors”, in Global Medieval Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered, ed. R. Forster and N. Yavari (Boston, 2015), pp. 26–41.
Brückle, Wolfgang, Civitas terrena: Staatsrepräsentation und politischer Aristotelismus in der französischen Kunst (1270–1380) (Munich, 2005).
Coufalová Bohrnová, Hana, “Mirrors for Princes: Genuine Byzantine Genre or Academic Construct”, in Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22/1 (2017), pp. 5–16.
Dakhlia, Jocelyne, “Les miroirs des princes islamiques: une modernité sourde?”, in Annales HSS 5 (sept-oct. 2002), pp. 1191–1207.
Dankoff, Robert, “Introduction”, in Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes, trans. R. Dankoff (Chicago, 1983), pp. 4–8.
Darling, Linda T., “Mirrors for Princes in Europe and the Middle East: A Case of historiographical Incommensurability”, in East meets West in the Middle Ages: transcultural experiences in the premodern world, ed. A. Classen (Berlin, 2013), pp. 223–242.
Dubreucq, Alain, “Le prince et le peuple dans les miroirs des princes carolingiens”, in Le prince, son peuple et le bien commun, de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen âge, ed. H. Oudart, J.-M. Picard and J. Quaghebeur (Rennes, 2013), pp. 97–114.
Forster, Regula and Neguin Yavari (eds.), Global Medieval: Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered (Boston, 2015).
Genet, Jean-Philippe, Four English Political Tracts of the Late Middle Ages (London, 1977).
Genet, Jean-Philippe, “L’évolution du genre des miroirs des princes en Occident au Moyen Âge”, in Religion et mentalités au Moyen Âge: mélanges en l’honneur d’Hervé Martin, eds. S. Cassagnes-Brouquet et al. (Rennes, 2003), pp. 531–541.
Grabes, Herbert, Speculum, Mirror und Looking-Glass: Kontinuität und Originalität der Spiegelmetapher in den Buchtiteln des Mittelalters und der englischen Literatur des 13. bis 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen 1973).
Grube, Ernest G. (ed.), A Mirror for Princes from India. Illustrated Versions of the Kalilah wa Dimnah, Anvar-i Suhayli, Iyar-i Danish, and Humayun Nameh (Bombay, 1991).
Haake, Matthias, “Writing to a Ruler, Speaking to a Ruler, Negotiating the Figure of the Ruler; Thoughts on ‘Monocratological’ Texts and their Contexts in Greco-Roman Antiquity”, in Global Medieval: Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered, eds. Regula Forster and Neguin Yavari (Boston, 2015), pp. 58–82.
Hadot, Pierre, “Fürstenspiegel”, in Rivista di archeologia christiana 8 (1972), pp. 555–632.
Hellerstedt, Andreas (ed.), Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity of the Eighteenth Century (Amsterdam, 2018).
Hellerstedt, Andreas, “Cracks in the Mirror. Changing conceptions of political virtue in mirrors for princes in Scandinavia from the Middle Ages to c. 1700”, in Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, ed. A. Hellerstedt (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 281–328.
Historische Exempla in Fürstenspiegeln und Fürstenlehren, ed. C. Reinle and H. Winkel (Frankfurt, 2011).
Jónsson, Einar M., Le miroir. Naissance d’un genre littéraire (Paris, 1995).
Jónsson, Einar M., “Les ‘miroirs aux princes’ sont-ils un genre littéraire?”, in Médiévales, Langues, Textes, Histoire 151 (2006), pp. 153–166.
Kleinecke, Wilhelm, Englische Fürstenspiegel vom Policraticus Johanns von Salisbury bis zum Basilikon Doron König Jacob I (Studien zur englischen Philologie 90) (Halle, 1937).
Lachaud, Frédérique and Lydwine Scordia (eds.), Le prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007).
Lachaud, Frédérique and Lydwine Scordia, “Introduction”, in Le Prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières, eds. F. Lachaud and L. Scordia (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007), pp. 11–17.
Lachaud, Frédérique and Lydwine Scordia (eds.), Au-delà des miroirs: la littérature politique dans la France de Charles VI et de Charles VII (Paris, 2012).
Lambertini, Roberto, “Mirrors for Princes”, in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, ed. H. Lagerlung (Dordrecht, 2011). URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9729-4_338, pp. 791–797.
Lepot, Julien, “Le princier justicier dans l’Avis aus roys, un ‘miroir au prince’ enluminé du XIVe siècle”, in Le roi fontaine de justice. Pouvoir justicier et pouvoir royal au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, ed. S. Menegaldo and B. Ribémont (Paris, 2012), pp. 193–207.
Lepot, Julien, Un miroir enluminé du milieu du XIVème siècle: l’Avis aus roys (Thèse soutenue à l’université d’Orléans, 2014). URL: http://www.theses.fr/2014ORLE1135/document.
Marlow, Louise, “Advice and Advice Literature”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 3rd ed., Kate Fleet et al. (2007). URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_0026.
Marlow, Louise, “Mirrors for Princes”, in The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (Princeton, 2013), pp. 348–350.
Marlow, Louise, “Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre”, in History Compass 7/2 (2009), pp. 523–538.
Nieto Soria, José Manuel, “Les miroirs des princes dans l’historiographie espagnole (couronne de Castille, XIIIe–XVe siècles): Tendances de la recherche”, in Specula principum, ed. A. de Benedictis (Frankfurt, 1999), pp. 193–207.
O’Kane, Bernard, Early Persian Painting: Kalila and Dimna Manuscripts of the Late Fourteenth Century (London, 2003).
Ritamary, Bradley, “Backgrounds to the Title Speculum in Mediaeval Literature”, in Speculum 29 (1945), pp. 100–115.
Roskam, Geert and Stefan Schorn (eds.), Concepts of ideal rulership from antiquity to the Renaissance (Turnhout, 2018).
Roth, Gundhild, “Spiegelliteratur (I. Mittellateinische Literatur)”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 7 (1995), col. 2101–2102.
Rucquoi, Adeline and Bizzarri, Hugo O., “Los espejos de príncipes en Castilla: entre Oriente y Occidente”, in Cuadernos de Historia de España 79 (2005), pp. 7–30.
Senellart, Michel, Les arts de gouverner: du “regimen” médiéval au concept de gouvernement (Paris, 1995).
Werminghoff, Albert, “Die Fürstenspiegel der Karolingerzeit”, in Historische Zeitschrift 89 (1902), pp. 193–214.
We have made the editorial choice to use both terms interchangeably in the volume.
Jean-Philippe Genet, Four English Political Tracts of the Late Middle Ages (London, 1977), p. IX.
For an in-depth approach to the scholarly discussion of problematic terminology and definitions of the specula principum, see Matthias Haake, “Writing to a Ruler, Speaking to a Ruler, Negotiating the Figure of the Ruler; Thoughts on ‘Monocratological’ Texts and Their Contexts in Greco-Roman Antiquity”, in Global Medieval: Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered, eds. R. Forster and N. Yavari (Boston, 2015), pp. 58–82.
Michel Senellart, Les arts de gouverner : du ‘regimen’ médiéval au concept de gouvernement (Paris, 1995).
Linda T. Darling, “Mirrors for Princes in Europe and the Middle East: A Case of Historiographical Incommensurability”, in East Meets West in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Transcultural Experiences in the Premodern World, ed. A. Classen (Boston, 2013), pp. 223–242, here p. 225.
Frédéric Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia (eds.), “Introduction”, in Le Prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007), p. 13.
While texts offering advice to rulers are known and widely studied in each national historiography, there have been relatively fewer scholarly works comparing such texts from different cultural areas. Few studies indeed have focused on the cross-cultural nature of mirrors of princes: Linda T. Darling, “Mirrors for Princes in Europe and the Middle East: A Case of Historiographical Incommensurability”, pp. 223–242; Enrico Boccaccini, “A Ruler’s Curriculum: Transcultural Comparisons of Mirrors for Princes”, in Knowledge and Education in Classical Islam: Religious Learning between Continuity and Change, 2 vols, ed. S. Güther (Leiden, 2020), pp. 684–712; Robert Dankoff, Introduction, in Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes, trans. R. Dankoff (Chicago, 1983), pp. 4–8; Makram Abbès, “L’art de gouverner en Islam”, in Esprit (August–September 2014), pp. 161–171. See also Regula Forster and Neguin Yavari (eds.), Global Medieval: Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered (Boston, 2015).
Albert Werminghoff, “Die Fürstenspiegel der Karolingerzeit”, in Historische Zeitschrift 89 (1902), pp. 193–214.
Ernst Booz, Die Fürstenspiegel des Mittelalters bis zur Scholastik (Freiburg in Br., 1913).
Wilhelm Kleinecke, Englische Fürstenspiegel vom Policraticus Johanns von Salisbury bis zum Basilikon Doron König Jacob I (Studien zur englischen Philologie 90) (Halle, 1937).
Wilhelm Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters (Schriften der Monumenta Germaniae Historica 2) (Leipzig, 1938, repr. 1952).
On “catoptric symbolism” and the symbolic values of the mirror in Western thought see, Einar M. Jónsson, Le miroir. Naissance d’un genre littéraire (Paris, 1995); Ritamary Bradley, “Backgrounds to the Title Speculum in Mediaeval Literature”, in Speculum 29 (1945), pp. 100–115; Gundhild Roth, “Spiegelliteratur (I. Mittellateinische Literatur)”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 7 (1995), col. 2101–2102; Herbert Grabes, Speculum, Mirror und Looking-Glass: Kontinuität und Originalität der Spiegelmetapher in den Buchtiteln des Mittelalters und der englischen Literatur des 13. bis 17. Jahrhunderts (Tübingen, 1973).
Roberto Lambertini, “Mirrors for Princes”, in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, ed. H. Lagerlung (Dordrecht, 2011) (online, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9729-4_338, pp. 791–797), here p. 792.
For a synthesis of the tradition of the genre in the medieval West, we refer firstly to the article by Jean-Philippe Genet, “L’évolution du genre des Miroirs des princes en Occident au Moyen Âge”, in Religion et mentalités au Moyen Âge: mélanges en l’honneur d’Hervé Martin, eds. S. Cassagnes-Brouquet et al. (Rennes, 2003), pp. 531–541 and Cristian Bratu, “Mirrors for Princes (Western)”, in Handbook of Medieval Studies (Berlin, 2010), pp. 1928–1930.
Louise Marlow, “Mirrors for Princes”, in Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought (Princeton, 2013), pp. 348–350, here pp. 348–349.
Frédérique Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia, “Introduction”, in eds. F. Lachaud and L. Scordia, Le Prince au miroir de la littérature littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières (Mont-Saint-Aignan, 2007), pp. 11–17, here p. 13: “Les auteurs des « miroirs aux princes » font un large usage des ressources de la rhétorique, aussi une définition étroite du genre risque de nous enfermer dans une catégorie trop rigide. La question du genre littéraire reste posée, car les œuvres sont généralement composites. Ce qui est en revanche très clair, c’est le but poursuivi par ces traités, et c’est pour cette raison qu’il semble préférable d’adopter une définition plus large du corpus, la « littérature parénétique » destinée au prince, même si, pour des raisons de commodité, nous conservons l’expression « miroir au prince » ou « miroir du prince » […] consacrée par l’historiographie”.
Charles F. Briggs, “Scholarly and Intellectual Authority in Late Medieval European Mirrors”, in Global Medieval Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered, ed. R. Forster and N. Yavari (Boston, 2015), p. 38: “Like other medieval mirrors, they privilege the ethical over the political, seeing personal character and relationships as being more important to the common weal than constitutional, structural, or process-related issues”.
Louise Marlow, “Mirrors for Princes”, p. 27
See the chapter by Charles F. Briggs and Cary Nederman in this volume.
Wilhelm Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters, in the wake of which, for the delimitation of the corpus, is to be considered, Hans-Hubert Anton, Fürstenspiegel des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Darmstadt, 2006).
Adeline Rucquoi and Hugo O. Bizzarri, “Los espejos de príncipes en Castilla: entre Oriente y Occidente”, in Cuadernos de Historia de España 79 (2005), 7–30; Sverre Bagge, The Political Thought of the King’s Mirror (Odense, 1987); Andreas Hellerstedt, “Cracks in the Mirror. Changing conceptions of political virtue in mirrors for princes in Scandinavia from the Middle Ages to c. 1700”, in Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity to the Eighteenth Century, ed. A. Hellerstedt (Amsterdam, 2018), pp. 281–328, as well as the chapter by Olivier Biaggini and Corinne Peneau in this volume.
For Islam, see for example Jocelyne Dakhlia, “Les miroirs des princes islamiques: une modernité sourde?”, in Annales HSS 5 (Sept–Oct 2002), pp. 1191–1207; the chapters by Louise Marlow and Makram Abbès in this volume. For Byzantium, Hana Coufalová Bohrnová, “Mirrors for Princes: Genuine Byzantine Genre or Academic Construct?”, in Graeco-Latina Brunensia 22/1 (2017), pp. 5–16, and the chapter by Günther Prinzing in this volume.
Pierre Hadot, “Fürstenspiegel”, in Rivista di archeologia christiana 8 (1972), pp. 555–632; Hans Hubert Anton, “Fürstenspiegel”, in Lexikon des Mittelalters 4 (1989), pp. 1040–1049; Roberto Lambertini, “Mirrors for Princes”, in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, ed. H. Lagerlung (Dordrecht, 2011) (online, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9729-4_338), pp. 791–797.
“Les miroirs des princes en Islam constituent un genre littéraire très répandu et sans équivalent dans l’histoire européenne, en dépit de multiples concordances et de filiations communes”, Jocelyne Dakhlia, “Les miroirs des princes islamiques : une modernité sourde?”, in Annales HSS 5 (Sept–Oct 2002), p. 1191.
Makram Abbès, Islam et politique à l’âge classique (Paris, 2009), pp. 19–122.
Al-Māwardī, De l’éthique du prince et du gouvernement de l’État, trans. M. Abbès (Paris, 2015).
Louise Marlow, “Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre”, in History Compass 7/2 (2009), pp. 521–538, here p. 531.
“This interconnectedness of the common literary culture facilitated the circulation and perpetuation of a large body of ideas and motifs drawn from a strikingly diverse set of culture backgrounds” (Louise Marlow, “Advice and Advice Literature”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, third edition, eds. Kate Fleet et al. (2007), Brill Reference Online, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_0026.
Linda T. Darling, “Mirrors for Princes in Europe and the Middle East: A Case of Historiographical Incommensurability”, pp. 223–242.
Lisa Blaydes, Justin Grimmer and Alison McQueen, “Mirrors for Princes and Sultans: Advice on the Art of Governance in the Medieval Christian and Islamic Worlds”, in Journal of Politics 80/4 (2018), pp. 1151–1168 (with an appendix).
Enrico Boccaccini, “A Ruler’s Curriculum: Transcultural Comparisons of Mirrors for Princes”, in Knowledge and Education in Classical Islam: Religious Learning between Continuity and Change, ed. S. Günther (Leiden, 2020), pp. 684–712.
Geert Roskam and Stefan Schorn (eds.), Concepts of Ideal Rulership from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Turnhout, 2018).
Jean-Philippe Genet, “L’évolution du genre des miroirs des princes en Occident au Moyen Âge”, p. 531; Einar M. Jónsson, “Les miroirs aux princes sont-ils un genre littéraire?”, in Médiévales. Langues, Textes, Histoire 151 (2006), pp. 153–166. The question was already considered by Pierre Hadot, “Fürstenspiegel”.
This scheme is, for example, taken up by José M. Nieto Soria, “Les miroirs des princes dans l’historiographie espagnole (couronne de Castille, xiiie-xve siècles). Tendances de la recherche”, in Specula principum, ed. A. de Benedictis (Frankfurt, 1999), pp. 193–207.
See Günther Prinzing’s chapter in this volume.
Louise Marlow, “Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre”, in History Compass 7/2 (2009); Makram Abbès, Islam et politique à l’âge classique; Al-Māwardī, De l’éthique du prince et du gouvernement de l’État, trans. from Arabic by M. Abbès (Paris, 2015), as well as the chapter by Denise Aigle in this volume.
Angela de Benedictis (ed.), Specula principum (Frankfurt, 1999), in particular the introduction by Angela de Benedictis.
Hugo O. Bizzarri, “Sermones y espejos de príncipes castellanos”, in Anuario de Estudios Medievales 42/1 (January–June 2012), pp. 163–181.
See the chapters by Charles F. Briggs and Cary Nedermann in this volume.
Alain Dubreucq, “Le prince et le peuple dans les miroirs des princes carolingiens”, in Le prince, son peuple et le bien commun, de l’Antiquité tardive à la fin du Moyen âge, eds. H. Oudart, J.-M. Picard and J. Quaghebeur (Rennes, 2013), pp. 97–114; Hans-Hubert Anton, Fürstenspiegel des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Darmstadt, 2006), and Karl Ubl’s chapter in this volume.
Frédérique Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia (eds.), Au-delà des miroirs: la littérature politique dans la France de Charles VI et de Charles VII (Paris, 2012).
Louise Marlow, “Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre”, in History Compass 7/2 (2009), pp. 527–528.
See on this point the chapter in this volume by Olivier Biaggini and Corinne Peneau.
On the images in the princely mirror manuscripts, see in particular Ernest G. Grube (ed.), A mirror for Princes from India. Illustrated Versions of the Kalilah wa Dimnah, Anvar-i Suhayli, Iyar-i Danish, and Humayun Nameh (Bombay, 1991); Hugo O. Bizzarri, “Del texto a la imagen: representaciones iconográficas de la realeza en un manuscrito de los Castigos del rey don Sancho IV (Ms. BN Madrid 3995)”, in Incipit XXII (2002), pp. 53–94; Bernard O’Kane, Early Persian Painting: Kalila and Dimna Manuscripts of the Late Fourteenth Century (London, 2003); Wolfgang Brückle, Civitas terrena: Staatsrepräsentation und politischer Aristotelismus in der französischen Kunst (1270–1380) (Munich, 2005).
Einar M. Jónsson, “Les ‘miroirs aux princes’ sont-ils un genre littéraire ?”, in Médiévales. Langues, Textes, Histoire 151 (2006), pp. 153–166. For Islam, Jocelyne Dakhlia notes that: “la tâche des historiens devint la détection, l’identification de chacun de ces moments; toute démarche historienne se voulut, explicitement ou non, la recherche d’un point d’origine, d’une période ou d’un événement à partir desquels les destins divergeaient. Il en découla que la temporalité idéalement étale et indistincte des Miroirs des princes était on ne peut plus propre à décourager les historiens ou à suggérer une forme d’incapacité de la pensée politique islamique à avoir prise sur l’histoire, à saisir le cours de l’événement” (“The historians’ task becomes the detection and identification of each of these moments. Every action by the historian aims explicitly or not to discover the point of origin of a period or of an event after which destinies diverge. From this, it follows that the ideally timeless and indistinct temporality of mirrors for princes was likely to discourage historians or to suggest a kind of incapacity of Islamic political thought to grasp history, to comprehend the course of the event”), Jocelyne Dakhlia, “Les miroirs des princes islamiques : une modernité sourde ?” in Annales HSS 5 (sept–oct. 2002), p. 1205.
Wilhelm Berges, Die Fürstenspiegel des hohen und späten Mittelalters.
Virtue Ethics and Education from Late Antiquity of the Eighteenth Century, ed. A. Hellerstedt (Amsterdam, 2018).
Makram Abbès, Islam et politique à l’âge classique, pp. 14–15.
Frédérique Lachaud and Lydwine Scordia (eds.), Le prince au miroir de la littérature politique de l’Antiquité aux Lumières.
See in particular Historische Exempla in Fürstenspiegeln und Fürstenlehren, eds. C. Reinle and H. Winkel (Frankfurt, 2011).
Hugo O. Bizzarri, “Del texto a la imagen: representaciones iconográficas de la realeza en un manuscrito de los Castigos del rey don Sancho IV (Ms. BN Madrid 3995)”, in Incipit XXII (2002), pp. 53–94.
Louise Marlow, “Surveying Recent Literature on the Arabic and Persian Mirrors for Princes Genre”, in History Compass 7/2 (2009), p. 528.
Julien Lepot, “Le princier justicier dans l’Avis aus roys, un ‘miroir au prince’ enluminé du XIVe siècle”, in Le roi fontaine de justice. Pouvoir justicier et pouvoir royal au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, ed. S. Menegaldo and B. Ribémont (Paris, 2012), pp. 193–207; Julien Lepot, Un miroir enluminé du milieu du XIVème siècle : l’Avis aus roys, thesis defended at the University of Orléans, 2014 (online, http://www.theses.fr/2014ORLE1135/document), in particular p. 247f.