Though one still speaks of ‘Byzantine mirrors for princes’,1 for some years in Byzantine studies, as well as in classical studies, it has been disputed whether and to what extent it is permissible or justified, with regard to the respective sources, to speak of the existence of such texts in the sense of a separate genre.2 The sceptics refer to the (long-known) fact that, in contrast to the source collections for medieval studies,3 there is no text explicitly proven to be a ‘mirror for princes’ in the Byzantine sources until 1453 (as well as in the Greek and Roman sources up to Late Antiquity).4 But while the ancient historian Matthias Haake breaks new ground in this debate5 and the Byzantinist Diether R. Reinsch wants to take the spectrum of what should or could be called a “mirror for princes” even further,6 the Byzantinist Paolo Odorico takes a completely contrary position. He claims that the texts hitherto referred to as mirror for
Such a text is primarily a self-contained text for instructing an emperor (or a person of similar rank) on his position in the political system: it is about the diversity of the interests of his office, the rights and obligations in its exercise, but also about the demands on his personal behaviour as a ruler. Consequently, the purpose of a mirror for princes is usually to prepare the ruler for his duties, or to advise on how to improve (or criticize) his government practice; in some cases, there is a restriction to certain individual aspects.
A mirror for princes, judging from the traditional texts, is as a rule aimed at a specific person who was, should be, or could be entrusted with state control, thus to the incumbent emperor or a designated or potential candidate for the imperial office (a prince or co-emperor, or one or more potential heirs to the throne); but it could also be directed to the ruler of a near or distant land.
With respect to the written transmission of mirrors for princes one can distinguish between independently transmitted texts and those which are, though being self-contained texts, embedded in or found directly adjacent to a text of quite a different content. Hence, such a type of text can be rightly classified as an ‘integrated mirror for princes’.8
It corresponds with the purpose (and occasion) of writing a mirror for princes that it is usually addressed directly to the intended recipient(s)
or that this form of dedication is indirectly identifiable.9 Otherwise, the text would not be a mirror for princes but a political treatise, unless there is additional information on the addressee(s) of the text or a personal dedication.10 Presumably, the author was often close to the addressee, so he “was able to give real advice and also pronounce serious warnings”.11 The rhetorical and literary design of accordingly defined mirrors for princes is variable and open to various forms. Rightly, however, Herbert Hunger distinguishes between two groups with regard to structural and stylistic peculiarities of mirrors for princes. According to him one group is “clearly in the gnomological tradition and characterised by its structure ‒ numerous small chapters (κεφάλαια)”. This is the group containing the texts of Agapetos, Photios, Pseudo-Basil I and Manuel II Palaiologos, for which it is also typical that they have an acrostic formed “from the initial letters of the individual chapters”. The other group includes discursive texts “stylized by their authors in a coherent presentation”.12
It is hardly surprising, however, that in terms of form and content, elements of the genres of Parainesis (admonition), Enkomion (eulogy) or Psogos (diatribe) can also be added to the instruction.13 Therefore, an intermingling of genres can occasionally be observed in some mirrors for princes.14
1 Mirrors for Princes in the Early Byzantine Period
The speech To the Emperor on the Imperial Office written by Synesios of Cyrene (c. 370–c. 413)16 during his stay as ambassador of the African Pentapolis in Constantinople (probably 397–400), and addressed to Emperor Arkadios, is indisputably the earliest mirror for princes (A 1); however, it is rightly doubted that Synesios presented it as it has been recorded in writing. Concrete advice to the emperor in addition to prudent instruction, but also exhortation and clear criticism of the ruler characterize this speech as an exemplary, discursive mirror for princes.17
From the 6th century comes the mirror for princes of Agapetos’ Exposition of Chapters/ Ekthesis kephalaion (A 2), which, unlike the text of Synesios, consists of 72 chapters with wise aphorisms or counsels (gnomai) written before 548, possibly around 530. This was perhaps written with the knowledge of
Two other mirrors for princes strongly influenced by Agapetos (A 2) are included in the history of Theophylact Simocata (580/90 – after 628);19 hence, each one represents an integrated mirror for princes: The first (B 1) is a speech given by the mentally unstable Emperor Justin II (565–578), on the initiative of his wife Sophia, on 7 December 574 when he raised his notary Tiberios to caesar and co-regent (Tiberios I, reg. 578–582). Theophylact expressly emphasized that he was genuinely reproducing the wording of this speech.20
2 Mirrors for Princes in the Middle Byzantine Period
The first three pertinent texts of this epoch are connected with the name of the exceptionally erudite Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Photios (858–867 and 877–886).23 For the second part of his letter sent to Prince Michael (Boris I) of Bulgaria in 865 represents an integrated mirror for princes (B 3) in which Photios also gives moral and varied practical advice to the prince, who had just converted to Christianity.24 This section of the letter consists of about 90 maxims and pieces of advice that are associative but strung together without systematic order. Much like the mirror for princes of Agapetos (A 1), but with new accents, it formally belongs into the gnomic tradition. The first part teaches Michael about the Christian way of life, as well as about Christian dogma (this with the help of a synopsis of councils) and encomiastically sees in Michael a ‘New Constantine’.25
This is followed by the Further Admonition/Hetera Pairainesis, the shortest Byzantine mirror for princes (A 4).28 Although anonymous, it is certain that this text was also written for Leo (VI) at the behest of Basil I. Presumably, it was the clergyman Theophanes Sphenodaimon29 who wrote it while being aware of the text A 3, more precisely, after the release of Leo on 20 July 886 from the imprisonment which his father had imposed on him for suspicion of conspiracy, and before the death of the Emperor on 29 August 886.30
From the 10th century come two integrated mirrors for princes. One consists of a passage from a letter of the Patriarch Nicholas I Mystikos (901–907, 912–925), as leader of the Regency Council of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos, sent 913 to the Caliph al-Muqtadir (908–932) in support of the legation to the Caliph which the bishop Demetrios of Chytroi (on Cyprus) undertook for the release of his countrymen held in captivity by the Emir of Tarsos (B 4). Above all, the passage emphasizes justice as the main virtue of a ruler, and in this respect represents a scarce, though thematically limited integrated mirror for princes.31
Particularly interesting is a section of the famous Advice and Narrations /Consilia et Narrationes of the military expert and aristocrat Kekaumenos (1020/24 – after 1070),34 which proves to be an integrated mirror for princes (B 6). This work, which lacks an original title and is handed down in a single manuscript from the 14th century of various content, comprises the chapter of advice (B 6), according to its arrangement in the critical editions of Gennadij G. Litavrin and Charlotte Roueché, either in its penultimate section V (Sovety Vasilevsu/Advice to the emperor, §§ 77–88, Litavrin) or in its (last) section VII (Consilium principi/Advice to an emperor, Roueché).35 This chapter is directed at an emperor (or his successors) and refers to concrete tasks of rulership in civil and military (including naval) matters, but warns against the blind fulfilment of absurd imperial decrees. The author underpins this advice with his life experience and timely examples from the reigns of former emperors.36 As
Also, the mirror of princes, long held to be an autonomous text of Theophylact (Hephaistos), the writer, teacher, and later archbishop of ‘Bulgaria’ (Achrida/Ohrid) c. 1090–1120/26,40 is an integrated mirror for princes (B 7). For it is enclosed within the speech written in 1085/86 that he addressed to his pupil Constantine Doukas (c. 1074–95), co-emperor with Alexios I Komnenos and fiancé of the Emperor’s famous daughter Anna.41 This has emerged from the critical edition of Paul Gautier.42 In the first part of the speech, Theophylact gives detailed praise of Constantine and his parents, especially his mother; the following integrated mirror for princes closes the speech. It is abstract and general at the beginning, when it comes to instructing Constantine concisely on antique constitutional models such as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, along with their counterparts – tyranny, oligarchy and ochlocracy. Only then does Theophylact elaborate, in contrast with the fearful image of a tyrant, the virtues of a godly, peaceful, benevolent, and learned emperor, but one who should, like his generals, be prepared to lead his military forces into battle.43
In the 12th century, it is the Grottaferrata version of the anonymous epic poem Digenes Akrites, which offers a brief integrated mirror for princes (B 8) in the context of the fictitious account of an encounter between Digenes and Emperor Basil (I or II, although the original version probably had Romanos [I]) during his visit to the Euphrates border area controlled by Digenes. Invited by the Emperor to express a wish frankly, Digenes directed several admonitory pleas to him to obey the virtues that characterize the correct conduct of an orthodox ruler; namely, that these are the weapons of justice with which he can overwhelm all opponents. Finally, he exhorted him indirectly to be humble and fear God, stating that rule is not a matter of power, but the gift of God alone.47 Digenis’ advice is conventional, only in content, not in its setting.
3 Mirrors for Princes in the Late Byzantine Period
A letter to the ruler of the successor state of Epiros by Archbishop Demetrios Chomatenos of Ohrid (1216–1236), handed down in his Various Works, provides a special kind of an integrated mirror for princes (B 9). It is contained in a
Also from the 13th century comes an exemplary, as well as unique, integrated mirror for princes (B 10). It is found in the 19th chapter of a 20-chapter work that was created between 1204 and 1252, probably in the realm of Nicaea, according to the editor Joseph A. Munitiz. The chapters can only partially be assigned to an author named Theognostos, as in the case of chapter 19; in others, the authorship is unclear. Theognostos was probably a hieromonk (hieromonachos) who had made little literary impact. Entitled παραίνεσις πρὸς βασιλέα (“Exhortation to the Emperor”), this integrated mirror for princes is not addressed to a particular emperor and it remains unclear whether it was ever read by an emperor. Apart from a short closing poem, the text is composed of 14 paragraphs (referring to the addressees in a plain manner up to § 5), using many biblical quotations, initially to remind the reader conventionally of the supremacy of God, and then to teach him justice, dispassion, clemency, peacefulness and further virtues in the mirror for princes tradition, with reference to the Last Judgement. In §§ 6–13, Theognostos underlines the tenor of the advice on the basis of authoritative historical examples (from well-known sources), which refer (in this order) to Alexander the Great, King David, the emperors Constantine (I, here also called “Saint”), Theodosios II, again Alexander, the emperors Basil II, Isaac I Komnenos, Empress Theophano and John I Tzimiskes. Theognostos devotes most of the space to the latter because of his
A near contemporary of Theognostos’ text is the extensive, discursive mirror for princes known as Imperial Statue: A Moral Treatise/Basilikos Andrias: Logos Ethikos (A 6),51 which was written by Nikephoros Blemmydes (1197–c. 1271), probably the most important scholar in the Nicene Empire, in the period 1248–1250.52 Thus Blemmydes wrote his mirror for princes after he had become a monk in 1234 and the abbot of the monastery he founded in Emathia at Ephesus in 1248. Apart from this text, he left behind numerous other writings, including his autobiography. Highly regarded as a man of religious and spiritual authority, he was also an independent spirit, who could not only be critical and irksome but also readily acted as an arbitrator on moral questions. It is most likely, therefore, that the affair of Emperor John III Vatatzes (1222–1254)53 with Marchesina, lady-in-waiting to his second wife, Anne/Constance
Thomas Magistros, author of the following mirror for princes, created an extensive discursive text of a special kind, for he not only provided it with a title deliberately borrowed from Synesios’ speech (A 1), On the Imperial Office, but also wrote, as its counterpart, a mirror for subjects. His mirror for princes consists of 30 chapters (introduced by the first editor A. Mai) and is addressed directly to the addressee (A 7).64 Magistros lived as a teacher, rhetorician and philologist, and after 1328 also as a monk (his monastery is unknown), always in Thessalonike, where he was born about 1280/85 and died “shortly after 1347/48”.65 Although his life and work have been repeatedly examined, most recently in the comprehensive monograph by Niels Gaul,66 neither the date of the writing of the mirror for princes nor the identity of its addressee can be definitely determined because the data vary.67 According to Gaul, it was
A surprising integrated mirror for princes appears a little later in the fictitious speech which Empress Irene Asenina Kantakouzene, the wife of (anti-) Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354), addressed to Matthew Kantakouzenos,70 the eldest of her three sons (besides three daughters). For the first time in Byzantine literature, the words of a mirror for princes are put into a woman’s mouth! The text can be found in the richly structured historical work of Nikephoros Gregoras (c. 1295–1359/61) at a place where there is talk of a threatened rebellion by Matthew against his father (B 11).71 John VI delegated to his wife the task of dissuading Matthew from this course of action. Mother and son therefore met in late 1347 at Adrianople. With this speech – a new type of mirror for princes, a mixture of maternal wisdom, caring admonition, clever reasoning (in view of the desolate state of the Empire) and interspersed with various topoi from mirrors for princes succeeded in persuading Matthew to concede.72
Concluding this series of independent mirrors for princes is, as Antonia Giannouli has shown, a discursive mirror for princes whose title Basilikos e peri basileias (A 9) links it to the mirrors for princes of Blemmydes and Synesios. Its author, John (Ioannes) Argyropoulos (c. 1415–1487), a philologist, teacher, and humanist from Constantinople,76 composed and gave this text as a speech to Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos (1448–1453),77 after the ruler had travelled from his coronation in Mistras to Constantinople, arriving there on 12 March 1449.78 But it is unclear on what occasion Argyropoulos spoke. Because of its
To sum up: This paper deals with mirrors for princes in Byzantine literature from the 4th to the 15th century, despite the increasing tendency in scholarship to deny their (and their genre’s) existence. Accordingly, keeping pragmatically to the traditional view that any text of advice, directly addressing a ruler and aiming at his instruction on state affairs, could rightly be classified as a mirror for princes, a fresh look through the sources was carried out in search of corresponding texts. It led to the result that at least there in fact exist 20 mirrors for princes, even if none of them has this explicit heading. In addition, these texts of advice can, regarding their way of transmission, be divided in nine independent mirrors for princes (A 1–9) and eleven so-called integrated ones (B 1–11); they are embedded in texts of different content. (Apart from this, it confirms Hunger’s observation that one can distinguish between two groups of mirrors for princes regarding their different literary design, those which are characterized as gnomic by their structure and formal particularities and those which are stylistically discursive texts). The respective number mentioned of both groups (A/B), however, is not a fixed quantity. Rather, this could perhaps be further enlarged by the inclusion of texts previously known, but not yet considered (also for instance by newly discovered or hitherto overlooked texts).81 However, regarding their quality, it remains to be stated that, although the Byzantine mirrors for princes were traditionally aimed at strengthening the moral self-discipline of their addressees, they vary noticeably in terms of form and
Translated by Leo Ruickbie
Abbreviations
| LMA | Lexikon des Mittelalters |
| LThK | Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche |
| ODB | Oxford Dictionnary of Byzantium |
| PLP | Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit |
| PmbZ | Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit |
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Anton, Hans Hubert (ed., trans.), Fürstenspiegel des frühen und hohen Mittelalters (Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters 45) (Darmstadt, 2006).
Barker, Ernst (trans.), Social and Political Thought in Byzantium, From Justinian I to the Last Palaeologus: Passages from Byzantine Writers and Documents (Oxford, 1957).
Blum, Wilhelm (trans.), Byzantinische Fürstenspiegel. Agapetos, Theophylaktos von Ochrid, Thomas Magister (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 14) (Stuttgart, 1981).
Brandes, Wolfram and Hoffmann, Lars M. (eds., trans.), Eine unbekannte Konzilssynopse aus dem Ende des 9. Jahrhunderts (Forschungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 30) (Frankfurt am Main, 2013).
Emminger, Kurt (ed.), Studien zu den griechischen Fürstenspiegeln. II. Die spätmittelalterliche Übersetzung der Demonicea. III. Bασιλείου κεφάλαια παραινετικά (Munich, 1913).
Agapetos, the Deacon, Exposition of Chapters, ed., trans. R. Riedinger, Der Fürstenspiegel für Kaiser Iustinianos (Ἑταιρεία Φίλων τοῦ Λαοῦ. Κέντρον ερεύνης Βυζαντίου 4) (Athens, 1995) [with German translation].
Agapetos the Deacon, Exposition of Chapters, Agapito Diacono, ed., trans. F. Iadevaia Scheda regia (Messina, 1995).
(Pseudo-) Alexios I Komnenos, The Muses, ed. P. Maas, “Die Musen des Kaisers Alexios I.”, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 22 (1913), pp. 348–369.
Argyropoulos, Imperial Speech or On the Imperial Office, ed. S. Lampros, Ἰωάννου διδασκάλου τοῦ Ἀργυροπούλου Βασιλικὸς ἢ περὶ βασιλείας πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν Παλαιολόγον, in id., Ἀργυροπούλεια (Athens, 1910), pp. 29–47.
(Pseudo-) Basil I, a) Two Admonitory Chapters; b) A Further Admonition, ed., trans. C. Païdas, [Basileios A’ Makedon], Δύο Παραινετικά Κείμενα προς τον αυτοκράτορα Λέοντα Στ´ τον Σοφό. Εισαγωγή ‒ Μετάφραση ‒ Σχόλια (Κείμενα βυζαντινής λογοτεχνίας 5) (Athens, 2009).
Demetrios Chomatenos, Various Works, ed. G. Prinzing, Demetrii Chomateni Ponemata diaphora (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 38) (Berlin/New York, 2002).
Digenes Akrites, Epic romance, ed. and trans. E. Jeffreys, Digenis Akritis: The Grottaferrata and Escorial Versions (Cambridge Medieval Classics 7) (Cambridge, 1998).
Digenes Akrites, Epic romance, ed. and trans. P. Odorico, Digenis Akritas. Poema anonimo bizantino. Prefazione a cura di Enrico V. Maltese (Florence, 1998).
Digenes Akrites, Epic romance, ed. E. Trapp, Digenes Akrites, Synoptische Ausgabe der ältesten Versionen (Wiener byzantinistische Studien 7) (Vienna, 1971).
Digenes Akrites, Epic romance, trans. A. Spitzbarth, Digenes Akritas, das byzantinische Epos. Übertragen und eingeleitet (Baden, 1988).
John Skylitzes, History, ed. Io. Thurn, Ioannis Skylitzae Synopsis historiarum (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 5) (Berlin/New York, 1973).
John Skylitzes, History, trans. H. Thurn, Byzanz wieder ein Weltreich. Das Zeitalter der makedonischen Dynastie, Teil I (Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber 15) (Vienna, 1983).
John Skylitzes, History, trans. B. Flusin and J.-C. Cheynet, Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de Constantinople (Réalités byzantins 8) (Paris, 2003).
John Skylitzes, History, trans. J. Wortley, A Synopsis of Byzantine History, 811–1057. John Skylitzes. The History (Cambridge, 2010).
Kekaumenos, Advice and narrations, ed. and trans. G.G. Litavrin, Kekavmen. Sovety i rasskazy. Poučenie vizantijskogo polkovodca XI veka. Izdanie vtoroe, pererabotannoe i dopolnennoe [Kekaumenos. Advice and narrations. Instruction of a Byzantine commander of the 11th Century. 2nd revised and extended edition] (Saint Petersburg, 2003); ed. and trans. Ch. Roueché, Kekaumenos. Consilia et narrationes. Greek text, English translation and commentary (London, 2013), URL: <https://ancientwisdoms.ac.uk/library/kekaumenos-consilia-et-narrationes/>, last accessed 1 March 2022. Further translations: trans. H.-G. Beck, Vademecum des byzantinischen Aristokraten: das sogenannte Strategikon des Kekaumenos (Byzantinische Geschichtsschreiber 5) (Graz etc., 1956) [Repr. 1965]; ed. and trans. D. Tsounkarakes [Τσουγκαράκης], Κεκαυμένος. Στρατηγικόν (Keimena byzantines historiographias 2) (Athens, 1993); ed. and trans. M.D. Spadaro, Cecaumeno, Raccomandazioni e consigli di un galantuomo (Alessandria, 1998); trans. J. Signes Codoñer, Cecaumeno, Consejos de un aristócrata bizantino (Madrid, 2000); trans. P. Odorico, Kékauménos, Conseils et récits d’un gentilhomme byzantin (Toulouse, 2015).
Manuel II Palaiologos, Precepts of Imperial Conduct, ed. and trans. J. Leunclavius, Ὑποθῆκαι βασιλικῆς ἀγωγῆς / Praecepta educationis regiae (Basel, 1578, repr.), in Patrologia Graeca 156, col. 313–320, containing: a) Ἐπιστολὴ προοιμιακή / Epistola prooemialis, preface letter addressed to John VIII, col. 313–320 (Greek/Latin), and b) Kεφάλαια ἑκατὸν δι´ ἀκροστιχίδος/Capita centum per acrostichidem, col. 320–384 (Greek/Latin). Michael Psellos, History, ed. D.R. Reinsch, Michaelis Pselli Chronographia, vol. 1: Einleitung und Text, vol. 2: Textkritischer Kommentar und Indices (Millennium Studien/-Studies 51/1, 2) (Berlin, 2014).
Michael Psellos, History, ed. and trans. D.R. Reinsch (with L. Reinsch-Werner), Leben der byzantinischen Kaiser (976–1075). Griechisch-deutsch (Berlin, 2015).
Michael Psellos, Short History, ed. and trans. W.J. Aerts, Michaelis Pselli Historia Syntomus (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 30) (Berlin, 1990).
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, ed. J.A. Munitiz, Nicephori Blemmydae, Autobiographie sive curriculum vitae, necnon epistula universalior (Corpus Christianorum, Series graca 13) (Turnhout/Leuven, 1984).
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, trans. J.A. Munitiz, Nikephoros Blemmydes, A Partial Account. Introduction, translation and notes (Spicilegium sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents 48) (Leuven, 1988), pp. 1–42 (introduction).
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Imperial Statue, ed. and trans. H. Hunger and I. Ševčenko, Des Nikephoros Blemmydes Βασιλικὸς ’Ανδριάς und dessen Metaphras von Georgios Galesiotes und Georgios Oinaiotes. Ein weiterer Beitrag zum Verständnis der byzantinischen Schrift-Koine (Wiener Byzantinistische Studien 18) (Vienna, 1986).
Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantine History, ed. and trans. L. Schopen, Nicephori Gregorae Byzantina Historia, vol. II (Bonn, 1830).
Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantine History, trans. J.L. van Dieten, Nikephoros Gregoras, Rhomäische Geschichte. Historia Rhomaïke III (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 24) (Stuttgart, 1988).
Nikolaos I Mystikos, Letters, ed. and trans. R.J.H. Jenkins and L.G. Westerink, Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Greek Text and English Translation (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 6) (Washington, D.C., 1973).
Photios, Letters and Amphilochia, ed. B. Laourdas and L.G. Westerink, Photii patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, vol. I (Leipzig, 1983).
Photios, Letter to Boris, trans. Stratoudaki White, and J.R. Berrigan The Patriarch and the Prince. The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria (Brookline, Mass., 1982).
Symeon Magistros, Chronicle, ed. S. Wahlgren, Symeonis magistri et logothetae chronicon (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 44/1) (Berlin/New York, 2006).
Synesios of Cyrene, To the Emperor on the Imperial Office, ed. J. Lamoureux, trans. N. Ajoulat, Synésios de Cyrène, Tome 5, Opuscules 2 (Collection des universités de France. Série grecque 434) (Paris, 2008), pp. 84–141 (Discours sur la Royauté).
Synesios of Cyrene, To the Emperor on the Imperial Office, ed. N. Terzaghi, Synesii Cyrenensis opuscula (= Synesii Cyrenensis Hymni et opuscula II) (Rome, 1944), pp. 5–62.
Themistios, To the Emperor, ed. and trans. E. Amato and I. Ramelli, “L’inédito ΠΡΟΣ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΑ di Temistio”, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 99 (2006), pp. 1–67.
Theognostos, Treasure, ed. J.A. Munitiz, Theognosti Thesaurus (Corpus Christianorum: Series Graeca 5/XIX) (Turnhout, 1979).
Theophylact of Ohrid, Orations, ed. and trans. P. Gautier, Théophylacte d’Achrida, Discours, traités, poésies (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae 16, 1) (Thessalonike, 1980).
Theophylact Simokata, History, ed. C. de Boor, Theophylacti Simocattae Historiae (Leipzig, 1887); id., editionem correctior …curavit, P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1972).
Theophylact Simokata, History, trans. P. Schreiner, Theophylaktos Simokates, Geschichte (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur 20) (Stuttgart, 1985).
Theophylact Simokata, History, trans. M. Whitby, The History of Theophylact Simocatta (Oxford, 1986).
Thomas Magistros, On the Imperial Office, ed. P. Volpe Cacciatore, Toma Magistro. La regalità (Naples, 1997).
Secondary Sources
Agapitos, Panagiotis A., “The Insignificance of 1204 and 1453 for the history of Byzantine literature”, in Medioevo Graeco 20 (2020), pp. 1–55.
Angelov, Dimiter G., Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium 1204–1330 (Cambridge, 2007).
Angelov, Dimiter G., The Byzantine Hellene. The Life of Emperor Theodore Laskaris and Byzantium in the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge, 2019).
Angold, Michael J. “Theodore Komnenos Doukas”, in ODB 3 (1991), p. 2042.
Angold, Michael J., “John III Vatatzes”, in ODB 2 (1991), pp. 1047–1048.
Angold, Michael J., “Theodore II Laskaris”, in ODB 3 (1991), pp. 2040–2041.
Baldwin, Barry, “Synesios”, in ODB 3 (1991), p. 1993.
Baldwin, Barry, “Simokattes, Theophylaktos”, in ODB 3 (1991), p. 1900 ff.
Barker, John W., Manuel II Palaeologus (1391–1425): A Study in Late Byzantine Statesmanship (New Brunswick, 1969).
Beihammer, Alexander, Krönung, Bettina and Ludwig, Claudia (eds.), Prosopon Rhomaikon, Ergänzende Studien zur Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit (Millennium Studien/- Studies 68) (Berlin/Boston, 2017).
Beihammer, Alexander, “Reiner christlicher König – ΠΙΣΤΟΣ ΕΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΩΙ ΤΩΙ ΘΕΩΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ”, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 95 (2002), pp. 1–34.
Bell, Peter N., Three Political Voices from the Age of Justinian: Agapetus, Advice to the Emperor, Dialogue on Political Science, Paul the Silentiary, Description of Hagia Sophia (Liverpool, 2009).
Berger, Albrecht, “Legitimation und Legenden. Konstantin der Große und sein Bild in Byzanz”, in Konstantin der Große. Das Bild des Kaisers im Wandel der Zeiten, eds. A. Goltz and H. Schlange-Schöningen (Cologne, 2008), pp. 5–21.
Bourbouhakis, Emmanuel C., “The Ἐπιτάφιος as a paraenetic text; or a ‘distorting mirror’ of Princes”, in Id., The Not Composed in a Chance Manner. The Epitaphios for Manuel I Komnenos by Eustathios of Thessalonike (Studia Byzantina Uppsaliensia 18) (Uppsala, 2017), pp. 67–81.
Brand, Charles M., “Doukas, Constantine”, in ODB 1 (1991), pp. 657–58.
Brandt, Hartwin, “Die Rede περὶ βασιλείας des Synesios von Kyrene. Ein ungewöhnlicher Fürstenspiegel”, in Fragments d’histoire romaine (IIe–VIe siècles) offerts à Jean-Pierre Callu, eds. F. Chausson and E. Wolff (Rome, 2003), pp. 57–70.
Brodka, Dariusz, Die Geschichtsphilosophie in der spätantiken Historiographie. Studien zu Prokopios von Kaisareia, Agathias von Myrina und Theophylaktos Simokattes (Studien und Texte zur Byzantinistik 5) (Frankfurt am Main, 2004).
Carile, Antonio, “Ricchezza e povertà negli ‘specula principum’ bizantini”, in Id., Immagine e realtà nel mondo bizantino (Bologna, 2000), pp. 247–266.
Čičurov, Igor, “Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit in den byzantinischen Fürstenspiegeln des 6.-9. Jahrhunderts”, in Cupido Legum, eds. L. Burgmann, M.T. Fögen and A. Schminck (Frankfurt am Main, 1985), pp. 33–45.
Čičurov, Igor, Političeskaja ideologija srednevekov’ja. Vizantija i Rus‘. K XVIII Meždunarodnomu kongressu vizantinistov [Political ideology of the Middle Ages] (Moscow, 1990).
Cupane, Carolina, Krönung, Bettina (eds.), Fictional Storytelling in the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (Leiden/Boston, 2016).
Cupane, Carolina, “Sprache, Literatur und Bildung”, in Byzanz, ed. F. Daim (Stuttgart, 2016), pp. 925–971.
Dagron, Gilbert, Emperor and Priest. The Imperial Office in Byzantium, trans. J. Birrell (Cambridge, 2003).
Daim, Falko (ed.), Byzanz. Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch (Der Neue Pauly, Supplemente 11 (Stuttgart, 2016).
Dölger, Franz, Müller, Andreas E. and Beihammer, Alexander (eds.), Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des Oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. 1. Teil, 2. Halbband, Regesten von 867–1025, 2nd ed. (Munich, 2003).
Dostálová, Růžena, “Review Odorico [2009]”, in Byzantinoslavica 69 (2011), pp. 380–382.
Efthymiadis, Stephanos, “A Historian and His Tragic Hero: A Literary Reading of Theophylact Simokatta’s Ecumenical History”, in History as Literature in Byzantium. Papers from the Fortieth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, University of Birmingham, April 2007, ed. R. Macrides (Farnham, 2010), pp. 169–185.
Eideneier, Hans, “Byzantinische Fürstenspiegelei”, in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Geschichte und Kultur, eds. L.M. Hoffmann and A. Monchizadeh (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 7) (Wiesbaden, 2005), pp. 719–748.
Ferjančić, Božidar, “Savladarstvo u doba Paleologa”, in Zbornik radova Vizant. Instituta 24/25 (1986), pp. 307–384.
Fögen, Marie Theres, “Das politische Denken der Byzantiner”, in Pipers Handbuch der politischen Ideen 2, eds. I. Fetscher and H. Münkler (Munich, Zürich, 1993), pp. 41–85.
Frohne, Renate, Agapetus Diaconus. Untersuchungen zu den Quellen und zur Wirkungsgeschichte des ersten byzantinischen Fürstenspiegels (Tübingen, 1985).
Fyrigos, Antonis, “Johannes Argyropulos”, in LThK 5 (1996), p. 880.
Gaul, Niels, Thomas Magistros und die spätbyzantinische Sophistik. Studien zum Humanismus urbaner Eliten in der frühen Palaiologenzeit (Mainzer Veröffentlichungen zur Byzantinistik 10) (Wiesbaden, 2011).
Giannouli, Antonia, “Coronation Speeches in the Palaiologan Period?”, in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean. Comparative Perspectives, eds. A. Beihammer, S. Constantinou and M. Parani (Leiden, 2013), pp. 203–223.
Giannouli, Antonia, “Paränese zwischen Enkomion und Psogos. Zur Gattungseinordnung byzantinischer Fürstenspiegel”, in Imitatio – Aemulatio – Variatio. Akten des Internationalen Wissenschaftlichen Symposions zur byzantinischen Sprache und Literatur, Wien 22.-25. October 2008, eds. A. Rhoby and E. Schiffer (Vienna, 2010), pp. 119–128.
Gickler, Helga, Kaiser Michael IX. Palaiologos; sein Leben und Wirken (1278–1320). Eine biographische Annäherung (Studien und Texte zur Byzantinistik 9) (Frankfurt am Main, 2015).
Grabar, André, “God and the ‘Family of Princes’ Presided Over by the Byzantine Emperor” (first published 1954), repr. in Id., L’Art de la fin de l’antiquité e du moyen-âge, vol. I (Paris, 1968), pp. 115–119.
Grünbart, Michael, “Anleitungen zum guten Regieren und kaiserlichen Entscheiden in Byzanz”, in Die gute Regierung. Fürstenspiegel in Religionen und Kulturen, ed. M. Delgado (Studien zur christlichen Religions- und Kulturgeschichte 23) (Fribourg, 2017), pp. 62–77.
Grünbart, Michael, “Treffen auf neutralem Boden. Zu politischen Begegnungen im byzantinischen Mittelalter”, in Byzantinoslavica 70 (2012), pp. 140–155.
Grünbart, Michael, “Unter einem guten Stern? Externe Instanzen bei kaiserlichen Entscheidungsprozessen in Byzanz”, in Prosopon Rhomaikon, eds. A. Beihammer, B. Krönung and C. Ludwig, pp. 27–39.
Grumel, Venance and Darrouzès, Jean (eds.), Les regestes des actes du Patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. I: Les actes des Patriarches. Fasc. II et III: Les regestes de 715 à 1206. Deuxième édition revue et corrigée (Paris, 1989).
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. R. Foster and N. Yavari (Cambridge MA/London, 2015), pp. 58–82.
Hunger, Herbert, Die hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner (Byzantinisches Handbuch im Rahmen des Handbuchs der Altertumswissenschaft XII, 5/1–2), vol. I–II (Munich, 1978).
Hoffmann, Lars Martin, “Die Lebenswelt des Synesios von Kyrene – ein historischer Überblick”, in Synesios von Kyrene, eds. H. Seng and L.M. Hoffmann (Turnhout, 2012), pp. 35–65.
Jeffreys, Elizabeth and Kazhdan, Alexander, “Mirrors of Princes”, in ODB 2 (1991), pp. 1379–80.
Jeffreys, Elizabeth, “Rhetoric”, in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, eds. J. Haldon, R. Cormack and E. Jeffreys (Oxford, 2008), pp. 827–837.
Kaldellis, Anthony, The Byzantine Republic: People and Power in New Rome (Cambridge MA/London, 2015).
Karayannopulos, Johannes and Weiss, Günter, Quellenkunde zur Geschichte von Byzanz (324–1453), 2 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1982).
Kazhdan, Alexander, “Kekaumenos”, in ODB 2 (1991), p. 1119.
Kislinger, Ewald, “Der Ruhm der Rhomania? Zur byzantinischen Flotte 1028–1081”, in Prosopon Rhomaikon, eds. A. Beihammer, B. Krönung and C. Ludwig pp. 43–52.
Kolovou, Foteini, Der gefangene Gelehrte und sein nächtlicher Gast. Geschichtskonzeption und Phantasie in Nikephoros Gregoras‘ Rhomaike Historia (Sitzungsberichte der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, philol.-historische Klasse, Bd. 141, 4) (Leipzig, 2015).
Leonte, Florin, Imperial Visions of Late Byzantium. Manuel II Palaiologos and Rhetoric in Purple (Edinburgh, 2020).
Leonte, Florin, “Didacticism in Byzantine Epistolography”, in A Companion to Byzantine Epistolography, ed. A. Riehle (Leiden/Boston, 2021), pp. 227–254.
Leppin, Hartmut, Justinian. Das christliche Experiment (Stuttgart, 2011).
Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (et al.), Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (642–867), vol. 1–6 (Berlin/New York, 1999–2002); Zweite Abteilung (867–1025), vol. 1–8, (Berlin/Boston, 2013).
Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (et al.), Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. Erste Abteilung (641–867), Prolegomena. (Berlin/New York, 1998).
Litavrin, Gennadij G., “Kekaumenos”, in LMA 5 (1991), p. 1095.
Macrides, Ruth J., “Blemmydes, Nikephoros”, in ODB 1 (1991), p. 296.
Maltese, Enrico V., “L’imperatore cristiano nella prima letteratura bizantina: sullo speculum di Agapeto”, in Cristianesimo e istituzioni politiche. Da Costantino a Giustiniano, eds. E. Dal Covolo and R. Uglione (Biblioteca di scienze religiose 134) (Rome, 1997), pp. 157–69.
Marjanović-Dušanić, Smilja, “Rex Imago Dei: o srpskoj preradi Agapitovog vladarskog ogledala”, in Papers of the Third Yugoslav Byzantine Studies Conference, Kruševac 10–13 May 2000, eds. Lj. Maksimovic, N. Radošević and E. Radulović (Belgrade, Kruševac, 2002), pp. 147–148.
Markopoulos, Athanase, “Autour des Chapitres parénétiques de Basile Ier”, in Eupsychia, Mélanges offerts à Hélène Ahrweiler, vol. 2, ed. M. Balard (Paris, 1998), pp. 469–479.
Meier, Mischa, Das andere Zeitalter Justinians. Kontingenzerfahrung und Kontingenzbewältigung im 6. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Hypomnemata 147) (Göttingen, 2003).
Melichar, Petra, “Imperial Women as Emissaries, Intermediaries, and Conciliators in the Palaiologan Era”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 67 (2017), pp. 103–128.
Mullett, Margaret, “Whose Muses? Two Advice Poems Attributed to Alexios I Komnenos”, in La face cachée de la littérature byzantine. Le texte en tant que message immédiat. Actes du colloque international. Paris, 5-6-7 juin 2008 organisé par le centre d’études byzantines de l’EHESS, ed. P. Odorico (Dossiers byzantins 11) (Paris, 2012), pp. 195–220.
Munitiz, Joseph A., “War and Peace Reflected in Some Byzantine Mirrors of Princes”, in Peace and War in Byzantium. Essays in honor of George T. Dennis, eds. T.S. Miller and J. Nesbitt (Washington, D.C., 1995), pp. 50–61.
Neville, Leonora, “Enemies of the Empire in the Muses, Nikephoros Bryennios’ Material for History, and Anna Komnene’s Alexiad”, in Byzantine Authors and their Times, ed. V.N. Vlyssidou (Research Series 8) (Athens, 2021), pp. 253–265.
Nicol, Donald M., The Byzantine Lady: Ten Portraits, 1250–1500 (Cambridge, 1994).
Nicol, Donald M., The Reluctant Emperor: A Biography of John Cantacuzene, Byzantine Emperor and Monk, c. 1295–1383 (Cambridge, 1996).
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johannes, “Avoiding History’s Teleology: Byzantine and Islamic Political Philosophy”, in Global Medieval Mirrors for Princes Reconsidered, eds. R. Forster and N. Yavari (Cambridge MA/London, 2015), pp. 112–121.
Niehoff-Panagiotidis, Johannes, “The Pancatanta (Kalīlah wa-Dimna) and Greek Literature”, in Erytheia 41 (2020), pp. 9–26.
Nikolov, Angel, “Political Ideology, Education and Literature”, in The Bulgarian State in 927–969. The Epoch of Tsar Peter I, eds. M.J. Leszka and K. Marinow (Byzantina Lodziensia 34) (Łódź/Kraków, 2018), pp. 347–379.
Odorico, Paolo, “Les miroirs des princes à Byzance. Une lecture horizontale”, in L’éducation, ed. P. Odorico pp. 223–246.
Odorico, Paolo (ed.), L’éducation au gouvernement et à la vie. La tradition des “règles de vie” de l’antiquité au Moyen-Âge. Colloque international – Pise, 18 et 19 mars 2005, organisé par l’École Normale Supérieure de Pise et le Centre d’études byzantines, néo-helléniques et sud-est européennes de l’E.H.E.S.S. Actes (Autour de Byzance 1) (Paris, 2009).
Païdas, Constantine, Η θεματική των βυζαντινών Κατόπτρων Ηγεμόνος της πρώιμης και μέσης περιόδου (398–1085). Συμβολή στην πολιτική θεωρία των Βυζαντινών (Athens, 2005).
Païdas, Constantine, Τα βυζαντινά Κάτοπτρα Ηγεμόνος της ύστερης περιόδου (1254–1403). Εκφράσεις τοθ βυζαντινού βασιλικού ιδεώδους (Athens, 2006).
Pertusi, Agostino, Il pensiero politico bizantino, ed. A. Carile (Il mondo medievale 6) (Bologna, 1990).
Pratsch, Thomas, “Konstantin der Große in der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit”, in Prosopon Rhomaikon, eds. A. Beihammer, B. Krönung and C. Ludwig, pp. 65–83.
Prinzing, Günter, “Beobachtungen zu ‘integrierten’ Fürstenspiegeln der Byzantiner”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 38 (1988), pp. 1–31.
Prinzing, Günter, “Historiography, Epic and the Textual Transmission of Imperial Values: Liudprand’s Antapodosis and Digenes Akrites”, in Reading in the Byzantine Empire and Beyond, eds. T. Shawcross and I. Toth (Cambridge, 2018), pp. 336–350.
Prinzing, Günter, “Manuel II. Palaiologos”, in Byzanz, Historisch-kulturwissenschaftliches Handbuch, ed. F. Daim (Der Neue Pauly, Supplemente Band 11) (Stuttgart, 2016), col. 344–350.
Prinzing, Günter, “Nochmals zu den adressierten Briefen des Demetrios Chomatenos”, in Realia Byzantina, eds. S. Kotzabassi and G. Mavromatis (Byzantinisches Archiv 22) (Berlin/New York, 2009), pp. 222–245.
Prinzing, Günter, “Review Païdas”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 59 (2009), pp. 293–296.
Prinzing, Günter, “Review Odorico [2009]”, in Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik 65 (2015), pp. 266–269.
Prinzing, Günter, “Review Riedinger”, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 91 (1998), pp. 577–79.
Prinzing, Günter, “The Autocephalous Byzantine Ecclesiastical Province of Bulgaria/Ohrid”, in Bulgaria mediaevalis 3 (2012), pp. 355–383.
Reinsch, Diether R., “Abweichungen vom traditionellen byzantinischen Kaiserbild im 11. und 12. Jahrhundert”, in L’éducation, ed. P. Odorico pp. 115–128.
Reinsch, Diether R., “Bemerkungen zu einigen byzantinischen ‘Fürstenspiegeln’ des 11. und 12. Jahrhunderts”, in Synesios von Kyrene, eds. H. Seng and L. Hoffmann pp. 404–419.
Romano, Roberto, “Retorica e cultura a Bisanzio: Due Fürstenspiegel a confronto”, in Vichiana, n.s. 14 (1985), pp. 299–316.
Rosenqvist, Jan O., Die byzantinische Literatur. Vom 6. Jahrhundert bis zum Fall Konstantinopels 1453, trans. J.O. Rosenqvist and D.R. Reinsch (Berlin/New York, 2007).
Roueché, Charlotte, “The Place of Kekaumenos in the Admonition Tradition”, in L’éducation, ed. P. Odorico, pp. 129–144.
Schmalzbauer, Gudrun, “Fürstenspiegel. C.1. Byzantinischer Bereich”, in LMA 4 (1989), col. 1053–1056.
Schmalzbauer, Gudrun, “Regieren mit und ohne Waffen. Die Bienenmetaphorik in byzantinischen Fürstenspiegeln”, in Corona Coronaria, Festschrift für Hans-Otto Kröner zum 75. Geburtstag, eds. S. Harward and J. Schwind (Hildesheim, etc., 2005), pp. 305–319.
Schreiner, Peter, “Th.(eophylaktos) Simokates”, in LMA 8 (1997), col. 672.
Schreiner, Peter, Byzanz 565–1453. 4. Aktualisierte Auflage (Oldenbourg Grundriss der Geschichte 22) (Munich, 2011).
Schule, Wolfgang, Bibliographie der Übersetzungen griechisch-byzantinischer Quellen (Glossar zur frühmittelalterlichen Geschichte im östlichen Europa, Beiheft 1) (Wiesbaden, 1982).
Seng, Helmut and Hoffmann, Lars (eds.), Synesios von Kyrene. Politik – Literatur – Philosophie (Byzantios. Studies in Byzantine History and Civilization 6) (Turnhout, 2012).
Ševčenko, Ihor, “Agapetus East and West: The Fate of a Byzantine ‘Mirror of Princes’”, in Revue des études sud-est européennes 16 (1978), pp. 3–44.
Shepard, Jonathan, “The ruler as instructor, pastor and wise: Leo VI of Byzantium and Symeon of Bulgaria”, in Alfred the Great. Papers from the Elventh-Centenary Conference, ed. T. Reuter (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 339–358.
Shepard, Jonathan, “Equilibrium to Expansion (886–1025)”, in The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire c. 500–1492, ed. J. Shepard (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 493–546.
Simeonova, Liliana, Diplomacy of the Letter and the Cross: Photios, Bulgaria and the Papacy, 860s-880s (Classical and Byzantine Monographs 41) (Amsterdam, 1998).
Simon, Dieter, “Princeps legibus solutus. Die Stellung des Kaisers zum Gesetz”, in Gedächtnisschrift für Wolfgang Kunkel, eds. D. Nörr and D. Simon (Frankfurt am Main, 1984), pp. 449–492.
Simon, Dieter, “Gewissensbisse eines Kaisers”, in Festschrift für Heinz Hübner zum 70. Geburtstag am 7. November 1984, eds. G. Baumgärtel, H.-J. Becker, E. Klingmüller and H. Wacke (Berlin/New York, 1984), pp. 263–271.
Spadaro, Maria Dora, “Il λόγος βασιλικός di Cecaumeno”, in Syndesmos, Scritti in onore di R. Anastasi II (Catania, 1994), pp. 349–381.
Stefec, Rudolf S., “Die Regesten der Herrscher von Epiros 1205–1318, in Römische Historische Mitteilungen 57 (2015), pp. 15–120.
Strano, Gioacchino, “A proposito dell’epistola del patriarca Fozio a Boris-Michele di Bulgaria”, in Orpheus n.s. 23 (2002), pp. 110–126.
Talbot, Alice-Mary, “Argyropoulos, John”, in ODB 1 (1991), pp. 164–165.
Taragna, Anna Maria, “Le regole per il buon governo nella prima storiografia bizantina. L’Historia Universalis di Teofilatto Simocatta”, in L’éducation, ed. P. Odorico pp. 75–102.
Tiftixoglu, Viktor, “Zum Mitkaisertum des Konstantin Dukas (1081–1087/88)”, in Fontes minores 9, ed. L. Burgmann (Forschungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 19) (Frankfurt am Main, 1993), pp. 97–111.
Tocci, Raimondo, “Questions of Authorship and Genre in Chronicles of the Middle Byzantine Period: The Case of Michael Psellos’ Historia Syntomos”, in The Author in Middle Byzantine Literature. Modes, Function, and Identities, ed. A. Pizzone (Byzantinisches Archiv 28) (Boston/Berlin, 2014), pp. 61-75.
Toth, Ida, “Fighting with Tales: 2. The Byzantine Book of Syntipas the Philosopher”, in Fictional Storytelling, eds. C. Cupane and B. Krönung pp. 380–400.
Troianos, Spyridon, Die Quellen des byzantinischen Rechts, trans. D. Simon and S. Neye (Berlin/Boston, 2017).
Volk, Robert, “From the Desert to the Holy Mountain: The Beneficial Story of Barlaam and Ioasaph”, in Fictional Storytelling, eds. C. Cupane and B. Krönung (Leiden/Boston, 2016), pp. 401–426.
Whitby, Michael, The Emperor Maurice and His Historian: Theophylact Simocatta on Persian and Balkan Warfare (Oxford, 1988).
Ziemann, Daniel, Vom Wandervolk zur Großmacht. Die Entstehung Bulgariens im frühen Mittelalter (7.-9. Jh.) (Kölner Historische Abhandlungen 43) (Cologne, 2007).
See Barker, Social and Political Thought, p. 20; Hunger, Literatur, vol. 1, pp. 157–165, vol. 2, p. 397 (author here Peter Pieler); Theognostos, Thesaurus, ed. Munitiz, p. LXXXVIII; Blum, Byzantinische Fürstenspiegel, pp. 30–31; Karayannopulos and Weiss, Quellenkunde, 2: 613 (index); Čičurov, “Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit”; id., Političeskaja ideologija, p. 8 and passim; Simon, “Princeps”, pp. 480, 483; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”; Jeffreys and Kazhdan, “Mirror”; Jeffreys, “Rhetoric”, p. 832; Fögen, “Denken”, pp. 46–49; Munitiz, “War”; Eideneier, “Fürstenspiegelei”, pp. 720–721; Schmalzbauer, “Regieren”; Dagron, “Emperor”, p. 17 and passim (see index); Rosenqvist, Literatur, p. 112 and passim; Païdas., Η θεματική; id., Tα κάτοπτρα (see on both works Prinzing, “Review Païdas”); Angelov, Ideology, p. 12 and passim (see index); Païdas, Δύο κείμενα, pp. 19–23; Giannouli, “Paränese”, p. 120; Schreiner, Byzanz, pp. 104, 112, 202; Gaul, Thomas Magistros, pp. 214 and 330–337; Reinsch, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 404–407; and 418–419; Niehoff-Panagiotidis, “Avoiding”, pp. 115, 117; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 45–46 and passim; Troianos, Die Quellen, pp. 102 and 251–252; Grünbart, “Externe Instanzen”, pp. 17–19; Cupane, “Literatur”, pp. 952, 960, 963; Grünbart, “Anleitungen”, pp. 62–77; Çelik, Manuel II, pp. 319–321. – Nota bene: In English, the term “Fürstenspiegel” can be rendered as mirror of princes or (as used in this text) mirror for princes.
See Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, p. 157; Odorico, “Les miroirs”, particularly pp. 224–226; Haake, “Writing”; and Giannouli, “Coronation”, pp. 203–204.
See Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 5–23, and Anton, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 3–37. (Introduction).
See Blum, Fürstenspiegel, p. 1; Schmalzbauer; “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1053; Odorico, “Les miroirs”, p. 233; Haake, “Writing”, p. 63.
Haake, “Writing”, pp. 69–72, where he emphasizes “the importance to any understanding of the meaning of a text is its original and intended communicative context […]”. (p. 72).
Reinsch, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 405–407.
Odorico, “Les miroirs”, pp. 224, 226, 233, 240; for differing critical remarks, see Dostálová, “Review Odorico [2009]”, pp. 381–82, Prinzing, “Review Odorico [2009]”, Toth, “Fighting”, p. 392 (with n. 37); most recently Agapitos, “Insignificance”, pp. 42–44, 47, and Leonte, Visions, pp. 143–149.
It could therefore be surrounded by the different text or placed before or after it. See Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 2–5 (with a table, now partially to be revised, pp. 30–31); Čičurov, Ideologija, pp. 9–11; Giannouli, “Paränese”, p. 120.
Prinzing, “Review Odorico [2009]”, p. 268. An example of a short integrated (anti-)mirror for princes can be found in Psellos, Chronographia, ed. Reinsch, p. 17, ll. 10–16, Bk I, Ch. 28, where he indirectly reports a general’s unscrupulous advice to Basil (II).
The latter is, e.g., the case with the mirror for princes Imperial Statue by Nikephoros Blemmydes and in his seemingly integrated mirror for princes, edited by P. Carelos, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 98 (2005), pp. 399–402, which I have left out of consideration here.
Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, p. 157 (my translation).
Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 158–9 (my translation); see Leonte, Visions, pp. 133–41.
See Angelov, Ideology, p. 183; Giannouli, “Paränese”; and the stimulating work: Bourbouhakis, Not composed in a chance manner, especially its chapter “The Ἐπιτάφιος as a paraenetic text; or a ‘distorting mirror’ of Princes”, pp. 68*–81*.
Therefore, the designation of Emperor Constantine VII’s famous text De Administrando Imperio (DAI) as mirror for princes has been rightfully rejected by Blum, Fürstenspiegel, p. 59. For, although the DAI was dedicated by Constantine in a direct address to his son in the prooimion, and more prooimia are also inserted in the course of the following text, the content of the latter then substantively proves to be a kind of government manual, with concrete recommendations for action. On the DAI see also Lilie (et al.), PmbZ I, Prolegomena, pp. 154–55, and PmbZ II, Prolegomena, pp. 104–05. – Even in relation to the Short History (rightly or wrongly) attributed to Michael Psellos, the presumption of the editor Willem E. Aerts is hardly convincing, that the author wanted to write a kind of mirror for princes with this work; see Psellos, Short History, ed. Aerts, p. IX. As justification, Aerts refers to Ch. 15 (pp. 10, 61–63, translated on p. 11), where the author addresses an unknown reader as follows: “[…], but I shall occupy myself for you with the further history and start from the rule of Caesar Julius, in order that you may either imitate the good deeds of the emperors, or criticize and despise the bad ones”. Although this passage could have been taken from a mirror for princes, it merely emphasizes the didactic function of the context represented by the entire, purely historiographical work. On this, see Lilie (et al.), PmbZ II, Prolegomena, pp. 15–16, and Tocci, “Questions”, pp. 66–68.
The text of the senator and orator Themistios (c. 317–388), which was probably directed to Emperor Theodosios I (379–395), is not taken into consideration here because, viewed individually, it represents only the preface to a mirror for princes, the main part of which is missing in what has been handed down: see Amato and Ramelli, “L’inedito”, pp. 9–10 (Greek text), 12–3 (Italian translation), 13–5 and 63–5.
Baldwin, “Synesios”, in: ODB 3 (1991), p. 1993.
Synesios of Cyrene, On the Imperial Office, ed. J. Lamoureux, pp. 84–141. For the content, form, occasion and date of the speech, see ibid., Ajoulat, Notices, pp. 1–84; Hunger, Literatur, I, p. 158; Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 31–2; Simon, “Princeps”, p. 480; important for the interpretation as a mirror for princes is Brandt, “Die Rede“, pp. 62–3 and 69–70; further, Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 23–4; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120–25; Hoffmann, “Die Lebenswelt”, pp. 53–55; Reinsch, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 404–05, 408, 417; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 59–60, 61; on the reception by Nikephoros Blemmydes and especially Thomas Magister, see Angelov, Ideology, pp. 185, 188–89.
Agapetos the Deacon, Exposition of Chapters, ed. and trans. Riedinger; for criticism, see Prinzing, “Review Riedinger” (1998); see also Agapetos the Deacon, Exposition of Chapters, ed. and trans., Iadevaia (critical edition with Italian translation); for a commented English translation, see Bell, Three Political Voices, pp. 99–122 (based on Riedinger’s edition). ‒ For the content, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 158–61; Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 32–34, with German translation on pp. 59–80 (after Patrologia Graeca 86); Čičurov, “Gesetz”, pp. 34–5 and passim; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1054; Simon, “Princeps”, p. 480; Frohne, Agapetus, with translation, pp. 111–50, after Patrologia Graeca vol. 86; Romano, “Retorica”, pp. 302–10 and 315; Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 9, 12, 28; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 14–5, 31, 37, 40–42, 108; Munitiz, “War”, p. 52; Maltese, “L’imperatore”; Dagron, Emperor, pp. 17–8, 36; Meier, Zeitalter, pp. 129–133 and passim, ignoring Riedinger’s edition; Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, 24f.; Taragna, “Le regole”, p. 80 and passim; Leppin, Justinian, pp. 124–25; Odorico, “Les miroirs”, pp. 227–33; Angelov, Ideology, pp. 185–87, 192, 194–95, 222–23; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120, 123, 125; and Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 227 (n. 90), 88, 141, and 228 (n. 104). For the reception, see Ševčenko, “Agapetus East”, Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 35–39; Marjanović-Dušanić, “Sur une version”; Volk, “From the Desert”, pp. 406 and 419; Nikolov, “Political Ideology”, pp. 364–367 and 375–378.
See Baldwin, “Simokattes, Theophylaktos”, in ODB 3 (1991), p. 1900f.; Schreiner, “Th.(eophylaktos) Simokates”, in LMA 8 (1997), col. 672.
Theophylact Simocata, History, ed. De Boor and Wirth, III, 11, 8–11, pp. 132,22–133,17; id., History, trans. Schreiner, p. 103; id., The History, ed. Whitby, p. 89; Munitiz, “War”, p. 52; Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 6–10, 27–9; Whitby, The Emperor, pp. 227–9, particularly 328–9; Čičurov, Ideologija, pp. 19–26; Meier, Zeitalter, p. 619; Brodka, Die Geschichtsphilosophie, p. 224; Taragna, “Le regole“, pp. 80–1, 90, 93f., 97–9; Efthymiadis, “History”, pp. 177–78; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 105 and 181.
Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 8 and 10–12.
Theophylact Simocata, History, ed. De Boor and Wirth, I, 1, 16–20, pp. 41, 13–42,8; id., History, trans. Schreiner, pp. 44–5; id., History, trans. Whitby, pp. 20–21. For the content (and text), see also Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 10–12, with further evidence; Whitby, The Emperor, pp. 327–30; Čičurov, Ideologija, pp. 21–25; Taragna, “Le regole”, pp. 80, 82–87 and 90; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 105 and 141.
See Lilie (et al.), PmbZ I, # 6253, pp. 671–84, at 676; II, # 26667, pp. 478–485.
Photios, Letters, eds. Laourdas and Westerink, I, no. 1, pp. 2–39, with the integrated mirror for princes on pp. 21, 622–39, 1208; Photios, Letter to Boris, trans. Stratoudaki White and Berrigan, pp. 39–79, with the text in question from 58 -79. On the content, see Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 13–16; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1054; Čičurov, Ideologija, p. 33–67; Pertusi, Il pensiero, p. 110; Munitiz, “War”, pp. 52–53, 55, 58; Simeonova, Diplomacy, pp. 112–152 (on the reception, 152–156); Shepard, “The ruler”, pp. 351–353; Ziemann, “Wandervolk”, pp. 365–370; Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, p. 25; Roueché, “The Place”, pp. 133, 144; Odorico, “Les miroirs”, pp. 234–240 (for criticism, see Strano, “A proposito”, pp. 118–122; Prinzing, “Review Odorico [2009]”, pp. 267–68); Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120, 124–25; Kaldellis, Republic, p. 227, n. 90; most recently Leonte, “Didacticism”, pp. 242–43.
See Brandes and Hoffmann, Konzilssynopse, pp. 15f. (with n. 6), 28 and 244; Troianos, Quellen, p. 251. On the title “New Constantine”, see Angelov, Ideology, pp. 10, 44; Berger, “Legitimation”, pp. 10–12 and Pratsch, “Konstantin”, p. 74.
Emminger, Studien, III, pp. 23–73, text 50–73; Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα pp. 103–243 (with synoptic translation), see also p. 26 (with bibliography). In addition, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 160–161; Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 39–42; Čičurov, “Gesetz”, pp. 40–45; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1054; Simon, “Princeps”, pp. 480–481; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 108–9; Čičurov, Ideologija, pp. 67–81, specifically on its innovations, pp. 89–97, and (in comparison to the epitaph of Leon VI on Basil I), pp. 97–107; Dagron, Emperor, p.36; Angelov, Ideology, p. 185 and passim (cf. index, add p. 196); Reinsch, “Abweichungen”, p. 126; Giannouli, “Paränese”, p. 126; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 45–6, 84, 141; Troianos, Die Quellen, pp. 251–252.
On the dating and authorship of Photios, see Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 87–89.
Ibid. pp. 244–257 (with translation), see also pp. 27 and 89–98; Troianos, Die Quellen, p. 252.
About him, see Lilie (et al.), in PmbZ, Abt. II., # 28076.
Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 96–98; see also Markopoulos, “Chapitres”, pp. 474–76.
Nicholas I, Letters, eds. Jenkins and Westerink, no. 1, pp. 4, 28–43; Grumel and Darrouzès, Regestes, no. 632 [646]; Dölger, Müller and Beihammer, Regesten, no. 571a. See Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 18–9; Beihammer, “Reiner christlicher König”, in Byzantinische Zeitschrift 95 (2002), pp. 9–10 and 33; Shepard, “Equilibrium”, p. 496; Lilie (et al.), in PmbZ II, # 25885 (Nikolaos I Mystikos), pp. 78–89, at 82, and Leonte, “Didacticism”, p. 243, who disregards the previous scholarly discussion.
See Grünbart, “Treffen” (2012), pp. 147–149 (dating the meeting 923); on Symeon Lilie (et al.), PmbZ II, # 27467), pp. 183–202, at 1906.
Symeon Magistros, Chronicon, ed. Wahlgren, pp. 323, 272–324, 292; Skylitzes, Synopsis, ed. Thurn, pp. 220, 48–59; see also Skylitzes, Byzanz, Teil I, trans. Thurn, pp. 258–59; Skylitzès, Empereurs, trans. Flusin and Cheynet, pp. 184–85; Skylitzes, History, trans. Wortley, p. 213. See Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 23–24; Lilie et al., PmbZ II, # 27467 (Symeon), pp. 189–202, at 196; Grünbart, “Treffen”, pp. 147–149, where he overlooks the ruler’s speech.
Litavrin, “Kekaumenos”, in LMA 5 (1991), col. 1095; Kazhdan, “Kekaumenos”, in ODB 2 (1991), p. 1119.
Kekaumenos. Advice and narrations, ed. and trans. Litavrin, Kekavmen., Sovety, pp. 291–315 (text with synopt. translation, followed by a rich commentary); ed. and trans. Roueché, Kekaumenos, Consilia; cf. also Beck (trans.), Vademecum, pp. 125–151; ed. and trans. Tsounkarakes, Κεκαυμένος, pp. 244–275; trans. Signes Codoñer, Cecaumeno, Consejos, pp. 124–139; trans. Odorico, Kékauménos, Conseils, pp. 188–204.
For the content, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, p. 162; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1054–55; Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 19–22; further Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 42–3; Simon, “Princeps”, pp. 482–83; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 142–47; Munitiz, “War”, p. 58; Roueché, “The Place”, especially pp. 130–33; Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, p. 28; Angelov, Ideology, pp. 195 and 222–24; Reinsch, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 407–08; Lilie (et al.), in PmbZ II, Prolegomena, pp. 106–08; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120–21, 124, 126–7; Troianos, Die Quellen, p. 252; Kaldellis, Republic, p. 79; Grünbart, “Externe Instanzen”, p. 19; Kislinger, “Der Ruhm”, pp. 43–45; and below n. 39.
Spadaro, “Il λόγος βασιλικός”. Consequently, the text of advice (B 6) is missing in her Kekaumenos edition, see Spadaro, Raccomandazioni, but see the critical remarks in Litavrin, Kekavmen, Sovety, pp. 702–05 (in the Addenda to his book).
Litavrin, Kekavmen, Sovety, pp. 121, and 533, n. 788.
Spadaro, “Il λόγος βασιλικός”.
See Theophylact of Ohrid, Orations, ed. Gautier, pp. 11–37 (for the biography of the author); Prinzing, “The province”, pp. 361, 367–368 (with further references).
See Theophylact of Ohrid, Orations, ed. Gautier, pp. 49–58; Brand, “Doukas, Constantine”, in ODB 2 (1991), pp. 657–58, and Tiftixoglu, “Zum Mitkaisertum”, pp. 104–106.
See Theophylact of Ohrid, Orations, ed. and trans. Gautier, pp. 48–9 and pp. 178–211, the text of advice: pp. 193–211 (with French translation). The German translation by Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 59–95, is based on the obsolete edition in Patrologia Graeca.
See Grabar, “God”, pp. 117–119; Blum, Fürstenspiegel, pp. 44–46; Romano, “Retorica”, pp. 310–16; Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 24–5 (with further evidence); Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1055; Simon, “Princeps”, p. 483; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 157–61; Munitiz, “War”, pp. 53, 58–59; Angelov, Ideology, pp. 193, 195, 223; Reinsch, “Bemerkungen”, pp. 408–410; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120 and 123–127; ead., “Coronation”, p. 216; Kaldellis, Republic, pp. 57 (with endnote 122, p. 220), 102; more under n. 59. – The statements on form and content in Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 29–30, and id., Tα κάτοπτρα, p. 26, ignore Gautier’s edition and recent literature.
Maas, “Die Musen”.
See Reinsch, “Abweichungen”, p. 126, who not only highlighted here the accurate summary of the peculiarities of the poem by Maas, “Die Musen”, p. 366, but also reprinted it.
On the content, see Reinsch, “Abweichungen”, pp. 123–128; id., “Bemerkungen”, pp. 412–17; Giannouli, “Paränese”, p. 120; Mullett, “Whose Muses?”, pp. 208–209, 218–220; in addition, see also Čičurov, Ideologija, pp. 119–126, and most recently Neville, “Enemies”, pp. 258–260 and 264–265.
See ed. and trans. Jeffreys, Digenis Akritis, pp. 228 (G IV, 1033–1041) and 129 (commentary); ed. and trans. Odorico, Digenis Akritas, p. 122 (IV, 1033–1041); ed. Trapp, Digenes Akrites, p. 232 (G IV, 1983–1992). On this, see Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 22–3, and id., “Historiography”, pp. 349–50 (with further evidence; add Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 149–51).
Demetrios Chomatenos, Various Works, ed. Prinzing, no. 110, pp. 363–367, at §§ 5–6, pp. 365–366, see also regest pp. 221*-22*, with bibliography (add id. “Nochmals”, pp. 228, 237); and Stefec, “Regesten”, p. 32, no. 40. On Theodore Doukas, see Angold, “Theodore Komnenos Doukas”, in ODB 3 (1991), p. 2042.
Demetrios Chomatenos, Various Works, ed. Prinzing, no. 110, pp. §§ 5–6, pp. 365–366; see the magisterial interpretation of Simon, “Gewissensbisse”; Angelov, Ideology, pp. 187, 192–93 and Kaldellis, Republic, p. 81 (erroneously calling the letter’s addressee Theodore Laskaris, see also p. 219, n. 91).
Theognostos, Thesaurus, ed. Munitiz, nο. XIX, pp. 196–203, with quote, p. 200, § 11: Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν βουλγαροκτόνον βασιλέα Βασίλειον ἐπὶ πεντήκοντα ἔτη ἰθύναντα τὴν ἀρχὴν γυναικὶ συγγενόμενον οὐχ εὑρίσκομεν. See the introduction of the work in general, to Ch. 19, pp. LXXXVII–XC; further Prinzing, “Beobachtungen”, pp. 25–26; Munitiz, “War”, pp. 54–55; Angelov, Ideology, pp. 187, 191–192, 196; Agapitos, “Insignificance”, p. 46, who unconvincingly considers text B 10 to be “negligible”.
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Imperial Statue, ed. and trans. Hunger and Ševčenko, pp. 44–117: synoptic text of both versions, the original text and its metaphrase, pp. 121–147: English translation of the original mirror for princes, 121–147: German translation of the paraphrase; what follows is the analysis of the working method of the metaphrast(s) by comparison of the Blemmydes text and its metaphrase at pp. 179–206. On the dating, see Angelov, Ideology, p. 188, and id., Byzantine Hellene (Cambridge, 2019), pp. 91 and 338, the year 1254, given by Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, p. 30, is outdated.
On him, see Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, trans. Munitiz, pp. 29–43 (Introduction); Macrides, “Blemmydes, Nikephoros”, in ODB 1 (1991) p. 296; PLP 2987; Angelov, Byzantine Hellene, pp. 80–87 and passim; Agapitos, “Insignificance”, pp. 43 and 46–47.
On him see Angold, “John III Vatatzes”, in ODB 2 (1991), pp. 1047–1048; and Angelov, Ideology, p. 3, and passim (see index).
Angelov, Ideology, p. 188, with reference to Nikephoros Blemmydes, Imperial Statue, ed. and trans. Hunger and Ševčenko, ch. 66, pp. 62/64, and further evidence.
On him see Angold, “Theodore II Laskaris”, in ODB 3 (1991), pp. 2040–41; and Angelov, Byzantine Hellene.
In his autobiography, Blemmydes explicitly refers to both emperors as addressees (Nikephoros Blemmydes, Autobiography, ed. Munitiz, II, p. 79, ch, 76, 1–2), and trans. Munitiz, pp. 132–33; but a dedicatory letter of Blemmydes to Theodore II Laskaris can be found in the letter edition: Theodore Laskaris, Letters, ed. Festa, Florence 1898, appendix III: Nicephori Epistulae, no. 13, pp. 303–304; see Angelov, Ideology, p. 188, n. 25, and id., Byzantine Hellene, pp. 85, 91.
See Nikephoros Blemmydes, Imperial Statue, ed. and trans. Hunger and Sevčenko, pp. 32–35 (“Die Autoren der Metaphrase”). The chapter concludes on pp. 35–39 with observations on language and style of both authors.
I: Ch. 1–7, II: 8–33, III: 34–48, IV: 49–66, V: 67–92, VI: 93–104, VII: 105–122, VIII: 123–132, IX: 133–140, X: 141–154, XI: 155–171, XII; 172–201, XIII: 202–216, XIV: 217–219. On the content, see n. 63.
Nikephoros Blemmydes, Imperial Statue, ed. and trans. Hunger and Ševčenko, Ch. 8, p. 46; see Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, p. 163 (no reference to the parallel in Théophylact of Ohrid, Orations, ed. Gautier, p. 195, 10, with p. 194, n. 17); Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1055; Blum (trans.), Fürstenspiegel, p. 97, n. 7; Pertusi, Il pensiero, p. 191.
See above texts for notes 36 and 43.
See Angelov, Ideology, p. 187, and below.
See Angelov, Ideology, pp. 188, 192, 196, 294.
Angelov, Ideology, pp. 188–189, passim (see index, add pp. 193–194, 293–294, with reference [p. 293] to the innovative content of Ch. 1), also id., Byzantine Hellene, pp. 125, 336; see also Hunger, Literatur, I, pp. 163–164; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1055; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 191–192; Munitiz, “War”, pp. 55–57, 61; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120, 122–123, 125–127; Kaldellis, Republic, p. 45.
Thomas Magistros, On the Imperial Office, ed. P. Volpe Cacciatore, pp. 29–84 (definite edition), with Italian paraphrase on pp. 87–94; German translation (after the edition of Mai, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 145, col. 448–496) in Blum (trans.), Fürstenspiegel, pp. 99–139 (n. pp. 140–145). For other editions, translations and secondary literature, see Gaul, Thomas Magistros, pp. 406–407, furthermore, see Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 30–31 (partly erroneous information), and Gickler, Kaiser Michael IX., p. 18.
Gaul, Thomas Magistros, pp. 220–222, and 406 (quotation), see also PLP 16045.
See Gaul, Thomas Magistros, see pp. 211–383: second part, “Thomas Magistros, Bios und Ēthos”; and here the section: “Fürsten- und Stadtbürgerspiegel. (Datierung)”, pp. 330–337; Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 164–165; Blum (trans.), Fürstenspiegel, pp. 49–53; Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1055; Angelov, Ideology, p. 175, and passim (see index); Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120, 122, 124, 127–128; Agapitos, “Insignificance”, p. 45, n. 218, and 46.
Angelov, Ideology, pp. 189–191 (not mentioned by Gaul), 298–303, 316–21; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 122, and 127–128, arguing for a date of writing shortly after 1316 and with good reason “probably sooner” (p. 122), pleads for Andronikos III as addressee of the text, because he had been crowned in February 1316 as co-emperor with his father Andronikos II. However, she overlooked the fact that Božidar Ferjančić had confirmed the date for the proclamation of co-emperor for Andronikos III, which had been determined by Ljubomir Maksimovic in 1975 (period between 1308 and 13 February 1313), and kept the date (supported among others by Short Chronicles) of 2 February 1325 for the crowning as co-emperor. See Ferjančić, “Savladarstvo u doba Paleologa”, in Zbornik radova Vizant. Instituta 24/25 (1986), pp. 307–384 (with French abstract: La co-souveraineté sous les Paléologues), at pp. 330–31 and 383; Gaul, Thomas Magistros, p. 332, n.74, considers Maksimović’s information.
Gaul, Thomas Magistros, pp. 330–337, and (in summary) pp. 406–407 (quotations on p. 406).
Angelov (as above n. 66); Gaul, Thomas Magistros, pp. 330, 333, 406.
On Irene, see PLP no. 10935, Nicol, Lady, pp. 71–82, Melichar, “Imperial Women”, pp. 107, 119–120 and 122; on John VI, PLP 10973; on Matthew, PLP no. 10983.
Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantine History, ed. Schopen, II, = XVI, Ch. 3, §§ 1–5, pp. 804, 13–813, 6. Irene’s speech: pp. 805,23 – 812,23, the integrated mirror for princes: pp. 807,14 - 812,19. German: Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantine History, trans. Van Dieten, III, pp. 180–85; Irene’s speech: pp. 181 (§4)-85, the integrated mirror for princes: 182,6 -185. On Gregoras and his work, see PLP no. 4442, Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 453–56; most recently Kolovou, Geschichtskonzeption und Phantasie.
On Irene’s speech, see Nikephoros Gregoras, Byzantine History, trans. Van Dieten, III, pp. 4 and 6; Nicol, Lady, pp. 71–81, at 75–6; id., Reluctant Emperor, pp. 88–89 and Melichar, “Imperial Women”, p. 120.
See the edition in Patrologia Graeca 156, col. 320–84 (text of the editio princeps by J. Leunclavius). On the dating, see Païdas, Δύο Κείμενα, pp. 31–32 (with dating of December 1399 to June 1403), and Giannouli, “Paränese”, p. 119, n. 1 (without explanation); Barker, Manuel II , pp. 344–345, n. 84, refers to 1406 (after older models); Leonte, Visions, pp. 126–127. On Manuel II, see also PLP no. 21513; Prinzing, “Manuel II”, and Çelik, Manuel II; on John VIII, PLP no. 21481.
Patrologia Graeca 156, col. 316 B–317 C. On that: Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 119–121; Leonte, Visions, pp. 124–160 (and Index); Çelik, Manuel II, pp. 319–330.
On the content, see Hunger, Literatur, vol. I, pp. 164–165 (also on the reception); Schmalzbauer, “Fürstenspiegel”, col. 1055; Pertusi, Il pensiero, pp. 270–272; Angelov, Ideology, p. 391; Giannouli, “Paränese”, pp. 120–121, 126–127.
On John Argyropoulos, see Talbot, “Argyropoulos, John”, in ODB 1 (1991) pp. 164–165; Fyrigos, “Johannes Argyropulos”, in LThK 5 (1996), p. 880.
Ἰωάννου διδασκάλου τοῦ Ἀργυροπούλου Βασιλικὸς ἢ περὶ βασιλείας πρὸς τὸν αὐτοκράτορα Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν Παλαιολόγον, in S. Lampros (ed.), Argyropuleia, pp. 29–47.
Giannouli, “Coronation”, p. 218. On Constantine XI Palaiologos, see PLP no. 21500.
Giannouli, “Coronation”, pp. 217–221. See also Angelov, Imperial Idology, p. 63.
The sections are distributed as follows: Argyropuleia, ed. S. Lampros, pp. 29, 1–31, 9 (encomiastic prefix); 31, 10–38, 14 (mirror for princes, part 1); pp. 38, 14–44, 19 (mirror, part 2); pp. 45, 1–47, 18 (part 3): see Giannouli, “Coronation”, p. 219.
Not included here were the parts of mirrors for princes in the works “Barlaam and Joasaph”, “Stephanites and Ichnelates”, “Syntipas”, and others, mentioned already in Prinzing, “Beobachtungen“, pp. 5–6 and 27 (note 73); see in addition id. “Review Païdas”, p. 294, n. 6 (reference to Manuel II’s writing Peri gamou) and id., “Review Odorico [2009]”, p. 267, n. 3 (reference to the integrated mirror for princes in the Life of St Euphrosyne). As to “Stephanites and Ichnelates” see now Niehoff-Panagiotidis, “The Pancatantra”.
See Angelov, Imperial Ideology, pp. 196–197 and 200.
The following list of editions of primary sources and their translations is not exhaustive. It is easy to find additional information in Wolfgang Schule, Bibliographie (Wiesbaden, 1982).