In the mirror literature, power and sovereignty are identified with the king’s person. The king’s conduct established a model, which his subjects would follow; consequently, the ruler’s actions and behaviour determined the nature of the polity. The king’s cultivation of virtue is, in consequence, a pragmatic as well as a moral imperative. The mirror-writers insist on the importance of the king’s self-discipline as a prerequisite for his governing other people; if he is unable to govern himself, he will be incapable of governing anyone else. The three extracts in this section describe the virtuous and effective king. From different perspectives, they treat some of the ethical and philosophical problems of human nature; in particular, they discuss how to strengthen, acquire and practise virtues and how to overcome and eradicate vices. The texts in this section are drawn from Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, Kutadgu bilig; al-Māwardī, Tashīl al-naẓar wa-taʿjīl al-ẓafar; and Kaykāʾūs, Qābūsnāmeh.

Chapter 4 discusses published editions of the nine selected texts and notes the edition that formed the basis for the translations in Part II. The chapter reviews earlier translations, particularly into English, in cases for which such translations exist. It also presents the author’s principles and purposes in producing the translations that appear in Part II.

The rhetoric of royal legitimacy emphasised divine selection and personal merit, but the proof of these qualities lay in the ruler’s measured but effective exercise of his power. For mirror-writers, evidence of fitness to rule depended on not only military success but also, and more particularly, the stability and prosperity of the realm. Foremost among the principles of governance, for many mirror-writers, was justice, understood partly in legal terms – the ruler was responsible for upholding the law – and partly in terms of the king’s judicious management of the multiple constituencies who made up his realm. The four texts in this chapter address the underlying supports of royal authority and the principles that rulers should adopt in their governance. Justice, central to the theory of virtue, appears in this context as central to the theory of governance. In enumerating the pillars necessary for the support of sovereignty, the authors represented in this chapter emphasise, in addition to justice, religion, force, wealth and kindness. The texts are drawn from Pseudo-Aristotle, Sirr al-asrār; al-Māwardī, Tashīl al-naẓar wa-taʿjīl al-ẓafar; Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk; and al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk.

This third chapter presents the nine selected authors and their mirrors. They are: (1) Pseudo-Aristotle, Kitāb al-Siyāsa fī tadbīr al-riyāsa (Sirr al-asrār) (Arabic); (2) Pseudo-Māwardī, Naṣīḥat al-mulūk (Arabic); (3) al-Thaʿālibī, Ādāb al-mulūk (Arabic); (4) Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, Kutadgu bilig (Karakhanid Turkish); (4) Kaykāʾūs b. Iskandar, Qābūsnāmeh (Andarznāmeh) (Persian); (6) al-Māwardī, Tashīl al-naẓar wa-taʿjīl al-ẓafar (Arabic); (7) Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk (Persian); (8) Ghazālī (Pseudo-Ghazālī), Naṣīḥat al-mulūk (Persian); (9) al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk (Arabic).

The examples of political advice contained in this anthology, written across terrain that stretched from Egypt to Central Asia, date from the first half of the tenth century to the first half of the twelfth century (roughly, the Islamic Early Middle Period). The mirror-writers were both formed by and responded to the conditions in which they lived. This second chapter presents an overview of political and intellectual developments in western Asia in the Early Middle Period. It begins with a general, thematic discussion of the processes of historical change taking place in the region in the tenth to twelfth centuries, and proceeds to offer a narrative history of the major polities of the period (Samanids, Karakhanids, Buyids, Ghaznavids, Seljuks, Fatimids). It locates each mirror and mirror-writer within their specific contexts and points to interconnections among them across this historical-geographical canvas.

The selections in this chapter discuss the management of the realm and the importance of specific royal practices. Ensuring the prosperity of the rural and urban populations, the productivity of the land, the proper maintenance of the army and sound financial management feature prominently among the king’s responsibilities. Many mirrors emphasise the necessity of constant royal oversight, particularly of the officials involved in the collection of taxes. Strict and consistent oversight, accompanied by swift dismissal when cases of abuse came to light, were the only measures that would protect the revenue-producing categories on whose labour the entire edifice of government depended. In cases of injustice, it was the ruler’s obligation to provide a means of redress, through the practice of listening to the petitions of his subjects and restoring to them any property that had been wrongfully seized. In many instances, the practices of good governance urged upon the wise and virtuous ruler reflect the principle of maṣlaḥa, the common good. The texts are drawn from al-Māwardī, Tashīl al-naẓar wa-taʿjīl al-ẓafar; Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk; and al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk.

This first chapter traces the characteristics and development of the mirror literatures in Arabic, Persian and Turkish. It discusses the range of forms and styles, and the varied functions, of these advisory texts, and their generic designations in the original languages. The chapter identifies and discusses four major periods: the Early or Formative Period (eighth and ninth centuries); the Early Middle Period (tenth to twelfth centuries); the Later Middle Period (thirteenth to fifteenth centuries); the Early Modern Period. At several points, the discussion indicates parallels and affinities among the mirror literatures produced in contemporaneous Muslim and Christian settings. The chapter ends with a discussion of the appearance, presentation and reception of mirrors for princes.

This final chapter explores mirror-writers’ diagnoses of political and social ills, and their proposed remedies for them. They range from kings’ propensities to indulge to excess in food, drink and sex, to the hazards of abandoning well-established and highly regarded practices, to external enemies’ seizing advantage at moments of internal weakness. The three extracts show shared concerns, especially with heterodoxy, portrayed as a mask for political dissent, as well as idiosyncratic concerns. Many of the narratives are presented as cautionary examples. Collectively, the texts convey the precarious nature of royal power and its limits. They are drawn from al-Thaʿālibī, Ādāb al-mulūk; Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk; and al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk.