Verzamelde werken. Deel 4. Cultuurgeschiedenis 2

[p. 564]

[Boekbespreking van Wilhelm Kleineke's ‘Englische Füsstenspiegel vom Policraticus Johanns van Salisbury bis zum Basilikon Doron König Jakobs I’]^*

Englische Fürstenspiegel vom Policraticus Johanns von Salisbury bis zum Basilikon Doron König Jakobs I. Von Wilhelm Kleineke. (Studien zur englischen Philologie, herausgegeben von L. Morsbach und H.O. Wilde, XC). Max Niemeyer, Halle (Saale) 1937.

If the ‘Mirror of Princes’ is to be taken as a literary genre of its own, as certainly it may, no other national literature of Europe calls sooner for a treatment of the subject as a whole than English literature, works in Latin included, of course. This labour is performed here in a book, at the same time succinct and full of information, which to workers in the field of political theory leaves little to be desired. The author gives first some twenty pages of general introduction, followed by a treatment, in chronological order, of all the specimens representing the genre in English literature within the limits of time expressed in the title. It is not so much a complete analysis which is given of each work in succession as a judicious attempt to characterize its scope and nature. The series opens with the most famous and important of all, John of Salisbury's Policraticus. Next to this comes the Liber de Principis Instructione of Giraldus Cambrensis, whose work we would willingly have spared for the lost one reported to have been written by Robert Grosseteste. Among the numerous authors of later treatises Wycliffe stands out with his De Officio Regis, Hoccleve with a Regiment of Princes. Account is also taken of such authors as, without writing a specific Mirror of Princes, yet occasionally enlarge upon the duties of a king, as is the case with Chaucer, Langland and Gower. In the fifteenth century the writings of Sir John Fortescue take the largest place though they no longer fully answer to the character of a Mirror of Princes proper. The genre is revived in a way by the inspiration of Humanism in the writings of Sir Thomas Elyot in the sixteenth century. The Basilikon Doron of James the First closes the history of the genre in more than one respect, leading as it does from the rather academic speculations on a more or less theological theme to the actual beginnings of the great constitutional conflict in English history.

The well-considered judgment on each of the treatises, together with the careful investigation of their origin and the circumstances of

* English Studies, a Journal of English Letters and Philology, XX, 1938, p. 34/5.

[p. 565]

their composition, will no doubt render great service to the study of an important chapter of historical learning. Still, the chief merit of Herr Kleineke's book would seem to reside in the brief and excellent introduction, in which he describes the nature and the gradual change of the Mirror of Princes as a literary concept. Starting from a purely theological and ethical point of view which hardly pays any attention to the material needs or national interests of a specific kingdom, the Mirror is at first merely a doctrine of personal virtue in the Prince, who is so entirely regarded as incorporating in his person all that modern speech calls the State, that this moral shortcomings or excellence suffice to explain either the downfall or the welfare of his country. These doctrines of royal virtue are largely dependent on classical tradition. Gradually positive notions of practical policy make their way into the theory of princely virtue. The line between the Mirror of Princes in the strict sense and the political pamphlet is not always to be drawn clearly. To the last phase of this mainly mediaeval genre the fundamental conception remains that perfect political order and happiness are attainable on earth, if only princes will be good. It is highly significant that not before Thomas More is the scene of such perfection shifted into Utopia.

One remark falling a little outside a review of the book as a product of historical research remains to be made. Whenever the author comes to speak of the ethical convictions lying at the base of all mediaeval political theory, and of the conflict of these principles with considerations of material or national utility, he seems to envisage the mediaeval view-point as merely antiquated ballast lingering on in times when political thinking really had outgrown such conceptions. It is necessary to quote some passages in the original text to make this clear. On p. 144 we read, concerning the authors of these treatises in general towards the end of the Middle Ages: ‘Sie lassen sich bei ihren Forderungen leiten vom Gesichtspunkt der staatlichen Notwendigkeit. Und wenn dieser Gesichtspunkt auch noch nicht eigentlich bewusst geworden ist, geschweige denn grundsätzlich als berechtigt anerkannt wird - Entdeckung und grundsätzliche Rechtfertigung des Begriffes des Staatsraison blieben der Renaissance vorbehalten - so liegt doch schon darin, daß er praktisch entscheidend oder zum mindesten wesentlich mitbestimmend ist, etwas in die Zukunft Weisendes.’ Fortescue ‘stellt die Forderungen seines Werkes noch in einen ethischen Zusammenhang etc.’ (p. 145, cf.

[p. 566]

p. 169, 170). Likewise of the author of the Libelle of Englishe Polycye: ‘Die Politik ist für ihn faktisch autonom. Grundsätzlich würde er sich gewiss gegen den Gedanken, daß die Politik nur ihre eigene Gesetzlichkeit kennt, gesträubt haben’ (p. 181-2). This respect for the ethical foundations of State and government holds good as well of Sir Thomas Elyot in the sixteenth century (p. 193).

It is well known that the acceptance of tenets concerning the a-moral nature of all policy has been widespread, especially in Germany, for a long time, quite independently of recent political changes. If we are right in concluding from sentences such as those quoted above that the author fully adheres to such a conception of the nature of the political we should like to observe that he ought not to treat these opinions as a general asset of modern knowledge and civilization. It is only in some parts of the civilized world that such opinions may be said to prevail officially and more or less universally. A far larger part of that world all over the globe still holds fervently to the belief in an ethical foundation of political life and conduct, though practice may ever so horribly clash with theory. Should such-like conceptions deserve the appellation of mediaeval, then it is to be hoped that our world may ere long regain the dignity of being called by that name.