Ideal and moral rulership between insular and Carolingian worlds

自政治共同体诞生以来，关于一个好的统治者的素质一直存在争议。这个项目检查话语的好与坏的统治，在建议文学的形式，在君士坦丁堡时期，其假设的前因从孤立的世界。它源于这样一种信念，即这种更明确的领导道德话语仍然可以提供关于当代环境中政治话语的见解。尽管对统治者的古典建议的学术研究有着悠久的传统，并且对中世纪晚期和文艺复兴时期的“王子之镜”有着极大的兴趣，但对古代晚期和中世纪早期的过渡时期仍然知之甚少，部分原因是研究局限于现代国家边界。将基督教的宗教-道德元素引入统治话语，将是后来政治哲学发展的关键，这种元素出现在6世纪至8世纪的岛屿文学中，然后在8世纪后期和9世纪成为奥古斯丁话语的一部分。劝谏文学是指对君主提出理想、道德和善政建议的文学。因此，它忽略了一个重要的文学机构，包含评论或建议的好和坏的统治顺便说一句，例如普遍的历史。限制证据基础是不可避免的，因为这一时期的文献数量包含一些说教或教育元素，并且现在已经认识到体裁界限的流动性。然而，它也为进一步研究其他文本中王权话语的性质留下了机会。在当前的史学气候下，跨国和全球历史方法越来越普遍，因此，现在是时候以建议文献的形式将这样一种方法引入孤立的和威尔士的统治话语。这种跨国方法将与概念和语言学方法相结合，其中通过选定的源材料追溯统治话语的关键概念和主题，以确定连续性和变化。这使得跨语言界限，这是必要的，如果要获得爱尔兰白话文学的连接的领导话语的比较方法。本书将分成几个部分，从岛屿文学开始，到金银岛文学，然后探讨这两组松散的文本之间的联系。这类群体不可避免地会有一些流动性，但总的目的是确定这些相互联系的环境中的文本以何种方式共享共同的概念，以及宗教和道德统治的共同话语。它还提供了一个机会，以阐明这种话语在多大程度上影响了实际行使权力的奥古斯丁时期。这也具有真正的当代意义;行使政治权力的人是道德榜样的想法经常在现代政治话语中出现。很明显，尽管现代政治话语与匈牙利政治话语之间存在着明显的巨大差异，但这一思想并没有被完全抛弃。

The qualities of a good ruler have been debated since the beginning of political communities. This project examines the discourse of good and bad rulership, in the form of advice literature, in the Carolingian period, and its hypothesised antecedents from the insular world. It arises from the belief that this more explicitly moral discourse of leadership can still provide insights regarding political discourse in contemporary settings. Despite a long tradition of academic studies of classical advice to rulers, and a great deal of interest in later medieval and Renaissance 'mirrors of princes', the period of transition at the end of late antiquity and during the early medieval period is still poorly understood, partly due to studies confining themselves to modern national boundaries. The introduction of a Christian religious-moral element to rulership discourse would be key to later developments in political philosophy, and this element appears in insular literature of the sixth to eighth centuries before becoming part of the Carolingian discourse in the later eighth and ninth centuries. The category of advice literature is defined as literature addressed to a king and offering advice on ideal, moral, and good rulership. As such, it omits a significant body of literature that contains commentary or advice on good and bad rulership incidentally, for example universal histories. Restricting the evidence base is inevitable, given the quantity of literature from this period that contains some didactic or educational elements, and given the now-recognised fluidity of genre boundaries. However, it does leave open the opportunity for further research into the nature of kingship discourse in these other texts.In the current historiographical climate, transnational and global history approaches are increasingly commonplace, and so the time is right to bring an approach like this to insular and Carolingian rulership discourse, in the form of advice literature. This transnational approach will be combined with a conceptual and philological one, where the key concepts and themes of rulership discourse are traced through the selected source material to identify continuities and changes. This allows for the comparative approach to be used across linguistic boundaries, which is necessary if a full understanding of the Irish vernacular literature's connection to Carolingian leadership discourse is to be gained. This will be divided into sections, proceeding from the insular literature onto the Carolingian literature, and then to explore the connections between these two loose groups of texts. Groups of this kind will inevitably have some fluidity to them, but the overall purpose is to ascertain in what way texts from these connected milieux shared common concepts and a common discourse of religious and moral rulership. It also offers the opportunity to elucidate how far this discourse affected the actual exercise of power in the Carolingian period. This also has genuine contemporary relevance; the idea of a person exercising political power being a moral example is one that regularly re-occurs in modern political discourse. It is apparent that this idea has not been totally abandoned, despite the obviously huge differences between modern and Carolingian political discourse.