2—
Backgrounds
In his panegyric on the coronation of Charles II, John Evelyn acknowledges an apparent debt to literary theory by referring to the "laws of Panegyric ."
[We] have received a Prince, but such a Prince, whose state and fortune in all this blessed change, we so much admire not, as his mind; For that is truly felicity, not to possesse great things, but to be thought worthy of them: And indeed Great Sir, necessity constrains me, and the laws of Panegyric, to verifie it in your Praises, by running over at least those other Appellations, which both your vertue has given to your Majesty, and your Fortune acquir'd. For he is really no King who possesses not (like you) a Kingly mind be his other advantages what they may . . .[1]
Although Renaissance commentators from Erasmus to Dryden provide a convincing defense of panegyric, they do not prescribe any "laws" governing the genre. To outline the "laws of Panegyric " alluded to by Evelyn, we
[1] John Evelyn, A Panegyric to Charles the Second. Presented to His Majesty On the Day of His Inauguration (London, 1661), pp. 8–9. I have used the facsimile reprint in the Augustan Reprint series, no. 28 (Los Angeles, 1951).
must turn first to the rhetoric books, then to the tradition of panegyrical oratory, and finally to the derivative tradition of panegyrical poetry.
Rhetoric
In the passage cited above, Evelyn elaborates a distinction between praise of virtue and praise of fortune. The source of this distinction is probably Aristotle. In the Rhetoric, Aristotle distinguishes between the honor derived from external circumstances and the happiness that comes from the habit of virtue.[2] Cicero expresses a similar idea in the De Inventione . "[It] is foolish to praise one's good fortune and arrogant to censure it, but praise of a man's mind is honourable and censure of it very effective." Years later, in the De Oratore Cicero lends a prescriptive emphasis to this idea when he observes that the orator engaged in praise may begin by mentioning the favors of fortune, but should conclude by commending the proper use of those favors.[3] These related statements, which lie very close to the surface of Evelyn's panegyric, belong to the theory of demonstrative oratory. Evelyn advertises his debt to this branch of rhetoric when he later pauses to recollect "all partitions of the Demonstrative."[4] Evelyn evidently saw a connection between the
[2] Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chap. 9, Aristotle, The "Art" of Rhetoric, trans. John Henry Freese, Loeb Classical Library (London and New York, 1926), p. 103.
[3] Cicero, De Inventione, book 2, chap. 59, trans. H. M. Hubbell, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), p. 345; Cicero, De Oratore, book 2, chap. 85, trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), pp. 461–463.
[4] Evelyn, p. 5.
"laws" of panegyric on the one hand, and the "partitions" of demonstrative oratory on the other. The first goal of this chapter is to determine as precisely as possible the nature of this connection.
According to Aristotle, who is usually cited as the authority for the division of oratory into three kinds, the demonstrative is concerned with praise and blame, its object being to assign honor or disgrace.[5] The crucial difference between demonstrative and both deliberative and judicial oratory is that in the latter kinds the audience must make a decision on the basis of what is said. The deliberative (or political) speech usually requires a decision as to the expedience of a certain policy, while the judicial (or forensic) speech demands a decision of guilty or not guilty. Because the demonstrative (or epideictic) oration makes no such demands on its audience, it is considered by Aristotle, and later by Cicero, as a display piece designed mainly to please or to entertain.
It is for this reason that Cicero disdains the third branch of oratory and refuses to discuss it with patience in any of his treatises on rhetoric. He quickly dismisses the demonstrative from his discussion in the Orator, for example, because these orations "were produced as showpieces . . . for the pleasure they will give, a class comprising eulogies, descriptions, histories, and exhortations like the Panegyric of Isocrates, and similar orations by many of the Sophists . . . and all other speeches unconnected with battles of public life."[6] For Cicero de-
[5] Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chap. 9.
[6] Cicero, Orator, chap. II, sec. 37, trans. H. M. Hubbell, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1952), p. 333.
monstrative oratory is an alien type, suitable for the Greeks perhaps, but out of place in the Forum.
The demonstrative nevertheless occupies an important place in the later tradition of Ciceronian rhetoric. This is true partly because Cicero's name was often linked to the influential Rhetorica ad Herennium .[7] In this handbook the demonstrative does take a backseat to the other kinds of oratory, but it is not ignored or disdained. The author would divide this kind of speech into three parts, an exordium, divisio, and brief peroratio . He makes three "partitions" in the divisio : (i) external circumstances, (2) physical attributes, and (3) character. The first category includes such topics as ancestry, education, wealth, titles, and sources of power, while the second is concerned with the subject's agility, strength, beauty, and health. The third and most important part of the argument should focus on four cardinal virtues: wisdom (or prudence), fortitude, temperance, and justice. The topics thus defined in the Rhetorica ad Herennium are reiterated during the imperial period by Quintilian, who offers in addition two general (and more flexible) approaches to this kind of speech. One approach calls for the orator to proceed through a list of the subject's virtues, while the alternative is to allow these virtues to emerge from a chronological survey of the subject's life. To look ahead, in these two plans we have the outline for panegyric exposed by Swift and the theory of biography rejected by Boswell.[8]
[7] In the Renaissance, the Rhetorica ad Herennium was commonly ascribed to Cicero. See Wilbur Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700 (New York, 1961), pp. 66, 80, 108.
[8] For a discussion of the shifting importance of the deliberativeand demonstrative branches in the eighteenth century, see Wilbur Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric (Princeton, 1971), pp. 444–445.
If the demonstrative, at least in its positive form of praise, has fallen out of favor for serious writers by the eighteenth century, it is nevertheless very popular and important during the English Renaissance. The rhetoric books published in England between 1550 and 1650 usually devote substantially more attention to the demonstrative than they do to the deliberative.[9] This basic pattern is established by Thomas Wilson's English Arte of Rhetorique, published in 1553. Wilson, who does not share Cicero's contempt for the third branch, follows the Rhetorica ad Herennium quite closely in his discussion of the demonstrative, dividing the topics of praise into the traditional three categories, "fortune," "body," and "character."[10] Adopting Quintilian's suggestion, moreover, Wilson recommends a biographical plan of organization, which he illustrates with a speech in praise of a "noble personage."[11]
Although Wilson's focus on praise of a "noble personage" anticipates later dictionary definitions of "panegyric," Wilson does not use this term nor does he offer any details that would suggest interest in or knowledge of this particular type of speech. Later English rhetoricians, however, including Charles Butler, John Clarke, and John Newton, do list panegyric under the demonstrative heading. Although these writers apparently conceived
[9] Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700, pp. 106–107.
[10] Thomas Wilson, The Arte of Rhetorique (London, 1553), p. 6.
[11] Wilson, pp. 14–17.
of panegyric as a subtype of demonstrative oratory, they do not bother to discuss the matter, probably because they could find no precedent for such discussion in either Cicero or Quintilian. If the "partitions" of demonstrative oratory can be adequately described from Roman sources, the "laws of Panegyric " must be sought elsewhere.
The theory of panegyric comes, in fact, from comparatively obscure Greek rhetorics of the second and third centuries A.D. Two such rhetorics stand out, one supposedly by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, the other by Menander of Laodicea (sometimes distinguished as Menander Rhetor). Although these two authorities often appear side by side in Renaissance discussions of panegyric, the Dionysius rhetoric was probably the more influential, at least in England.[12] This art of rhetoric, long attributed to Dionysius of Halicarnassus but now believed to have been written after his death, opens with a chapter devoted exclusively to panegyric.[13] According to this author, a panegyric is a speech designed for a festival occasion, and it has six parts: (1) an opening prayer to the god or gods most closely connected with the particular festival, (2) praise of the city where the celebration is being held, (3) further consideration of the place, its myths, its agriculture, its weather, etc., (4) discussion of the contests being held, (5) celebration and elaboration on the nature of the victor's crown by ref-
[12] This inference is based primarily on the influence of the Dionysius rhetoric evident in Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhetoricus et Oratorius, and on the appearance of a Latin translation of the work just four years after Dryden's death. See below.
[13] The text I have used is the London edition and Latin translation of 1704. Dionysii Halicarnassensis Quae Exstant Rhetorica et Critica, ed. and trans. John Hudson, 2 vols. (London, 1704), II.
erence to history and mythology, and (6) praise of the king, who is the judge of the festival contests.[14] Although essentially an outline for a Greek festival oration, this prescription does include praise of the king.
Even so, however, Renaissance writers either discard or radically change the Greek theory of panegyric in order to bring it into more perfect agreement with Roman practice. Faced with the task of reconciling the theory of festival oratory with the practice of political eulogy, Renaissance rhetoricians nod respectfully in the direction of Dionysius and Menander, and then establish a new theoretical basis for panegyric by describing Pliny's address to Trajan.[15]
In England a typical example of this approach is found in Thomas Farnaby's Index Rhetoricus et Oratorius (1625.) One of the most durable and popular rhetorics of the seventeenth century (it went through ten editions between 1625 and 1700), the Index Rhetoricus includes a useful and provocative discussion of panegyric. Farnaby initially defers to Greek authority, incorporating the above outline into his text and duly providing a shoulder note which refers the reader to the Dionysius rhetoric. Having done this much, Farnaby then abandons the outline in order to describe a different kind of panegyric, which he distinguishes as the panegyrica nova .[16] The
[14] For more details on this plan for a panegyric, see George Kennedy, The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), p. 167; Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World (Princeton, 1972), pp. 634–636.
[15] The best example of this approach is by Gerhard Vossius, Commentariorum rhetoricorum; sive, Oratoriarum institutionum . Libri sex, 3rd ed. (Lyon, 1630), pp. 44ff., 89–91, 409–410.
[16] Thomas Farnaby, Index Rhetoricus et Oratorius (London, 1646), pp. 10–16. For a discussion of the importance and popularityof this rhetoric, see Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500–1700, pp. 280, 321–324, 335, 340.
basic difference between these two kinds of panegyric is the relative space devoted to praise of the king. Whereas the laus regis is simply an appendage to the old panegyric outlined first, it is central to the new panegyric as discussed by Farnaby. Although he says nothing about praise as a form of royal education, Farnaby does insist that the panegyrica nova functions as an exhortation to the people, urging them to "joy, obedience, and concord."[17] In effect, Farnaby distinguishes Greek (old) and Roman (new) panegyric, and then assigns to the Roman form the Greek purpose. Like White Kennet sixty years later, Farnaby implies that the Roman form has, for all practical purposes, replaced the Greek, but one of those purposes remains national reconciliation. Something of Isocrates thus survives in the later tradition of panegyric dominated by Pliny.
By abstracting Farnaby's definition of the panegyrica nova, we can finally answer the question posed at the beginning of this chapter. According to the author of the Index Rhetoricus, the new panegyric begins with consideration of the public occasion at hand and then proceeds to praise the monarch "from the places of demonstrative [rhetoric]."[18] Here, then, is the connection, assumed by Evelyn, between the "laws" of panegyric and the "partitions" of demonstrative oratory. The demonstrative topics are used to elaborate the laus regis . This at least is the theory. In practice, as the tradition of panegyrical oratory reveals, the laus regis depends not
[17] Farnaby, p. 13.
[18] Farnaby, p. 13.
only on the demonstrative but also on the deliberative branch of classical rhetoric.
Oratory
When Evelyn referred to the "laws" of panegyric, he had in mind not only the "partitions" of a demonstrative oration, but also the specific example of Pliny the Younger. "Thus what was once applyed to Trajan, becomes due to your Majesty."[19] It is hardly surprising that Evelyn should choose to model his address to Charles II on Pliny's address to Trajan, for this speech was regarded throughout the Renaissance as the supreme model of panegyric. From 1500 to 1700, when the topic is panegyric, Pliny's oration is almost invariably offered as the classical paradigm. For example, the famous Dutch scholar and rhetorician Gerhard Vossius, whose work was well known in seventeenth-century England, considered Pliny's speech "the most beautiful example" of panegyric; it behooves us, he says, to study this panegyric carefully, for "no other can teach us better."[20]
There were those in England who apparently agreed with this assessment, as Pliny's oration was required reading in some seventeenth-century English schools. We know for certain that by mid-century the Panegyricus (as it was always titled during this period) was required of students at Rotherham school, at Merchant Taylors', and probably at several others.[21] In 1659, therefore,
[19] Evelyn, p. 7.
[20] Vossius, pp. 409–410.
[21] Martin L. Clarke, Classical Education in Britain 1500–1900 (Cambridge, 1959), pp. 38, 41.
Obadiah Walker could take familiarity with Pliny's panegyric for granted in Some Instructions concerning the Art of Oratory . Discussing his choice of illustrations, he writes: "Examples (which for the great part I have taken out of Plinius Secundus his Panegyrick and Epistles being an Author you are well acquainted with . . ."[22] Those who were not acquainted with the speech were urged to become so in Thomas Holyoke's Large Dictionary in Three Parts (1677). Defining the Latin word panegyricum, Holyoke adopts Thomas Thomas's definition with a significant proviso.
Panegyricum. A lascivious kind of speaking, wherein men do join in praising one, many lyes with flattery, but this was the abuse of it, the word itself signifies no such infamous kind of speaking. See Plinies Panegyrick to Trajan.[23]
We can follow Holyoke's advice and consider not only Pliny's speech but also the tradition of oratory that is founded on it.
Although Pliny develops his eulogy from the places of demonstrative rhetoric, the speech is not organized according to either of the patterns recommended by his master Quintilian. Neither a biography nor a catalog of virtues, Pliny's sometimes rambling speech is structured by a contrast between past and present, between prius . . . and nunc . . . . Pliny gives this temporal contrast thematic significance by juxtaposing the irresponsibility, effeminacy, triviality, weakness, and licentiousness of previous emperors, and the piety, abstinence, and forti-
[22] Obadiah Walker, Some Instructions concerning the Art of Oratory (London, 1659), p. 19.
[23] Thomas Holyoke, Large Dictionary in Three Parts (London, 1677).
tude of the current emperor. Translated into specific political contexts, these contrasting sets of qualities account for the administrative blunders of Domitian and Nero, on the one hand, and for Trajan's judicious administration of the army, the treasury, and the courts, on the other. In sum:
Omnia, patres conscripti, quae de aliis principibus a me aut dicuntur aut dicta sunt, eo pertinent ut ostendam, quam longa consuetudine corruptos depravatosque mores principatus parens noster reformet et corrigat. Alioqui nihil non parum grate sine comparatione laudatur. Praeterea hoc primum erga optimum imperatorem piorum civium officium est, insequi dissimiles; neque enim satis amarit bonos principes, qui malos satis non oderit.[24]
All that I say and have said, Conscript Fathers, about previous emperors is intended to show how our Father is amending and reforming the character of the principate which had become debased by a long period of corruption. Indeed, eulogy is best expressed through comparison, and, moreover, the first duty of grateful subjects towards a perfect emperor is to attack those who are least like him: for no one can properly appreciate a good prince who does not sufficiently hate a bad one.
Pliny's panegyric thus posits a bold and sweeping contrast between political good and evil, as the vicious past is superseded by the virtuous present.
The structural and thematic pattern of Pliny's panegyric is elaborated and particularized by his imitators. In the fourth century, for example, Latinus Drepanius Pacatus
[24] Pliny the Younger, Panegyricus, sec. 53, Pliny, Letters and Panegyricus, trans. Betty Radice, Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1969), II, 440–442. All translations from Pliny's panegyric are by Betty Radice.
shapes the contrast between past and present into a contrast between usurpation and restoration. In his panegyric to Theodosius, Pacatus identifies the evil past with Maximus, the usurping tyrant, and the joyous present with Theodosius, the perfect prince. The orator takes special delight in his narration of the rise and fall of the usurper. The effects of usurpation and tyranny are vividly portrayed in a passage where Maximus, dressed in the purple, is seen surveying the fruits of his (temporary) triumph:
Hic aurum matronarum manibus extractum, illic raptae pupillorum cervicibus bullae, istic dominorum cruore perfusum appendebatur argentum.[25]
Here one was weighing the gold torn from the hands of matrons, there the ornaments ripped from the necks of orphans, elsewhere the silver drenched with the blood of its owners.
No less vivid is the bloody description of the final defeat of Maximus's forces:
Datur debito rebelle agmen exitio, volvuntur impiae in sanguine suo turbae, tegit totos strages una campos continuisque funeribus cuncta late operiuntur.[26]
The army of rebellion is delivered to its due destruction, the impious battalions roll in their own blood, the whole plain disappears under a single heap of bodies and, without end, corpses cover the earth.
The contest between political good and evil is resolved, by war in this case, and political equilibrium is restored. By violating the ideals of peace, stability, and order, the
[25] Latinus Drepanius Pacatus, Panegyricus Latini Pacati Drepani Dictus Theodosio, sec. 26, XII Panegyrici Latini, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1964), pp. 102–103.
[26] Pacatus, sec. 34.
"impious" Maximus becomes the characteristic villain of panegyrical oratory, a villain of far more dangerous proportions than either Nero or Domitian.
Renaissance imitators of Pliny preserve the basic historical pattern of the panegyric to Trajan, although they naturally vary the circumstantial details. Erasmus, who acknowledges Pliny as his master in this kind of oratory, organizes his panegyric around the absence and return of Archduke Philip, to whom the oration is addressed. As Erasmus shows in great detail, the return of the prince brings national rejuvenation: in art, in commerce, in public morality, in religion, in scholarship, even in nature. Indirectly, however, celebration of the monarch's return involves criticism of his absence; Erasmus implicitly associates Philip with the dislocated past as well as the glorious present. In one extended passage, for example, he offers a list of the prince's responsibilities, all of which Philip has shirked by voluntarily leaving the country.[27] Later in life, moreover, Erasmus used Philip's irresponsibility as a negative moral exemplum in the Institutio Principis Christiani .
[There] is nothing more harmful and disastrous to a country, nor more dangerous for a prince, than visits to far-away places, especially if these visits are prolonged; for it was this, according to the opinion of everyone, that took Philip from us and injured his kingdom. . . . The king bee is hedged about in the midst of the swarm and does not fly out and away. The heart is situated in the very middle of the body. Just so should a prince always be found among his own people.[28]
[27] Erasmus, Panegyricus, in Opera Omnia, ed. J. LeClerc, 10 vols. (Hildesheim, 1962), IV, 548F.
[28] Erasmus, The Education of the Christian Prince, trans. Lester K. Born (New York, 1936), p. 208. In his excellent introduction,Professor Born recognizes the importance of Latin panegyric in shaping Erasmus's conception of the ideal monarch. See also Lester K. Born, "The Perfect Prince According to the Latin Panegyrists," American Journal of Philology, IV (1934), 20–35.
As the first edition of the institutio was followed in the same volume by the panegyricus, it is possible to regard this passage as a gloss on the earlier work. Instead of contrasting Philip with some Renaissance Domitian, Erasmus finds in Philip's absence a perfect foil for celebrating his return.
The flexibility of the prius . . .nunc . . . pattern is demonstrated in a panegyric addressed to James I in 1604, John Gordon's England and Scotlands Happinesse . . . A Panegyrique of Congratulation for the concord of the realmes of great Brittaine, in unitie of religion under one King. Gordon considers Elizabeth and James as ideal monarchs in contrast to the Pope, who is indicted for "usurping upon the Kings of the Western Empire."[29] James consolidates the achievement of Elizabeth, "restoring . . . the true Church" and crushing "heresie and Romish Idolatry."[30] The contrast between evil and good, past and present, is focused by Gordon's elaboration on the union of the two crowns.
The people (Sire) of the Ilands of great Brittaine, were not united in religion, in peace, in concorde, in like affections and will under one King, but they have beene long banded one agaynst an other, in a Sea of discordes, discentions, and cruell
[29] John Gordon, England and Scotlands Happinesse . . . A Panegyrique of Congratulation for the concord of the realmes of great Brittaine, in unitie of religion under one King (London, 1604), p. 5. I have used the facsimile reprint in The English Experience series, no. 461 (Amsterdam, 1972).
[30] Gordon, p. 47.
warres, against the decree and lawe of God. . . . But now that the light of the Gospell, the true worshippe of one God hath taken lively and sure roote in their hartes under the fortunate raygne of the deceased Queene, and under your happy and lawefull succession in these Realmes, they are become of one heart, of one affection, and finally beeing made the true people of God, they have obtained blessing, grace and mercie.[31]
As in Latin and neo-Latin panegyric, so now in English panegyric, historical events are shaped into an ideal pattern of restored order, concord, and peace.
Although Evelyn claims to offer his panegyric to Charles II "spontaneously, and by Instinct, without Artifice,"[32] in actual fact he has conflated the traditional variations on the original pattern established by Pliny. Past degeneration, usurpation, absence, and discord are suddenly and miraculously replaced in the present by regeneration, restoration, return, and concord.
Let us then call to mind (and yet for ever cursed be the memory of it) those dismal clouds, which lately orespread us, when we served the lusts of those immane Usurpers, greedy of power, that themselves might be under none; Cruel, that they might murther the Innocent without cause; Rich, with the public poverty; strong, by putting the sword into the hands of furies, and prosperous by unheard of perfidie. . . . But I will not go too far in repeating the sorrowes which are vanish't, or uncover the buried memory of the evils past; least whilst we strive to represent the vices of others, we seem to contaminate your Sacred purple, or alloy our present rejoycing; since that only is sign of a perfect and consummate felicity, when even the very remembrance of evils past, is quite forgotten.[33]
[31] Gordon, pp. 3–4.
[32] Evelyn, p. 3.
[33] Evelyn, p. 4.
If there is anything besides circumstantial detail that distinguishes Evelyn's panegyric from those of his predecessors, it is his repeated allusion to "Providence" and divine "miracle." The contrast between prince and usurper, for example, here becomes a contrast between heavenly and earthly power. "But whilst Armies on earth fought for the Usurper, the Hosts of Heaven fought in their courses for your Majesty."[34] The return of the divinely sanctioned king is a "Miraculous Reverse" that initiates a whole new era of human history. "And let it be a new year, a new Aera, to all the future Generations, as it is the beginning of this, and of that immense, Platonic Revolution . . ."[35] In Evelyn's panegyric the traditional theme of restoration, inherited from Pliny and transmitted by panegyrists like Pacatus, Erasmus, and Gordon, assumes cosmic overtones.
If the monarch is sanctioned by divine authority, however, he is also subjected to human restraint. This aspect of traditional panegyric often called for special comment in Evelyn's day. In the preface to his translation of Pliny, for example, White Kennet struggled to reconcile his own idea of divine right with Pliny's emphatic restriction on the emperor's power. Early in the oration Pliny insists that Trajan owes his eminent position to the goodwill of the senate and the consent of the people:
audiebas senatus populique consensum: non unius Nervae iudicium illud, illa electio fuit.[36]
[You] were told that the Senate and people approved, and this choice and decision were not Nerva's alone, but the heart-felt prayer of the whole country.
[34] Evelyn, p. 7.
[35] Evelyn, pp. 4–5.
[36] Pliny, sec. 10.
Responding to this passage, and particularly to the word electio, Kennet counters with criticism of Trajan.
After all, the most natural deduction, which I conceive this passage capable of, is this, that such flashes of good nature in a Prince may be of very hurtful consequence, they prostitute his honour, Alienate his Authority, and make all the rabble an execrable High Court of Justice. . . . Whereas 'tis at the best an unwary vapour, an undigested slant of popularity, to the quest whereof this Prince was too abundantly addicted . . .[37]
In the next English version of the speech, on the other hand, this passage is translated with the added emphasis of italics. "[You] had the Consent of the Senate and People: 'twas not the single Judgment of Nerva, but their Election . . . [38] The translator, George Smith, pointedly dedicated this translation to the Electress Sophia of Hanover, then heir to the English throne occupied by Queen Anne. From their different political perspectives, both Kennet and Smith perceived the limiting force of Pliny's statement. From the time of Pliny to the time of Evelyn, the theme of restoration coexists in panegyric with the theme of limitation. Pliny provides the basis for the development of this theme when he observes that the emperor is subject to the law:
Quod ego nunc primum audio, nunc primum disco; non est princeps super leges sed leges super principem . . .[39]
[37] White Kennet, trans., An Address of Thanks To A Good Prince Presented in the Panegyrick of Pliny upon Trajan, The Best of the Roman Emperours (London, 1686), p. xvii.
[38] George Smith, trans., Pliny's Panegyrick Upon the Emperor Trajan, 2d ed. (London, 1730), p. 42.
[39] Pliny, sec. 65.
There is a new turn of phrase which I hear and understand for the first time—not "the prince is above the law" but "the law is above the prince."
This passage also upset Kennet, who comments that such a notion would destroy "the prime and fundamental prerogative of Princes, their being unaccountable to any but God."[40] Although earlier in his preface Kennet had derided the principle as "unheard of," he concludes by warning that it was "the very Principle our late Regicides proceeded on."[41] That Kennet could find in Pliny's panegyric anything so patently subversive as a theoretical prescription for regicide indicates a degree of complexity in this form that we might not at first have suspected. Indeed, Pliny himself raises at least the specter of regicide when he compares Trajan to Lucius Junius Brutus.[42] Following Pliny's example, Pacatus asserts that during the reign of Theodosius, even Brutus—in this case Marcus Junius Brutus—would be content with the institution of kingship.[43] Both allusions, whether to the fate of Tarquinius Superbus or to that of Julius Caesar, suggest the ultimate human restraint on kingship: assassination. Although the note of warning in these classical panegyrics is indirect and subdued, it is unmistakably present, as Kennet's reading of Pliny demonstrates.
Although Renaissance panegyrists do not ignore the exemplum of assassination, they normally are more practical, more forceful, and yet less extreme in defining the limits of monarchical power. Erasmus, for example, guides Philip of Burgundy toward patronage of the arts by restricting him to a peaceful foreign policy. Erasmus
[40] Kennet, p. xviii.
[41] Kennet, p. xviii.
[42] Pliny, sec. 55.
[43] Pacatus, sec. 20.
insists that a prince who fritters away his energies in foreign wars (or even in foreign journeys) denies himself the greatest tribute the world has to pay a prince: recognition as one who rosters the spirit of scholarship and literature. Erasmus rises eloquently to this theme in his peroration.
Litteraturae . . . quae quoniam jam olim in Graecia, jam pridem in Italia, nuper etiam in Gallia . . . incommode coeperunt haberi, nimirum propter tumultum bellorum, et clangorem tubarum, a quibus vehementer abhorrent, quippe pacis filiae, tranquillitatis alumnae, fortassis in hanc tuam ditionem non invite demigrabunt.[44]
Because long before now in Greece, a long time ago in Italy, and even recently in France, the literary arts began to be held in less than proper esteem, undoubtedly on account of the tumult of warfare and the blare of war-trumpets from which they shrink back in horror—these literary arts which are in truth the daughters of peace and the children of tranquility perhaps will change their abode not unwillingly to the land of your sway.
By thus championing the twin causes of peace and literature, Erasmus attempts to channel monarchical power in fruitful rather than wasteful directions.
Just as Erasmus presses his own interests on Archduke Philip, so John Gordon presses his on James I. But Gordon is more devious in developing the theme of limitation. To persuade James that the "restoring and reformation of the auncient Church," begun by Elizabeth, "must be finished by you," Gordon makes the king's power contingent on the completion of this task.[45] If, instead, James
[44] Erasmus, Panegyricus, LeClerc, IV, 549C.
[45] Gordon, pp. 42–43.
should "cleave unto . . . that great whore of Babilon" (the Catholic church), he will become a slave.[46]
Most humbly beseeching your Majesty to remember that the Popes pretend to be the true kings of England and Ireland houlding the Kinges of the said kingdoms for their vassals and tributaries; who now under colour to free you from their said pretensions, would draw you unto them, and impose upon you a most heavy and servile yoake.[47]
In effect, Gordon prescribes a modest limitation on the king's power by carefully envisioning the alternative, severe limitation, even slavery. In their different ways, then, Renaissance panegyrists like Erasmus and Gordon follow their ancient predecessors and attempt to restrict, or at least channel, the exercise of monarchical power.
It is in light of this persistent theme that we can appreciate a crucial sententia of Evelyn's panegyric: "If the Republick belong then to Caesar, Caesar belongs much more to the Republick. . ."[48] It is worth noting that just one decade earlier essentially the same "sentence" had been used to justify revolution against the Stuart monarchy. In his first defense of the English people, Milton writes that "a king exists for the people, not the people for the king."[49] It is even possible that Milton would have agreed with Evelyn's explanation of the idea, an explanation which aptly summarizes the significance
[46] Gordon, p. 45.
[47] Gordon, p. 45.
[48] Evelyn, p. 9.
[49] John Milton, A Defence of the People of England, trans. Donald Mackenzie, Complete Prose Works of John Milton, ed. Don M. Wolfe, 4 vols. to date (New Haven and London, 1953-), IV, i, 470. Milton also cites the panegyrics of both Claudian and Pliny in defense of the English people, pp. 389, 445–446, 466.
of the limitation theme by returning us to Pliny's leges super principem .
Nor indeed do you desire any thing should be permitted your Majesty, but what is indulg'd your Vassals, subjecting even your self to those Lawes by which you oblige your Subjects; For as it is a great felicity to be able to do what one will, so is it much more glorious, to will only what is just and honourable.[50]
The same king whom Evelyn celebrates as the divine "restorer" of his country is limited by human laws and by human concepts of what is "just and honourable." Central to the tradition of panegyric is the attempt to reconcile in one oration the themes of restoration and limitation.
The significance of this thematic reconciliation cannot be explained away or dismissed as "mere flattery." Although the panegyrist is patently vulnerable to the charge of ignoble purpose, the orators who follow Pliny persistently attempt to refute this charge. Pliny, to begin with, makes the candor of his speech a tribute to the freedom allowed under the new administration, rejecting the servile blandishments that were previously the custom.[51] Erasmus goes further, citing with approval the example of Alexander Severus, who had court flatterers beheaded.[52] Evelyn, likewise, insists that Charles is above flattery.[53] What makes these disclaimers convincing are
[50] Evelyn, p. 9. Similarly, Milton writes: "It is then not the people alone on whom such obedience is enjoined, but kings as well, who are in no way above the law." Milton, A Defence of the People of England, Wolfe. IV, i, 383.
[51] Pliny, sec. 2.
[52] Erasmus, Panegyricus, LeClerc, IV, 534A.
[53] Evelyn, p. 10.
the alternative motives that the orations themselves suggest, motives perceived, moreover, by Renaissance commentators. The Warwick recorder of 1572, we should recall, views panegyric as a didactic oration, designed to "put [princes] in mynde of their office and government."[54] Thomas Farnaby, on the other hand, sees panegyric as propaganda, designed to "exhort the nation to joy, obedience, and concord."[55] White Kennet expresses both of these purposes in his preface to Pliny's panegyric: instruction aimed at the king and propaganda aimed at the people.[56]
In panegyric, then, we are dealing not only with two themes but with two audiences as well. The theme of restoration, elaborated in a ceremonial way, serves the function of popular propaganda. By celebrating the current monarch in relation to a historical pattern that is made to seem inevitable or providential, the orator solicits the obedience of the people. The theme of limitation, on the other hand, is directed toward the king. Often elaborated in the context of a topos on royal education, the function of this theme is to instruct or to advise, or even to warn the king that he is not a law unto himself. These two motives—propaganda and instruction—are expressly avowed by Erasmus in his epistolary discussion of panegyric. On the one hand: "even when a sovereign is not the best of men, those over whom he rules should think the best of him." On the other: "For there is no such efficacious mode of making a prince better, as that of
[54] The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, ed. John Nichols, 3 vols. (London, 1823), I, 311.
[55] Farnaby, p. 13.
[56] Kennet, "Preface." See above, chap. 1, "Critical Definition."
setting before him, under the guise of praise, the example of a good sovereign, provided you so attribute virtues and deny vices, as to persuade him to the former and deter him from the latter."[57]
To translate Erasmus's observations into rhetorical terms, we can say that panegyric is a hybrid kind of oratory, at once demonstrative (laudatory) and deliberative (advisory). There is, moreover, support for this formulation in the rhetoric books. Noting that the distinctions among the three kinds of oratory are not rigid, Aristotle goes on to explain: "Deliberative and demonstrative eloquence have one point of agreement. They may be converted easily into each other. That which, in deliberation, has been given as counsel, may, by a slight verbal change, be employed as a topic of praise."[58] Enlarging this "point of agreement" with particular reference to panegyric, Quintilian writes: "Will any one deny the title of epideictic [i.e., demonstrative] to panegyric? But yet panegyrics are advisory in form and frequently discuss the interests of Greece.[59] Even the Dionysius rhetoric provides brief acknowledgment of the advisory as well as the laudatory aspect of this kind of oration. In this author's ideal panegyric, section 4 (discussion of the contests being held) would recommend to the audience (which includes the king) education for both body and soul, gymnastic for the one and music for the
[57] Erasmus, "Epistle 177" and "Epistle 176," The Epistles of Erasmus, trans. Francis Morgan Nichols, 3 vols. (London, 1901), I, 367, 364.
[58] Aristotle, Rhetoric, book 1, chap. 9.
[59] Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, book 3, chap. 4, Quintilian, trans. H. E. Butler, Loeb Classical Library, 4 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), I, 395.
other.[60] Although Renaissance rhetoricians place panegyric in the demonstrative category without much hesitation, they too offer a good reason for considering the panegyric also as deliberative. They frequently distinguish the three branches of oratory according to the temporal relationship between the orator and his subject. That is, judicial oratory concerns the past, demonstrative the present, and deliberative the future. Insofar as panegyric concentrates on the future, it should be classed as deliberative.
In sum, the theme of restoration, which celebrates the present moment as a turning point in national history, defines panegyric as demonstrative oratory. The theme of limitation, which focuses the king's attention on his political future, defines panegyric as deliberative oratory. It is, in fact, both.
Panegyric cannot, however, entirely escape the common censure of "flattery" by claiming other motives. The very defensiveness of many Renaissance commentaries is a sufficient indication that there is some truth to the charges brought against this kind of oratory. Erasmus, for example, is especially touchy on this subject, and in his letters feels obliged to argue the issue of flattery not only with his contemporaries but also with such thinkers as Socrates and Saint Augustine. "Another difficulty was this, that the simplicity of my character, to speak honestly, somewhat shrank from this kind of writing, to which that sentence of Socrates seems alone, or mainly, to apply, when he says that Rhetoric is one of three parts flattery. And yet this kind of ours [i.e ., panegyric] is not
[60] The "Dionysius Rhetoric," chap. 1.
so much praise as admonition . . ."[61] These typical reservations can be placed in perspective by considering more carefully the function of the laus regis as it is derived from Pliny.
Pliny praises Trajan by idealizing him according to the emperor's assumed title, optimus princeps . The oration is nominally about Trajan, of course, but the real basis of the laus regis is Pliny's own conception of the perfect prince.[62] Thus, in the tradition that stems from this address, orators are primarily concerned not with the deeds and achievements of actual men, but rather with the portrayal of the ideal monarch. Erasmus acknowledges this conception of the laus regis when he writes: "Lastly these orations are also written for posterity, and for the world; and in this view it is of little importance, in whose person the example of a good sovereign is put before the public, provided it is so skillfully done, that the intelligent may see the effect was not to deceive but to admonish."[63] Evelyn confirms this conception when he actually addresses Charles, "O best Idea of Princes . . ."[64] Charles, like Trajan and Philip before him, is the temporary embodiment of an inherited ideal. The flattery involved in panegyric is the initial assumption that a particular monarch is to be identified with this ideal. Once this assumption is granted, however, it becomes evident that the speech is only incidentally a matter of flattery, for the real subject of panegyric is the optimus princeps, or the "best of Kings."
[61] Erasmus, "Epistle 176."
[62] This point has been made by Born, "The Perfect Prince According to the Latin Panegyrists."
[63] Erasmus, "Epistle 177."
[64] Evelyn, p. 14.
In the laus regis, moreover, the demonstrative and deliberative purposes of panegyric coincide. The portrayal of the perfect prince functions both as popular propaganda and as royal instruction. But to see more clearly how the themes of restoration and limitation are reconciled in the figure of the king, we need to consider first the linguistic texture of panegyric and especially the recurrent patterns of imagery. For this we can focus on the derivative tradition of verse panegyric, beginning with the poetry of Claudius Claudianus.
Poetry
Deriving his topics directly from the tradition of panegyrical oratory, Claudian embellishes the themes of restoration and limitation with images and allusions that recur in the verse panegyrics of the Renaissance. To isolate the more influential metaphoric patterns, we can concentrate on the restoration theme as it is expressed in the Panegyricus De Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti and the limitation theme as it is elaborated in the Panegyricus De Quarto Consulatu Honorii Augusti .[65]
Claudian's last panegyric, on the sixth consulship of Honorius, was recited not at Milan like the earlier panegyrics to the emperor, but rather at Rome.[66] Claudian
[65] Although it is more convenient for purposes of illustration to discuss the two themes by reference to different poems, it should be emphasized that the themes of restoration and limitation are important in both panegyrics.
[66] For a biographical and historical discussion of Claudian's panegyrics, see Alan Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda at the Court of Honorius (Oxford, 1970). This is by far the best study available on Claudian. For a specific discussion of Claudian'srelationship to the oratorical tradition of panegyric, see L. B. Struthers, "The Rhetorical Structure of the Encomia of Claudius Claudian," Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, XXX (1919), 49–87. For a more general but more useful consideration of this problem, see O. B. Hardison, Jr., The Enduring Monument: A Study of the Idea of Praise in Renaissance Theory and Practice (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962), pp. 24–36, and E. R. Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (New York, 1953), pp. 154–166, 174–182. In the background of all of these studies lies Theodore C. Burgess's Epideictic Literature (Chicago, 1902).
seizes upon this circumstance to celebrate not only the restoration of past Roman glories but also the return of the emperor to the imperial city. The poet embellishes the idea of restoration by defining an arrested cyclical pattern of history in natural, mythological, and historical metaphors. The return of the emperor brings, for example, revival of the laurels on the Palatine hill, laurels which are then cut to grace Roman standards for the parades in honor of the occasion.[67] These ceremonies serve the additional purpose of celebrating the recent Roman "victory" over the rebellious Alaric, whose impiety is established by allusions to Phaethon and the Titans.[68] Honorius himself is celebrated by comparison with figures from Roman history: he is Trajan returning after the Dacian campaign and Marcus Aurelius returning after his war against the Marcomanni.[69] These images of nature, myth, and history are combined to express the restoration of ancient Roman majesty, proclaimed in the opening lines of the poem.
[67] Claudian, Panegyricus De Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti, lines 35–38, Claudian, trans. Maurice Platnauer, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1922), II, 76.
[68] Claudian, VI Cons., 178ff
[69] Claudian, VI Cons., 311ff.
Aurea Fortunae Reduci si templa priores
ob reditum vovere ducum, non dignius umquam
haec dea pro meritis amplas sibi posceret aedes,
quam sua cum pariter trabeis reparatur et urbi
maiestas . . . (1–5)
If our ancestors vowed temples to "Home-bringing Fortune" in honour of the return of their generals, never would this goddess more worthily claim for her services a noble temple than when their proper majesty is restored alike to the consulship and to Rome.
This pattern of restored majesty does, moreover, function as propaganda. The comparison between Alaric and Phaethon makes this especially clear. Aimed at anyone who would support or imitate Alaric, Claudian's allusion to Phaethon is carefully explained by the river god Eridanus, who is personified for just this rhetorical purpose.
nec te meus, improbe, saltem
terruit exemplo Phaëthon, qui fulmina praeceps
in nostris efflavit aquis, dum flammea caeli
flectere terrenis meditatur frena lacertis
mortalique diem sperat diffundere vultu?
crede mihi, simili bacchatur crimine, quisquis
adspirat Romae spoliis aut Solis habenis . (186–192)
If none other, was not my Phaëthon a warning to thee, Phaëthon fall'n from heaven to quench his flames in my waters, what time he sought with mortal hand to hold the fiery reins of the sky and hoped to spread day's brilliance from a mortal countenance? Tis the same mad crime, I tell thee, whosoever aspires to spoil Rome or drive the sun's chariot.
Phaethon should have been a warning to Alaric, and Alaric himself now becomes a warning to anyone else who might be tempted to disobey the monarch. Crimes against the state become crimes against nature. What is
restored in this poem is not just Roman majesty, but the very order of the universe, which had been temporarily upset by the madness of the Phaethon figure, Alaric.
The complementary theme of limitation Claudian expresses most vigorously in his panegyric on the fourth consulship of Honorius.
In commune iubes si quid censesque tenendum, / primus iussa subi: tunc observantior aequi / fit populus nec ferre negat, cum viderit ipsum / auctorem parere sibi.[70]
If thou make any law or establish any custom for the general good, be the first to submit thyself thereto; then does a people show more regard for justice nor refuse submission when it has seen their author obedient to his own laws.
The concept of limitation by law, which recalls the injunctions of Pliny and anticipates those of Evelyn, is elaborated in familiar metaphors. The sun image, for example, is here developed by reference to Phoebus rather than to Phaethon.
nonne vides, operum quod se pulcherrimus ipse
mundus amore liget, nec vi conexa per aevum
conspirent elementa sibi? quod limite Phoebus
contentus medio, contentus litore pontus
et, qui perpetuo terras ambitaue vehitque,
nec premat incumbens oneri nec cesserit aër? (284–289)
Seest thou not how the fair frame of the very universe binds itself together by love, and how the elements, not united by violence, are for ever at harmony among themselves? Dost thou not mark how that Phoebus is content not to outstep the limits of his path, nor the sea those of his kingdom, and how the air, which in its eternal embrace encircles and upholds the world, presses not upon us with too heavy a weight nor yet yields to the burden which itself sustains?
[70] Claudian, IV Cons., lines 296–299, Platnauer, I, 308.
The ideal of natural order and harmony can be preserved only if each of the natural elements stays within its own set boundaries. This includes the sun and, by analogy, the emperor, to whom these lines are directly addressed. To emphasize the theme of limitation, Claudian later alludes to the unhappy fates of Julius Caesar and Tarquinius Superbus.
Romani, qui cuncta diu rexere, regendi, / qui nec Tarquinii fastus nec iura tulere / Caesaris (309–311).
Thou must govern Romans who have long governed the world, Romans who brooked not Tarquin's pride nor Caesar's tyranny.
If, in effect, the emperor does not respect the limits of the law, he will eventually be checked by the popular will.
Once again the panegyrist evokes an image of assassination.
The purpose of the limitation theme is, however, not to threaten but to instruct the emperor.[71] The central
[71] Cameron argues that this part of the speech would not have been taken seriously by either Claudian or his audience. Although it is easy to be cynical about the fourth century, Cameron's suggestion that Honorius may have even fallen asleep during the panegyric seems to me gratuitously negative. I have taken the instructions of Theodosius to Honorius seriously here because my interest is in the later influence of the panegyric. During the Renaissance, Claudian's advice to the emperor was taken very seriously indeed. Perhaps the most perceptive observation on this panegyric is still Edward Gibbon's: "The lessons of Theodosius, or rather Claudian (iv Cons. Honor. 214–418) might compose a fine institution for the future prince of a great and free nation. It was far above Honorius and his degenerate subjects." Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chap. 19 (386–398 A.D.), fn. 62, Modern Library Edition, 3 vols. (New York, n.d.), II, 90. For further discussion, see Cameron, p. 381.
third of the poem, from which the above passages have been extracted, is devoted entirely to the education of Honorius. Claudian sets forth his instructions to the emperor by creating a flashback in which the emperor's father, Theodosius, is imagined to be educating his son in the arts of government. In the course of this speech the father gives his son models of conduct. Chief among these is, predictably, Trajan.
victurac feretur
gloria Traiani, non tam quod Tieride victo
nostra triumphati fuerint provincia Parthi,
alta quod invectus fractis Capitolia Dacis,
quam patriae quod mitis erat . (315–319)
The fame of Trajan will never die, not so much because, thanks to his victories on the Tigris, conquered Parthia became a Roman province, not because he brake the might of Dacia and led their chiefs in triumph up the slope of the Capitol, but because he was kindly to his country.
By minimizing Trajan's military success and emphasizing instead his kindness toward the people, Claudian suggests his conception of the optimus princeps and provides a model which Honorius must follow:
ne desine tales, / nate, sequi (319–320).
Fail not to make such as he thine example, my son.
By modeling his conduct on the kindness of Trajan, the emperor will win the love of his people:
non extorquebis amari; /hoc alterna fides, hoc simplex gratia donat (282–283).
Love thou canst not extort; it is the gift of mutual faith and honest good will.
Claudian's panegyrics thus illustrate the truth of Aristotle's observation that "by a slight verbal change" the demonstrative can be converted into the deliberative. The same natural, mythological, and historical images that define the demonstrative theme of restoration can be modified to develop the deliberative theme of limitation. The combined significance of these two themes in the panegyrics of Claudian is perhaps captured in the last citation above. The demonstrative function of these poems is to secure the faith of the people in their ruler, whereas the deliberative function is to secure the faith of the ruler in the people. The ultimate purpose is to reconcile emperor and subjects, to achieve mutual trust, or alterna fides . Nor does this purpose die with Claudian. As we shall see, English poets of the Renaissance like Samuel Daniel and Ben Jonson borrow segments from Claudian's panegyrics to help reconcile the English monarchs and the English people.
But Daniel and Jonson did not have to look all the way back to Claudian for models of verse panegyric. The neo-Latin poetry of the sixteenth century supplies important examples of the genre written by the humanists. To the published version of his Panegyricus, Erasmus added a poem of about one hundred lines. Although labeled a Gratulatorium Carmen, Erasmus writes that the poem is "of the same texture" as the panegyric, but "of an impromptu kind."[72] Five years later Thomas More followed suit with a Carmen Gratulatorium honoring the coronation of Henry VIII. Although it is no doubt true that roughly similar poems had been written on English soil in earlier times, More's poem can be taken to mark the
[72] Erasmus, "Epistle 177."
beginning of the panegyrical tradition in England that leads finally to Dryden. Whereas the coronation of Henry VIII's father had been celebrated in doggerel Latin by the Augustinian friar Bernardus Andreas, his daughter Elizabeth was greeted in remarkably fine neo-Latin verse by the humanist Walter Haddon. In 1603, Daniel diverted this neo-Latin tradition into English with his "panegyrike congratulatorie," thereby uniting the classical and neo-Latin names for the genre.
A full century before Daniel's poem appeared, Erasmus celebrated the return of Archduke Philip by shaping natural metaphors into a pattern of diurnal and seasonal change. The whole poem is organized around a contrast between absence and return, winter and spring, night and day. The recent past is darkness, winter, night, in contrast to the light, spring, day of the present. In this metaphoric elaboration of the restoration theme, the king becomes the sun.
Sic simul auricomus se condidit aequore Titan
Mox perit haec nitidi facies pulcherrima mundi,
Pigra quies subit et nigrantibus horrida pennis
Nox operit mortique simillimus omnia torpor;
Rursum ubi purpureis aurora revecta quadrigis
Rorantes tenero detexit lumine terras,
Cuique repente sua species redit atque renasci
Cuncta putes blandoque magis iuvenescere vultu .[73]
In this way as soon as the golden-haired Titan had hidden himself in the sea, then this extremely beautiful appearance of the splendid universe disappears, a sluggish stillness comes
[73] Erasmus, lllustrissimo principi Philippo feliciter in patriam redeunti gratulatorium carmen Erasmi sub persona patriae, lines 32–39, The Poems of Desiderius Erasmus, ed. C. Reedijk (Leiden, 1956), p. 273.
up, and frightful night on black wings and a numbness very much like death cover everything; but again when Aurora is borne back on her bright, rosy-colored chariot and with her gentle light has disclosed the dew-covered earth, each thing suddenly regains its unique appearance, and you would think that everything is being reborn and becoming still younger because of the charming countenance of Aurora.
If light thus returns with the king, so too does the spring.
Quum procul hinc aberas squalebant omnia luctu,
Mox ut saluus ades renitescunt omnia cultu.
Sic ubi tristis hyems aquilonibus asperat auras
Nuda senescit humus, moerent sine floribus horti,
Torpescunt amnes, languet sine frondibus arbos,
Stat sine fruge seges, marcent sine gramine campi;
Rursus ubi zephyris tepidum spirantibus anni
Leta iuventa redit, gemmantur floribus horti,
Effugiunt amnes, revirescit frondibus arbos,
Fruge nitent segetes, hilarescunt gramine campi . (22–51)
When you were far away from here, everything was in a state of neglect due to grief; then as soon as you are here safe and sound, everything glows again with care and cultivation. Thus when bitter winter makes the breezes harsh with north winds, the bare ground lies wasted and spent with age, gardens are in mourning without flowers, rivers become sluggish, trees are lifeless without their leaves, the grainfield lies barren of its crop, the plains dry up without grass; again when spring returns with west winds blowing warmly, gardens are studded with flower buds like jewels, rivers are free to flow, trees become green and alive again with foliage, grain fields flourish in their crop, the plains delight in their grass.
Natural change symbolizes political and institutional change, as the return of the king is transformed into an event of universal significance. This is not just a new day or new year, but a new age.
The natural imagery of the poem underlines the larger significance of the occasion by asking us to view the king as a mythic figure, as a vegetation deity. The emphasis on seasonal rejuvenation and returning light even suggests a parallel with the Christian celebration of Easter. The imagery in this poem to Philip is, in fact, comparable to that in Erasmus' poem on Christ's triumphant harrowing of Hell and His joyous return. Here too we find the revival of nature.
Florida plaudit humus, fundat sua munera tellus,
Squallorem excutiat, blandis se floribus ornet .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Terris haec celebranda dies, nova gaudia terris
Christus agit superis nondum gustata vel ipsis .[74]
The flowering ground applauds; the earth pours forth its gifts, shakes off its squalor, and decks itself in charming blossoms. . . . This is a day which should be celebrated by the earth; Christ brings new joy to the world—joy not yet savored by even the heavens above.
The celebranda dies of this poem seems very similar to the semper memoranda dies that is the occasion for the verse panegyric to Philip. Although Erasmus does not explicitly compare Philip to Christ, his imagery does suggest the possibility of elaborating the restoration theme by allusion to the resurrection. More importantly, Erasmus adds a potential Christian dimension to the classical figure of the optimus princeps .
Although Thomas More develops his Carmen Gratulatorium of 1509 according to the prius . . .nunc . . .
[74] Erasmus, Carmen heroicum de solemnitate paschali atque de tryumphali Christi resurgentis pompa et descensu eius ad inferos, lines 11–12, 27–28, Reedijk, p. 191.
pattern elaborated by Erasmus, his poem is designed for immediate, practical application by the new king. In this poem the dark past is not just the night or the winter; it is also, emphatically, the reign of Henry VII. The contrast between the two kings, like that between the emperors Domitian and Trajan in Pliny's panegyric, is expressed by contrasting past and present conditions in the state.
Nobilitas, vulgi iamdudum obnoxia faeci,
Nobilitas, minium nomen inane diu,
Nunc caput attolit, nunc tali rege triumphat,
Et merito causas unde triumphat habet.
Mercator variis deterritus ante tributis,
Nunc maris insuetas puppe resulcat aquas.
Leges invalidae prius, imo nocere coactae,
Nunc vires gaudent obtinuisse suas.
Congaudent omnes pariter pariterque rependunt
Omnes venturo damna priora bono .[75]
The nobility, long since at the mercy of the dregs of the population, the nobility, whose title has been too long without meaning, now lifts its head, now rejoices in such a king, and has proper reason for rejoicing. The merchant, heretofore deterred by numerous taxes, now once again plows seas grown unfamiliar. Laws, heretofore powerless—yes, even laws put to unjust ends—now happily have regained their proper authority. All are equally happy. All compare their earlier losses with the advantages to come.
[75] Thomas More, In Suscepti Diadematis Diem Henrici Octavi, Illustrissimi Ac Faustissimi Britanniarum Regis Ac Catherinae Reginae Eius Felicissimae, Thomae Mori Londoniensis Carmen Gratulatorium, lines 19–26, The Latin Epigrams of Thomas More, ed. and trans. Leicester Bradner and Charles Arthur Lynch (Chicago, 1953), pp. 16–17. All translations from this poem are by Leicester Bradner and Charles Arthur Lynch.
Thus "exhorting to virtue under pretext of praise," More goes on to recommend harsh laws against informers, light mercantile taxes, and employment at court of educated men. Very much in the specific manner of Theodosius's speech to Honorius, More carefully instructs the new king. The twist in this poem, however, is that the king's father is not his instructor, but rather his model of how not to rule.
This broad limitation on the king's power—"don't rule as your father ruled"—is later spelled out against the background of potential civil war. More asks, in effect, for a guarantee that the king will not use troops to terrorize the people.
Nominibus populus multis obnoxius omnis
Regi erat: hoc unum pertimuitque malum.
At rex, hinc metui quum posset, posset et inde
Congerere immensas, si voluisset, opes.
Omnibus ignovit: securos reddidit omnes,
Sollicitique malum substulit omne metus . (1l4–119)
The whole people used to be, on many counts, exposed to danger from the king; this in particular they feared. A king, since he could thus inspire fear, could also, if he wished, accumulate untold wealth. Our prince [Henry VIII] ignored this opportunity in every case, freed them all from care, and entirely removed the evil practice which caused their anxious fears.
By condemning former kings who inspired popular fear, More indirectly defines the optimus princeps as a man of peace. Significantly, too, he locates the source of the king's power not in the sword, but in the love of his subjects.
Ergo alios populi reges timuere, sed istum,
Per quem nunc nihil est quod timeatur, amant .
Hostibus O princeps multum metuende superbis,
O populo princeps non metuende tuo,
Illi te metuunt: nos te veneramur, amamus.
Illis noster erit, cur metuaris, amor.
Sic te securum demptoaue satellite tutum
Undique praestabunt hinc amor, inde timor . (120–127)
And so it is that subjects have always feared kings; but this king, who has banished fear, his subjects love. 0 Prince, terror to your proud enemies but not to your own people, it is your enemies who fear you: we revere and love you. Our love for you will prove the reason for their fear. And thus it is that, in the absence of sycophants, your subject's love and your enemies' fear will hedge you round in peace and safety.
Although the parallel with Claudian's panegyric on Honorius's fourth consulship is quite evident, More emphasizes the idea of contingency: the power of the king is not only limited by, but is contingent on, the love of his people. To establish this important principle, More eschews the elaborate image patterns of Erasmus's poem to Philip and relies instead on direct, hortatory praise.
The demonstrative, or ceremonial, emphasis of Erasmus's verse panegyric to Philip and the deliberative, or political, emphasis of More's address to Henry are very successfully combined in Walter Haddon's poem on the coronation of Queen Elizabeth. Haddon begins quite conventionally by concentrating on the significance of the occasion, adapting natural imagery to the purpose of ceremony.
Anglia, tolle caput, saevis iactata procellis,
Exagitata malis Anglia tolle caput.
Aurea virgo venit, roseo venerabilis ore,
Plena deo, princeps Elisabetha venit.
Quaque venit, festos circumfert undique ludos,
Undiaue, qua graditur, gaudia laeta ciet,
Stella salutaris salve, praesentia serva,
Splendeat ex radiis terra Britanna tuis.
Formosum sydus, patriam caligine mersam,
Admota propius luce levato nova.
Frigidus horribili Boreas terrore strepebat,
Atque diu terras aspera laesit hyems.
Nunc Zephyrus mollis iucundas commovet auras,
Anglia vere novo nunc recreata viret .[76]
England, lift up your head, though you have been tossed about by savage tempests; though you have been harrassed with troubles, England, lift up your head. The golden maiden is coming, revered with rosy countenance, filled with God, princess Elizabeth is coming. Wherever she comes, she spreads festivities around in all directions; everywhere she goes, she is the cause of joy and happiness. Hail, star of salvation, preserve what we have at present; let Britain shine forth from your rays of light. Beautiful star, with new light brought nearer, bring relief to the country sunk in darkness. The cold north wind shrieked with dreadful terror, and for a long time bitter winter ravaged the lands. Now the gentle west wind stirs up pleasant breezes; England now flourishes, refreshed with a new springtime.
The repeated nunc, as in earlier Latin panegyrics, marks a decisive break with the immediate past and thus an occasion for celebration and festive games. The recent history of storms, evils, disturbances, now gives way to a new age inaugurated by Elizabeth and defined by Christian and classical myth. Elizabeth comes as a figure of the Virgin Mary, plena deo, metaphorically pregnant with God. The star imagery which follows not only confirms the discreet allusion to the nativity, but also brings into
[76] Walter Haddon, In auspicatissimum serenissimae Reginae Elisabethae regimen, lines 1–14, The Poetry of Walter Haddon, ed. Charles J. Lees (The Hague, 1967), p. 169.
focus the classical virgo enshrined as a constellation, namely Astraea.[77] Although thus created as a mythic figure, the queen still needs political advice.
Consiliis rectis attentam praebeat aurem,
Et ferat oppressis, quando rogatur, opem.
Fulminet in vitiis , et corda rebellia frangat,
Supplicibus parcat, quos meliora movent.
In domini iusto maneat cultuque, metuque,
Sit similis princeps Elisabetha sui . (31–56)
May she offer an attentive ear to upright counsels and, when asked, bring help to the oppressed. May she strike like thunder and lightning in the midst of vices and crush rebellious hearts. May she spare suppliants whom better things motivate. May she abide by the just worship and fear of the Lord; may princess Elizabeth be true to herself.
By urging her to crush rebellion and to relieve the oppressed, Haddon makes his contribution to the syncretic figure of the perfect prince.
What distinguishes this poem, however, is the harmony that Haddon expresses between metaphor and fact, ceremony and advice. The coronation of Elizabeth represents, above all, the union of ideal and actual, as the divine becomes human. Specifically, her accession represents the institution of the new law (spiritual) and the abandonment of the old law (carnal).
Exeat ex regno libertas impia carnis,
Spiritus est liber, res placitura deo . (45–46)
Let wicked license of the flesh leave the kingdom; the spirit is free—that is what will please God.
[77] For discussion of Elizabeth and Astraea, see Frances A. Yates, "Queen Elizabeth as Astraea," Journal of the Warburg and and Courtauld Institutes, x (1947), 27–82.
Given this spiritual conception of the state, sanctioned by God, the monarch is idealized as a figure who must crush rebellion, thus showing divine justice, but who must also relieve the oppressed, thus showing divine mercy. The analogy between the monarch and God, with its implied corollary that political rebellion is a form of impiety or sin, is a staple assumption of many later panegyrists. As we shall see, however, the tide of events during the seventeenth century ultimately makes the unity achieved by Haddon impossible for later poets to attain.
But before turning to Stuart panegyric, we can now consider more precisely the significance of the laus regis . Although each of the neo-Latin verse panegyrics mentioned here includes praise of the monarch, More's poem deserves particular attention because there is solid evidence that this panegyric continued to be read with pleasure over a century after it was written. At least, in 1622 Henry Peacham describes More as "sometime Lord Chancellor of England, a man of most rich and pleasant invention: his verse fluent, nothing harsh, constrained or obscure," and goes on to approve specifically his Carmen Gratulatorium : "What can be more loftie then his gratulatorie verse to King Henrie upon his Coronation day . . ."[78] More's praise of Henry is indeed "loftie," but it takes a conventional form inherited from the oratorical tradition of panegyric. This traditional
[78] Henry Peacham, "Of Poetrie." from The Compleat Gentleman, in Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, ed. J. E. Spingarn, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1908), I, 130. Peacham also praises Claudian as "an excellent and sweete Poet," although he objects to "the meanness of his subject." Spingarn, I, 128.
form involves a union of qualities designated as augustus with those described as amabilis .[79]
Ter spectare iuvat: quid ni hunc spectare iuvaret,
Quo natura nihil finxit amabilius?
Mille inter Comites excelsior omnibus extat,
Et dignum augusto corpore robur habet . (50–53)
Three times they delight to see him—and why not? This king who is amiable as any creature in the realm of nature. Among a thousand noble companions he stands out taller than any. And he has strength worthy of his regal person.
Strong and yet gentle, Henry even combines masculine and feminine principles.
Illa quidem facies alacri veneranda vigore
Esse potest tenerae virginis, esse viri . (60–61)
In fact, that face, admirable for its animated strength, could belong to either a young girl or a man.
In effect, More finds in Henry a symbol of comprehension and unity. He symbolizes national reconciliation not only as the surviving beneficiary of the Wars of the Roses, but also as a figure who can contain a balance of opposites within himself. He is both augustus and amabilis ; he is the perfect prince, or rather he becomes perfect in More's poem, the purpose of which is not to celebrate the actual but to inaugurate the ideal.
This same purpose lies behind other poems on this occasion, including one by the churchman Andreas Ammonius. After presenting the new king as a union of Mars
[79] See Erasmus, Panegyricus, LeClerc, IV, 523–524, and especially the following passage: "quam sic augustam esse voluerunt, ut nihil tamen amabilius, sic rursus amabilem, ut nihil augustius."
and Minerva, Ammonius idealizes him by allusion to history, mythology, and the Bible. Punning on the title "Henricus Octavius," Ammonius brings Caesar Augustus into the poem accompanied by Astraea and perhaps also Moses, as England is now seen to flow with milk and honey.
Neglectasque diu terras Astraea revisat,
Et profugas artes cogat abire malas.
Cernis ut incipiant fluvii candescere lacte,
Arboribusque fluant roscida mella cavis.
Aurea, si nescis, rediens Octavius orbi
Saecula restituit .[80]
Astraea again visits long-neglected lands and compels evil devices to leave as exiles. You notice that rivers begin to gleam white with milk, and honey dripping like drops of dew flows from hollow trees. In case you are unaware of it, a returning Octavius has restored the age of gold to the world.
Ammonius concludes his poem by expanding the parallel between England and Rome.
Sit melior Nerva, Augusto felicior ipso,
Robore Traianum praestat et imperio . (101–102)
May he be better than Nerva, more fortunate than Augustus himself, and surpass Trajan in strength and power.
What we have here is a poetic rendering of the three sources of praise defined in the rhetoric books: fortune (Augustus), body (Trajan), and character (Nerva). It all adds up to imperium .
The purpose of the laus regis is to unite individual
[80] Andreas Ammnonius, Elegia De Obitu Regis Henrici VII Et Felici Successione Henrici Octavi, lines 94–99, Andreae Ammonii Carmina Omnia, ed. Clemente Pizzi (Florence, 1958), p. 17.
and institution. Through praise the panegyrist elevates a man into a king, thereby publicly acknowledging his royal power, his imperium . But this power, acknowledged by praise, is also limited by praise. The man must possess the virtues demanded by the institution, as More explains to Henry.
Enervare bonas immensa licentia mentes
Idque etiam in magnis assolet ingeniis.
At quamvis erat ante pius, mores tamen illi
Imperium dignos attulit imperio . (84–87)
Unlimited power has a tendency to weaken good minds, and that even in the case of very gifted men. But howsoever dutiful he was before, his crown has brought our prince a character which deserves to rule . . .
Here More praises Henry not for what he is, but for what he must be, and the essence of this ideal is expressed by the concept of pietas . Power is thus qualified by piety.
Implicit in this broad moral norm are love and duty toward the divine, and conscientiousness, affection, and loyalty in dealings with other men. In panegyric, however, piety also assumes a special, public meaning. When Claudian advises Honorius, "Sis pius in primis . . . ," and Walter Haddon advises Elizabeth, "Sit pia . . . ," the panegyrist defines the obligations of the prince to his people.[81] This significance of the word in traditional panegyric is most clearly revealed in Claudian's last poem to Honorius. Exploring the son's role as avenger of the father, Claudian considers Orestes, then Augustus, and finally Honorius. In his reference to Augustus, the poet makes a fine distinction between true and false piety:
[81] Claudian, IV Cons., 276; Haddon, In auspicatissimum, 27.
pavit Iuleos inviso sanguine manes
Augustus, sed falsa pii praeconia sumpsit
in luctum patriae civili strage parentans . . .[82]
Augustus sated the shade of Caesar with his enemies' blood, but he made a false advertisement of piety when, to the grief of his fatherland, he offered the blood of citizens to his father's ghost.
Although usually the prime example of the pious ruler, Augustus here becomes an emblem of false piety because he placed personal duty to his (adopted) father above his duty to his subjects. Contrasting this example of false piety with the true piety of Honorius, Claudian implicitly gives two levels of meaning to the term, one private and one public. The piety of a ruler is above duty to the father; it is rather duty to the fatherland. In panegyric, piety is a public virtue that means, above all, preservation and protection of the commonweal.
The ideal of pietas thus defines and limits the monarch's imperium by restricting him from any action that would endanger the public safety. If the demonstrative rhetoric of panegyric acknowledges the monarch's power, the deliberative rhetoric qualifies that power by emphasizing the public moral virtue of piety. It should not, therefore, seem surprising that when English poets of the seventeenth century attempt to adopt panegyric as a "branch of epic," they turn repeatedly to the example of the pious Aeneas.
[82] Claudian, VI Cons., 116–118.