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.