discourses, or such as relate to the affairs of society. Though if we consider their nature rather than the abuse of them, they appear to be very proper subjects for an orator, and to come within the main design of his province, which is persuasion. For to what purpose can eloquence be better employed than to celebrate virtuous persons or actions, in such a manner as to excite mankind to their imitation, which is the proper end of such discourses. And indeed, the panegyrics of the Greeks, which were pronounced in the general assemblies of their several states, seem to have been designed to recommend virtue by so public a testimony, as appears by that of Isocrates in the praise of the Athenians. For as to the invectives of Demosthenes against king Philip, they are rather of the deliberative kind, and so do not come under our present consideration, since the orator's principal view in those discourses is to animate the Athenians in a defence of their liberties, by a vigorous prosecution of the war against king Philip; to which end he likewise proposes the fittest methods for carrying it on with success. And most of Cicero's invectives against Mark Antony may be referred to the same kind of discourses. as it is evident, from common observation, that men are more influenced by examples than precepts, so the celebrating virtue, and exposing vice, from particular instances in human life, as patterns to others in what they ought to pursue, and what to avoid, has by wise men been generally esteemed very serviceable to mankind. For which reason likewise the transmitting to posterity the lives of great and eminent men has met with good acceptance, as a useful and laudable design. And therefore the Romans who were sensible that such discourses were not only suited But for entertainment, but might likewise be made very useful to the public, did not confine them to the schools of rhetoricians and the exercises of young persons: for it was their custom, as Quintilian tells us, to have them pronounced in public assemblies, even by magistrates, and sometimes by an order from the senate. So we read, that a funeral oration was spoken in honour of Junius Brutus by Publicola, his colleague in the consulship. And a like discourse, with a statue and public funeral, was decreed by the senate to the honour of M. Juventius. Though afterwards indeed we generally find this office performed by some relation. In compliance with which custom, as Suetonius relates, Augustus, when but twelve years of age, pronounced a funeral discourse in praise of his grandmother Julia. And Tiberius, when but nine years old, paid the like honour to his deceased father, as the same historian informs us. And Cicero's invective against Piso, with his second against Mark Antony, may be referred to demonstrative discourses, as they respect things that were past, and so could not then be subjects for consultation. For all praise or dispraise must either regard what is past or present. And, generally speaking, persons are most affected by present things. Indeed the encomiums of ancient heroes, and their famous actions, are very entertaining, and afford an agreeable pleasure in the recital; but such examples of virtue, as are still in being, or at least yet fresh in memory, have the greatest influence for imitation. But in praising or dispraising persons, rhetoricians prescribe two methods. One is, to follow the order in which every thing happened that is mentioned in the discourse; the other is, to reduce what is said under certain general heads, without a strict regard to the order of time. In pursuing the former method, the discourse may be very conveniently divided into three periods. The first of which will contain what preceded the person's birth; the second, the whole course of his life; and the third, what followed upon his death. Under the first of these may be comprehended what is proper to be said concerning his country and family. And, therefore, if these were honourable, it may be said to his advantage, that he no ways disgraced them, but acted suitably to such a descent. But if they were not so, they may be either wholly omitted, or it may be said, that instead of deriving thence any advantage to his character, he has conferred a lasting honour upon them and that it is not of so much moment where or from whom a person derives his birth, as how he lives. : In the second period, which is that of his life, the qualities both of his mind and body, with his circumstances in the world, may be separately considered. Though as Quintilian rightly observes: All external advantages are not praised for themselves, but according to the use that is made of them. For riches, and power, and interest, as they have great influence and may be applied either to good or bad purposes, are a proof of the temper of our minds, and therefore we are either made better or worse by them. But these things are a just ground for commendation when they are the reward of virtue or industry. Bodily endowments are, health, strength, beauty, activity, and the like; which are more or less commendable, according as they are employed. And where these, or any of them are wanting, it may be shown that they are abundantly compensated by the more valua ble endowments of the mind. Nay, sometimes a defect in these may give an advantageous turn to a person's character, for any virtue appears greater in proportion to the disadvantages the person laboured under in exerting it. But the chief topics of praise are taken from the virtues and qualifications of the mind. And here the orator may consider the disposition, education, learning, and several virtues which shone through the whole course of the person's life: in doing which, the preference should always be given to virtue above knowledge, or any other accomplishment. And in actions, those are most considerable, and will be heard with greatest approbation, which a person either did alone, or first, or wherein he had fewest associates; as likewise those which exceeded expectation, or were done for the advantage of others, rather than his own. And further, as the last scene of a man's life ge nerally commands the greatest regard, if any thing remarkable at that time was either said or done, it ought particularly to be mentioned. Nor should the manner of his death or cause of it, if accompanied with any commendable circumstances, be omitted; as if he died in the service of his country, or in the pursuit of any other laudable design. The third and last period relates to what fol. lowed after the death of the person. And here the public loss and public honours conferred upon the deceased are proper to be mentioned. Sepulchres, statues, and other monuments to perpetuate the memory of the dead at the expense of the public, were in common use both among the Greeks and Romans. But in the earliest times, as these honours were more rare, so they were less costly: for as in one age it was thought a sufficient reward for him who died in the defence of his country to have his name cut in a marble inscription with the cause of his death, so in others it was very common to see the statues of gladiators and persons of the meanest rank erected in public places. And therefore, a judgment is to be formed of these things, from the time, custom, and circumstances of different nations; since the frequency of them renders them less honourable, and takes off from their evidence as the rewards of virtue. But, as Quintilian says: Children are an honour to their parents, cities to their founders, laws to those who compiled them, arts to their inventors, and useful customs to the authors of them. And this may suffice for the method of praising persons when we propose to follow the order of time, as Isocrates has done in his funeral oration upon Evagoras, king of Salamis, and Pliny in his panegyric upon the emperor Trajan. But as this method is very plain and obvious, so it requires the more agreeable dress to render it delightful; lest otherwise it seem rather like a history than an oration. For which reason we find that epic poets, as Homer, Virgil, and others begin in the middle of their story, and afterwards take a proper occasion to introduce what preceded to diversify the subject, and give the greater pleasure and entertainment to their readers. The other method above hinted was to reduce the discourse to certain general heads, without regarding the order of time. As if any one in praising the Elder Cato should propose to do it by showing that he was a most prudent senator, an excellent orator, and most valiant general; all which commendations are given him by Pliny. In like manner the character of |