$547. EULOGY.

Eulogy, which is the language of praise, is prompted by emotions of love, admiration, and the like, and forms an important part of oratory. It sometimes appears in the form of praise addressed to the auditory or judges, which has already been considered; but its more appropriate application is to those persons or subjects which are connected with the orator's dis

course.

Many examples are to be found in the speeches of Burke. Thus in his speech on the East India Bill the peroration consists of a eulogy on Fox, which is presented in glowing language, and serves as an admirable close to the argument:

...

"And now, having done my duty to the bill, let me say a word to the author. I should leave him to his own noble sentiments if the unworthy and illiberal language with which he has been treated beyond all example of parliamentary liberty did not make a few words necessary, not so much in justice to him as to my own feelings. . . . He has put to her hazard his ease, his security, his interest, even his darling popularity, for the benefit of a people whom he has never seen. This is the road that all heroes have trod before him. . . . He is now on a great eminence where the eyes of mankind are turned upon him. He may live long; he may do much. But here is the summit. He never can exceed what he does this day."

Eulogy is sometimes made use of for the sake of emphasis. Thus Sheridan, in his speech against Warren Hastings, mentions a doctrine of Burke's, indulges in a eulogy of that orator, and then proceeds to state a different view:

"This is the sentiment of my noble and exalted friend, whose name I can never mention but with respect and admiration due to his virtue and talents; whose proud disdain of vice can only be equalled by the ability with which he exposes and controls it; to whom I look up with homage; whose genius is commensurate with philanthropy; whose memory will stretch itself beyond the fleeting objects of any little partial shuffling—through the whole wide range of human knowledge and honorable aspiration after good-as large as the system which forms life, as lasting as those sentiments which adorn it; but in this sentiment, so honorable to my friend, I cannot im. plicitly agree."

The effect of this eulogy is to call attention in the most pointed manner, not merely to Burke's sentiment, but rather to the orator's own view, which differs from it.

$ 548. PANEGYRIC.

Panegyric is a term applied to orations which set forth the praise of some eminent person. It is distinguished by great pomp and splendor of style and exaggeration of sentiment. Cicero's speech in behalf of Marcellus is an example, of which De Quincey says that “the whole purpose, being a festal and ceremonial one, thanksgiving its sole burden from first to last, it is marked by the most elaborate stateliness."

They were frequent in ancient times. In modern times they consist chiefly of funeral orations, which are always more or less laudatory. The most celebrated of this class are those of Bossuet.

The terms panegyric and eulogy are often interchanged at the present day. Thus Burke calls his eulogy of Fox a panegyric. If a distinction be sought for between the two, it may be stated thus-that a eulogy refers to passages occurring in the course of a speech or argument, while a panegyric comprehends the whole speech.

The term panegyric is sometimes applied to Grattan's wellknown portrayal of Lord Chatham, and to Burke's equally well-known description of Sheridan's eloquence.

$549. THE RETORT.

A very effective mode of meeting a charge is by means of the retort. Fox abounds in this, and a good example is found in the following passage from his speech on the East India Bill:

"After pronouncing a brilliant eulogy upon me and my capacity to serve the country, the honorable gentleman considers me at the same time the most dangerous man in the kingdom. [Pitt said across the House, “dangerous only from this measure;" to which Fox instantly made this reply:] I call upon the House to attend to the honorable gentleman. He thinks me dangerous only from this measure, and confesses that hitherto he has seen nothing in my conduct to obliterate his good opinion. Compare this with his opposition during the last and the present session. Let every man reflect that up to this moment the honorable gentleman deemed me worthy of his confidence, and competent to my situation in the state. I thank him for the support he has afforded to the minister he thus esteemed, and shall not press the advantage he has given me further than leaving to himself to reconcile his practice and doctrine in the best manner he can."

Another form of the retort consists in repelling the charge. of an opponent and applying it to himself. This is called the "tu quoque" retort.

Pitt had charged Fox with weakening the British Constitution through his sympathy with the French Revolution. Fox retorts by throwing the same charge back upon Pitt:

"That the pride, the folly, the presumption of a single person shall be able to involve a whole people in wretchedness and disgrace is more than philosophy can teach mortal patience to endure. Here are the true weapons of the enemies of our constitution. Here may we search for the source of these seditious writings meant either to weaken our attachment to the constitution by depreciating its value, or which loudly tells us that we have no constitution at all."

§ 550. SARCASM.

Sarcasm is a powerful weapon in the hands of some orators, and sometimes this mode of attack is more dreaded than any other. It formed the chief characteristic of Junius. Chatham used it with resistless effect. Brougham's speech against the Durham clergy affords perhaps the most striking instance of sustained sarcasm that can be found in oratory. For vigor, however, and variety, together with swift and ready application, no one has ever surpassed Fox.

His speech on the East India Bill affords an example:

"But the learned gentleman wishes the appointment of an Indian secretary in preference to this commission. In all the learned gentleman's ideas on the government of India the notion of a new secretary of state for the Indian department springs up, and seems to be cherished with the fondness of consanguinity. . . . The learned gentleman has been for some years conversant with ministers, but his experience has taught him, it seems, to consider secretaries not only untainted and immaculate, but innocent, harmless, and incapable. In his time secretaries were all purity, with every power of corruption in their hands, but so rigidly attached to rectitude that no temptation could seduce them. . . . This erroneous humanity of opinion arises from the learned gentleman's unsuspecting, unsullied nature, as well as from a commerce with only the best and purest ministers of this country, which has given him so favorable an impression of the secretary of state that he thinks this patronage, so dangerous in the hands of the commission, perfectly safe in his hands."

The sarcasm was directed against Lord Shelburne, and is full of bitter force.

By directing irony or sarcasm against one subject, another

may be introduced with great emphasis and effect. Thus Lord Erskine sneers at Paine in order to exalt Newton :

"In running the mind along the long list of sincere and devout Christians, I cannot help lamenting that Newton had not lived to this day, to have had his shallowness filled up with this new flood of light poured upon the world by Mr. Thomas Paine. But the subject is too awful for irony. I will speak plainly and directly. Newton was a Christian."

CHAPTER IX.

THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN ORATOR.

$ 551. QUALIFICATIONS FOR AN ORATOR.

Of these some are general, and attainable by all who set forth to acquire them; others are special, the peculiarities of gifted persons, and scarcely attainable by others under any circumstances. In the first place we have to consider the general qualifications:

§ 552. COMMAND OF THE SUBject.

1. The importance of this is self-evident. The lawyer, the divine, the parliamentary orator, all find it necessary to success. In parliamentary debate, the speaker who fails in this must fail utterly. Burke was distinguished for his immense learning, for his profound and solid acquirements, and for the thorough mastery which he exhibited of every subject to which he devoted himself. It was said of him that he knew more of India than any other living man; and in his speeches on Indian affairs he exhibited a knowledge which was far different from the hasty "cram" of the superficial Sheridan. Fox showed the same command of his subject, though in a different way; for in his case it arose from long training and experience. His great rival, Pitt, was equally distinguished. This is a striking characteristic of the orations of antiquity; for in these, especially in those of Demosthenes, may be found a vivid representation of all contemporary history.

$ 553. FERTILITY IN RESOURCES.

2. This is chiefly of value in parliamentary debate, since it involves readiness in reply and quickness to take advantage of an opponent or to rally from a dangerous attack. No orator ever surpassed Fox in this respect. In his speeches we encounter constantly those sudden hits, thrusts, and side-blows; those rapid questions and answers, that dexterity in evading difficulties, that unfailing readiness in retort, and that lightning-like rapidity in seizing upon hasty admissions and using them against his opponents, which gained for him the title of the greatest living debater. This quality is also of use in courts of law, to enable the advocate to counteract the effect of sudden disclosures, or to take instant advantage of an unexpected turn in the proceedings.

§ 554. A CONCILIATORY DEMEANOR.

3. A conciliatory demeanor is of great advantage. This includes the tone and manner of the speaker, which may be made very persuasive by a becoming modesty and a respectful deference to the audience; and also the expressions, which may exhibit a friendly consideration or esteem for the judges, the hearers, and sometimes even for the adversary.

If the audience be friendly, this is necessary in order to retain their good-will; if hostile, it is likewise necessary in order to disarm their hostility. In attack, the speaker ought, if possible, to make a distinction between the opponent and the audience, separating one from the other; so that, while the former is assailed, the latter may be conciliated. In many cases even the opponent may be praised for certain qualities, if only for the sake of giving greater emphasis to blame. In defence the necessity of conciliation is more evident, for here all who are not with the speaker are against him; men are always more ready to condemn than to absolve; and the speaker's first aim should be to win over the audience to his own side. Nowhere is there a more instructive example than the speech of Demosthenes on the Crown. The orator here begins by winning over the audience to himself, and completely carrying them with him; he separates them from his adversary by the most subtle distinction; for the one he has nothing but esteem and