Smyrna times., 1872-10-30
Good Talking.

Saint Augustine, we are told, was once
asked to define Time. He evaded the ques-
ton by saying that it was what we all felt, but
could none of US understand. 1t is pretty
much the same with good talking we all know
it when we hear it, but nine tenths of US would
be very much puzzled to point out what it was
that pleased US in the talker-what it was that
made US go away with the remark: That man
knows how to talk.
1t cannot be learning-fo- learned men are
not commonly happy takers. Neither is 1t
humOr; humorous people are, as aides prettlly
put it, very trying. 1t is not satire-for satir-
ical people are i'll, natuled, and, as there is
nothing charming about Immature, there can
be nothing charming about ill-natured conver-
saton. 1t is not the power OF graphic descrip-
tion-for graphic description necessltates
monOiogue, and everybody hates mOnOlogue
There is a popular idea that Coleridge was a
great talker-meaning, of course, that he was
good talker IAN instance, by the way, of the
slipshOd phraseology so common just now.
4 great taker he most certainly was, as many
knew to their cost; a good one he most
decidedly was not He would sOlilouqize, and
rhapsodise, and ramble on from morn till
! dewy eve, a summer day." in rich, mellow
voice which few who have heard can ever for
get Period after period he would roll out
no doubt brilliant, with boundless wealth OF
! illustration, laden with an enormous mass OF
! acquired knowledge that Magliabecchi himself
might have enveG but Coleridge could not
talk. De Quincy was just the same He
could keep his au litOrs up a whole night with
that silvery voice of his; and if they had the
patience and admiration-and, we may add
the cOnstitution-of Boswell, they might
without much harm, have preferred him to the
sleep that would probably have done them
/ ~Ool tLon ~, al hnf cbait
ideas of the Kantian philosophy. Then there
was Macaulay, who talked, as Sidney Smith
said, like book in breeches; and Macintosh
who would go through all the merits and de
merits of the schoOlmen from Abelard tC
Occham-knock you down with a quotation
from Thomas Aquinas, and pick YOU up agar
with another from the Sunlmd ThcOlOgiu, anC
who had a mind like magazine, with shells O
knowledge OF every description slowed away II
their proper apartments, all loaded ant
labeled, and ready to fire off at a minute
notice, with powers of conversation to match
and there was DideIot, with the most encyclO
pedc head ever known to be on human shout
ders, who could talk down any SGrdnt in Paris
though endowed with
i "a hundred mouths. a hundred tongues.
And throats OF brass tnspird with iron lungs"
In the more convival walks of conversation
alism we have Theodore Hook, with his spark
ling puns and marvellous anecdotes: Lamb
with his quaint jokes and endless fund of ole
English literature; and BrOugham, who woulC
give you in the same breath a parallel between
Cicero and Demosthenes, a criticism on thC
fourth canto of Chide Harold, and a practca
dissertation on sheepshearing But they haC
all the same defect like Cowley's brook, they
would Flow, and as they flowed foreve
would flow on; but they knew no more of rea
, talking than Mr.. Odger knows of Greek or Mr.
Martin Upper of poetry.
Good talking is very different thing from
great or ready talking. 1t is the art of perpet
ually building on the conversation of your com
panion; of alnplifying his illustrations of cap
ping his allusions oil honestly giving him hi
cuid pro quo; of evading none of his questions
of being, in fact, constant and adequate com
ment on his remarks where they are just ant
sensible, and delicate corrective where the.
! are erroneous; but, above all, Of having the ca
I pacty to supply his deficiencies by unobtru
! sively suggesting topics adapted to his taste
, land abilities; OF keeping, in fne, the ball con
stantly going between you. Had Johnso
D known how to command his temper and bee
r less bigoted and intolerant, had Edmund Burk
J. been able to adapt himself to his hearers an