Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1921-11-20

After-dinner speaking has from
time to time been assailed as a bore
and a nuisance, but despite these
periodical attacks the
After.Dinner custom of post ran-
el dial deliverances has
SPe"nAn6' persisted and will
probably continue until people cease
to gather at table and utilize such
occasions for. the exchange Of wit and
wisdom. Fifty years ago the subject
was under discussion. In The Star Of
November IS. 1871. is the following
editorial:
"Scribner's Monthly has made H.
good many hits. but never a greater
one than the mauling it gives that
abominable nuisance, the custom OF
speechmaking at the dinner table.
recognize DR.. Hollands description
Of the horrors Of that task, the
anticipation of which is torture, and
the performance of which is usually
failure? There is something, he ar
CUES, very absurd in the submission
Of SO many men to this custom. There
IL never a public dinner. or a dinner
which may possibly merge into for
nality of toast and talk, without It's
overhanging dread. There is probably
not one man present, from MIN VINO
expects to be called upon for a speech
to him who is afraid that the demand
will at last reach him. who would not
pay handsome price to be out or
the room and its dangers.
This is all very true and Just, as
every one must concede, but Scrib-
ners, in its noble rage against the
detestable custom, seems to infuse
something of the gall and bitterness
| II describes as visited upon the victim
| Of the dinner table into its assertion
that as d rule the successful dinner
| table orator is a shallow man. one
| whose thoughts are on the surface,
whose vocabulary is small and at
quick command. and whose lack OF
| any earnest purpose in life leaves
\ him free to talk upon trifes.' I'm
! fortunately. there are so many notable
| exceptions to this rule that the shall
| low fellows have too much confidence
| to feel properly abashed by this die
| tum Among the felicitous speakers
| of the dinner table of the past and
present, one calls to mind the names
OF Henry Clay, Sargent $. Prentiss,
| Rufus Choate, James L. Orr. Reverdy
Johnson, Caleb Gushing. Perley Poore,
Schuyler Colfax, James G. Blaine,
James Brooks-and this is but thu
beginning Of the list. Charles Sumner
at the Forney dinner. by his exceed
ingly happy response to various
kindly references to his course.
| poheu d. HiHi i'OHi t'hs
Of the table, rather astonished those
who had got the notion that he could
say nothing offhand.
| Charles Dickens was inimitable al
| the dinner table as presiding offlcer
or as speechmaker. while Thackeray.
his great compeer in letters, was az
dumb as an oyster, and in one Of his
essays feelingly depicts the miseries
| of the man who when called upon ia
speak hopelessly forgets all the neat
+; things he had conceived while in the
cab. Dickens. however. had overflow
| ing animal spirits, which Thackeray
! lacked.
Among our own writer's the late
NJ NJ. Noah, a rather solemn-looking
| individual, was one of the wittiest
and happiest table speakers, while n.
| P. Willis. brilliant society man. whose
! felicitous word painting indicated great
command OF language, had dread
of being called to his legs like
| that of Thackeray. and in a Home
Journal editorial he argued humor-
| ously against the injustice of requir-
! ing writer to spout through both
| the nozzle and the handle of the pump.
THAT everybody appreciates the
| absurdity and tediousness of the
speechmaking business is shown by
| the fact that the speaker who has the
courage and originality to denounce
its humbuggery is sure to be vocifer-
ously applauded; as when Mark
Twain, at the press dinner here, made
! his famous response to the toast to
Woman and so deliciously burlesqued
that stereotyped sentiment and Its
faded old companions at the dinner
table"