A Collection of the Best Orations, Poems, Volume VI INCLUDING NUMBERS TWENTY-ONE, TWENTY-TWO, TWENTY-THREE AND TWENTY-FOUR Edited by PAUL M. PEARSON, Editor of Intercollegiate Debates and The Humorous Volume VI Number 21 After-Dinner Speaking W ITH the exception of pulpit oratory the most prevalent form of public speaking in America, doubtless, is the after-dinner speech. In every town the annual woman's club luncheon is followed by short speeches. The annual meeting of the high school alumni is usually a dinner, which is not considered complete without a program of toasts. In colleges, every class, fraternity, eating club, scientific club or literary society has one or more spreads, feeds, banquets or dinners, at all of which speaking is called for. In cities. the common method of getting people together for social intercourse, or for the consideration of any public question, is to give a dinner, which is never thought complete without speaking. During a single week in an eastern city one may see announcements of dinners of the Ohio Society, the Yale Alumni Club, the Methodist Social Union, two or three college fraternities, the Bankers' Club, and so through a list of a dozen or so. The occasions for dinners are never-ending, and most dinners are followed by speaking. MISCONCEPTION OF AFTER-DINNER SPEECHES. Despite the wide practice of this form of public speaking, there is little literature on the subject, and almost no attempt on the part of those who practice it to make such speeches conform to the conditions under which the speeches are made. Certainly there is rarely evidenced on the part of the speaker a purpose to make the most of his opportunity. If one may judge by what he hears, the popular conception of an after-dinner speech is that it must do but one thing-it must produce laughter. Most men know that they are not humorists, but being called upon to give a toast, which they understand to be another name for a funny speech, they resort to the jest books for their material. The result is a string of unrelated stories, having no object but to raise a laugh. One such speech, even if indifferently given, may be relished by a company of friends or acquaintances; but the usual six, not to mention the occasional fourteen such, become an intolerable bore. Though the prevalent misconception of the requirements of after-dinner speaking makes the situation serious, it is not beyond mending. Definite instruction by teachers of public speaking in schools and colleges will remedy conditions in a few years. Only a few simple requirements need be pointed out, but the present misconception necessitates that these be insisted on with constant iteration. The most important correction to be made is, that to be felicitous does not require one to try to be funny. The chief quality of after-dinner oratory is felicity; but let us understand felicity. The after-dinner audiences are in no critical mood. They are too full-fed to think. Persons who have antagonistic opinions refrain from discussing them at a dinner table. At least for the time being all who sit at table are friendly. It is a time. of good fellowship, of good cheer. Not only must one avoid discussion which is likely to arouse animosity, but one should avoid scientific or philosophical, or other subjects which require concentrated attention or deep thought. This does not preclude subjects which make demands on the intelligence of the audience. Just here is where the majority of after-dinner speakers need frequent reminders. To eliminate abstruse or deeply philosophical themes as subjects for after-dinner presentation is not to turn from serious questions and compel every speaker to attempt the role of a humorist. The speeches chosen for this collection will sufficiently reinforce the editor's contention. To insist that the after-dinner speech need not be humorous is not to say that it will be dull. The speech should be agreeable both in its matter and manner. To be agreeable, however, it is not necessary to be amusing. TO BE AGREEABLE. To present matter that is agreeable to an audience one is not compelled to search for a theme upon which he believes all the persons present will agree, nor one that is so new that they will have no opinion about it. An audience always respects the speaker who frankly differs from them, who states the issues of both sides fairly, and sets forth his own contentions. Indeed, there is no more fruitful field for after-dinner speeches than those local or general issues about which the public to be addressed should be moved from its negative or antagonistic attitude. The public playground and similar social or charitable questions, public utilities or other economic questions, high school fraternities, as well as changes in the school curriculum or in the athletic rules; these and many more offer abundant opportunity to any person who has something to say to say it agreeably, though his point of view and his conclusion will not be in accord with the previous opinion of his hearers. That the speech may not make undue demands upon the attention of hearers who are full-fed, the speaker will see to it that his discussion abounds in detail and illustration. It ought not to be necessary, but in the prevailing conceptions it may be wise to insist that there are other illustrations than funny stories. A humorous story lugged in to break up the speech rather than to make a point only diverts the audience, and does not advance or illuminate the discussion. On the other hand, a story of any kind, humorous or serious, which does advance or illuminate the point under discussion, will probably be more effective than much more effort and time spent in any other way. If one is to have something to say to an after-dinner audience, he must depart from the common practice of choosing a theme that a successful speaker has used; the only excuse for choosing it being the fact that another person has been successful in its presentation. The theme need not be a great one; indeed, the simple. themes are best. It should be one in which the speaker has vital interest, and, if possible, one on which he speaks with authority. An audience would much prefer to hear the winner of the broad jump discuss his method of training, or tell of comparative records, than to have him discuss the tariff or some subject about which he does not have first-hand information. One who has been successful in growing corn would better choose to |