I’ve
read and found interesting the table talk of Dr. Johnson, William Cowper, William
Hazlitt, Leigh Hunt, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Sydney Smith, Samuel “Breakfast”
Rogers and Adolf Hitler (ed. H.R. Trevor-Roper, Oxford University Press, 1988).
It’s an entertaining and minor literary genre, like limericks and clerihews, and
defined by the OED as “the
conversation of famous people or of intellectual circles, esp. as reproduced in
literary form.” Unlike novels or poems, it’s a form exclusively dependent on
the speaker’s other accomplishments. No one would bother to record your table
talk, or mine, or, say, Joan Didion’s. A sizeable share of Boswell’s Life of Johnson qualifies as table talk,
and Boswell defends its use in his first chapter:
“Of
one thing I am certain, that, considering how highly the small portion which we
have of the table-talk, and other anecdotes of our celebrated writers is
valued, and how earnestly it is regretted that we have not more I am justified
in preserving rather too many of Johnson’s sayings, than too few.”
Boswell
need not have justified his generous transcriptions of Johnson’s conversation.
A great man’s table talk is intrinsically absorbing and worthy of preservation.
Even Goethe is almost interesting when conversing with Eckermann. Leave it to
the late William F. Buckley to know the one-word synonym for a person gifted at
table talk: deipnosophist. I found it
in Buckley: The Right Word (ed.
Samuel S. Vaughan, Random House, 1996). Vaughan includes a letter from a reader
who thanks Buckley for his “ongoing flirtation with abstruse English words,”
but wonders why he has never used deipnosophist.
“How do you explain this lapse?” the reader asks, and Buckley replies: “The
word defines someone `skilled at table talk.’ It is used rarely for the
obviously reasons.” Meaning, presumably, that good table talk is a sparse
commodity, which is certainly true, though Buckley is off a notch with his definition. Deipnosophist is rooted in the Greek
words for “dinner” and “a master of his craft, clever or wise man” (as in the
original meaning of sophist), but
does refer specifically to a gifted chef or trencherman. Here is the OED definition:
“A
master of the art of dining: taken from the title of the [fifteen-volume] Greek work of Athenæus, in which a number of learned men are represented as dining
together and discussing subjects which range from the dishes before them to
literary criticism and miscellaneous topics of every description.”
The
most recent recorded usage dates from 1866. In “Swinburne’s Tragedies,” James
Russell Lowell writes: “The eye is the only note-book of the true poet; but a
patchwork of second-hand memories is a laborious futility, hard to write and
harder to read, with about as much nature in it as a dialogue of the Deipnosophists.”
Who knew Lowell was a comedian?
[Also
in Buckley: The Right Word, from the obituary he
wrote for Vladimir Nabokov, published in the July 22, 1977 issue of National Review, recounting one of his
annual get-togethers with the novelist: “He describes with a fluent synoptic
virtuosity the literary scene, the political scene, inflation, bad French,
cupiditous publishers, the exciting breakthrough in his son’s operatic career,
and what am I working on now?” Elsewhere in the book, Buckley refers to Nabokov’s
“philological radiance.”]
1 comment:
There is no question that Nabokov is brilliant -a true virtuoso with words and literary forms. And I know that, in these quarters, the opinion I now offer may be unwelcome. However, I cannot help thinking that Nabokov's theme is not his story but his own virtuosity, which is to say, I suppose, I find him self-regarding and, therefore, dissatisfying. The purpose of words is to convey meaning and, ultimately, in human affairs, the most important thing is what we want to say rather than how we say it. Nabokov always seems to be polishing his fingernails on his lapel fro me. Given that WHAT we want to say in this vale of tears may be very difficult this till leaves scope for excellent prose which is, then, measured by how well we say it. The words must always be striving to communicate the precise meaning without being fuzzy, or overblown. If this discipline is followed with one eye on that prize only, great prose emerges.
Post a Comment