be stayed even at the last, by reviving in them the veneration for
Washington, a sentiment shared by both. The delivery of his oration on
Washington as a means to that end was well meant, but pathetic in its
complete futility to accomplish such a purpose. So small a spill of
oil upon a sea so raging! He was a master of beautiful periods, and I
desire here to record my testimony that he also possessed a power
for off-hand speech. The tradition is that his utterances were
all elaborately studied, down to the gestures and the play of the
features. I have heard him talk on the spur of the moment, starting
out from an incident close at hand and touching effectively upon
circumstances that arose as he proceeded.

Of the two men, often seen side by side, so similar in tastes,
education, and character, both for the same cause ostracised from
public life by their common wealth, a repugnance to reform which
scouted all counting of costs, Winthrop impressed me in my young days
as being the abler. His public career closed early, but he had time
to show he could be vigorous and finely eloquent. I remember him most
vividly as I saw him presiding at a Commencement dinner, a function
which he discharged with extraordinary felicity. He had an alertness,
as he stood lithe and graceful, derived perhaps from his strain of
Huguenot blood. His wit was excelling, his learning comprehensive and
well in hand. He was no more weighed down by his erudition than was
David by his sling. Encomium, challenge, repartee,--all were quick and
happy, and from time to time in soberer vein he passed over without
shock into befitting dignity. I have sat at many a banquet, but for me
that ruling of the feast by Winthrop is the masterpiece in that kind.
He lived long after retiring from politics, the main stay of causes
charitable, educational, and for civic betterment. My memory is
enriched by the image of him which it holds.