Transcriber's note Minor punctuation errors have been changed without notice. Printererrors have been changed and are listed at the end. CONVERSATION _What to Say and How to Say It_ CONVERSATION _What to Say and How to Say It_ BY MARY GREER CONKLIN FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY NEW YORK AND LONDON 1912 COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY All rights reserved for all countries [_Printed in the United States of America_] Published November, 1912 IN LOVING MEMORY TO A. E. C. WHOSE DELIGHTFUL CONVERSATION STIMULATED MY YOUTH AND IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THEIR SEVERE CRITICISM AND FRIENDLY AID TO CHARLES TOWNSEND COPELAND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH AT HARVARD COLLEGE AND FRANK WILSON CHENEY HERSEY INSTRUCTOR IN ENGLISH AT HARVARD COLLEGE PREFACE "The best book that was ever written upon good breeding, " said Dr. Johnson to Boswell, "the best book, I tell you, _Il Cortegiano_ byCastiglione, grew up at the little court of Urbino, and you should readit. " _Il Cortegiano_ was first published by the Aldine Press at Venice, in 1528. Before the close of the century more than one hundred editionssaw the light; French, Spanish, English, and German versions followedeach other in rapid succession, and the _Cortegiano_ was universallyacclaimed as the most popular prose work of the Italian Renaissance. "Have you read Castiglione's _Cortegiano_?" asks the courtierMalpiglio, in Tasso's dialog. "The beauty of the book is such that itdeserves to be read in all ages; as long as courts endure, as long asprinces reign and knights and ladies meet, as long as valor and courtesyhold a place in our hearts, the name of Castiglione will be held inhonor. " In his _Book of the Courtier_, Castiglione said very little aboutperfection of speech; he discust only the standard of literary languageand the prescribed limits of the "vulgar tongue, " or the Italian inwhich Petrarch and Boccaccio had written. What he says about grace, however, applies also to conversation: "I say that in everything it isso hard to know the true perfection as to be well-nigh impossible; andthis because of the variety of opinions. Thus there are many who willlike a man who speaks much, and will call him pleasing; some willprefer modesty; some others an active and restless man; still others onewho shows calmness and deliberation in everything; and so every manpraises or decries according to his mind, always clothing vice with thename of its kindred virtue, or virtue with the name of its kindred vice;for example, calling an impudent man frank, a modest man dull, anignorant man good, a knave discreet, and so in all things else. Yet Ibelieve that there exists in everything its own perfection, althoconcealed; and that this can be determined through rational discussionby any having knowledge of the thing in hand. " If this superb courtier could not reach decisions regarding perfectionin matters of culture and polish, I could scarcely hope to have entirelyreconciled the contending phases of conversation, even if I havesucceeded in impressing positively the evident faults to be avoided, and the avowed graces of speech to be attained. With Castiglione as amodel I can only say regarding conversation what he said about theperfect courtier: "I praise the kind of courtier that I most esteem, andapprove him who seems to me nearest right, according to my poorjudgment. .. . I only know that it is worse not to wish to do well thannot to know how. " Those heretofore interested in agreeable speech will at once recognizemy obligation to the few men and women who have written entertaininglyon conversation, and from whom I have often quoted. My excuse foroffering a new treatment is that I may perhaps have succeeded inbringing the subject more within the reach of the general public, and tohave written more exhaustively. The deductions I have made are theresult of an affectionate interest in my subject and of notes takenduring a period of many years. If the book affords readers one-half thepleasure and stimulus it has brought to me, my labors will be happilyrewarded. Beyond my chief critics, to whom I dedicate this volume, I express mygratitude to Mrs. Fannie Bloomfield Zeisler, the pianiste, and to Dr. Henrietta Becker von Klenze, formerly of the University of Chicago, whose interest in all I have ever attempted to do has been an unfailingsupport, and whose suggestions have added value to this work; to Dr. Gustavus Howard Maynadier, of Harvard College, for friendly assistancein many ways; and to Mr. George Benson Weston, of Harvard College, whohas been kind enough to read the manuscript, and by whose knowledge ofthe literature of many languages I have greatly profited. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, August, 1912. CONTENTS Chapter I _INTRODUCTORY_ WHAT CONVERSATION IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT PAGEWhat is the aim of conversation?--The talk of Coleridge andMacaulay--Browning's delightful conversation--Why we go intosociety--The elements of good conversation--What it is not--Geniusand scholarship not essential to good conversation 21 Chapter II DISCUSSION _VERSUS_ CONTROVERSY Dr. Johnson's and Robert Louis Stevenson's opinion ofdiscussion--Politeness and discussion--The hostess indiscussion--Flat contradiction in discussion--Polemicalsquabbles--Brilliant discussion in France--The secret ofdelightful conversation in France--Leading the talk--Topics fordiscussion--Gladstone's conversation 35 Chapter III GOSSIP Gossip in literature--Gossip comes from being of one kindred underGod--Gossip and the misanthrope--Personal history of people we knowand people we don't know--Gossip of books of biography--Interest inothers gives fellowship and warmth to life--Essential differencebetween slander and innocent gossip--The psychology of theslanderer--The apocryphal slanderer--"Talking behind another'sback"--Personal chat the current coin of conversation 63 Chapter IV WHAT SHOULD GUESTS TALK ABOUT AT DINNER? Guests' talk during the quarter of an hour before dinner--What guestsmay talk about--Talking to one's dinner-companion--Guests' duty tohost and hostess--The dominant note in table-talk--General and_tête-à-tête_ conversation between guests--The raconteur at dinner 89 Chapter V TALK OF HOST AND HOSTESS AT DINNER The amalgam for combining guests--Hosts' talk during the quarter ofan hour before dinner--Seating guests to enhance conversation--Numberof guests for the best conversation--Directing the conversation atdinner--Drawing guests out--Signaling for conversation--General and_tête-à-tête_ conversation--Putting strangers at ease--Steering talkaway from offensive topics--The gracious host and hostess--An idealdinner party 111 Chapter VI INTERRUPTION IN CONVERSATION Its deadening effect on conversation--Habitual interruption--Nervousinterruption--Glib talkers--Interrupting by over-accuracy--Interruptionsoutside the conversation-circle--Children and their interruption--Goodtalk at table--Anecdotes of children's appreciation of goodconversation--The hostess who is "Mistress of herself tho Chinafall" 133 Chapter VII POWER OF FITNESS, TACT, AND NICETY IN BUSINESS WORDS. Why cultivating the social instinct adds strength to businesspersuasion--Secret of the ability to use tactful and vivid words inbusiness--Essential training necessary to the nice use ofwords--Business success depends upon nicety and tact more than onany quality of force 161 Chapter VIII CONCLUSION Conversation is reciprocal--Good conversationalists cannot talk tothe best advantage without confederates--As in whist it is thecombination which effects what a single whist-playing genius cannotaccomplish--Good conversation does not mark a distinction amongsubjects; It denotes a difference in talkability--The differentdegrees of talkability--Imperturbable glibness impedes goodconversation--Ease with which one may improve one's conversationalpowers 175 CHAPTER I _INTRODUCTORY_ WHAT CONVERSATION IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT _What Is the Aim of Conversation?--The Talk of Coleridge and Macaulay--Browning's Delightful Conversation--Why We Go into Society--The Elements of Good Conversation--What It Is Not--Genius and Scholarship Not Essential to Good Conversation. _ CHAPTER I _INTRODUCTORY_ WHAT CONVERSATION IS AND WHAT IT IS NOT Good conversation is more easily defined by what it is not than by whatit is. To come to any conclusions on this subject, one should firstdetermine: What is the aim of conversation? Should the intention be tomake intercourse with our fellows a free school in which to acquireinformation; should it be to disseminate knowledge; or should the objectbe to divert and to amuse? It might seem that any person with a goodsubject must talk well and be interesting. Alas! highly cultivatedpeople are sometimes the most silent. Or, if they talk well, they arelikely to talk _too_ well to be good conversationalists, as didColeridge and Macaulay, who talked long and hard about interestingsubjects, but were nevertheless recorded as bores in conversationbecause they talked _at_ people instead of talking _with_ them. Insociety Browning was delightful in his talk. He would not discusspoetry, and was as communicative on the subject of a sandwich or theadventures of some woman's train at the last drawing-room as on moreweighty subjects. Tho to some he may have seemed obscure in his art, allagreed that he was simple and natural in his discourse. Whatever hetalked about, there could not be a moment's doubt as to his meaning. From these facts concerning three men of genius, it can be inferred thatwe do not go into society to get instruction gratis; that goodconversation is not necessarily a vehicle of information; that to benatural, easy, gay, is the catechism of good talk. No matter how learneda man is, he is often thrown with ordinary mortals; and the ordinarymortals have as much right to talk as the extraordinary ones. One canconceive, on the other hand, that when geniuses have leisure to mix insociety their desire is to escape from the questions which daily burdentheir minds. If they prefer to confine themselves to an interchange ofideas apart from their special work, they have a right to do so. In thisshrinking of people of genius from discussing the very subjects withregard to which their opinion is most valuable, there is no doubt agreat loss to the world. But unless they themselves bring forth thetopic of their art, it must remain in abeyance. Society has no right toforce their mentioning it. This leads us, then, to the conclusion thatthe aim of conversation is to distract, to interest, to amuse; not toteach nor to be taught, unless incidentally. In good conversation peoplegive their charm, their gaiety, their humor, certainly--and theirwisdom, if they will. But conversation which essentially entertains isnot essentially nonsense. Some one has drawn this subtle distinction: "Ienter a room full of pleasant people as I go to see a picture, or listento a song, or as I dance--that I may amuse myself, and invigoratemyself, and raise my natural spirits, and laugh dull care away. True, there must be ideas, as in all amusements worthy of the name there is acertain seriousness impossible to define; only they must be kept in thebackground. " The aim and design of conversation is, therefore, pleasure. This agreed, we can determine its elements. Conversation, above all, is dialog, notmonolog. It is a partnership, not an individual affair. It is listeningas well as talking. Monopolizing tyrants of society who will allow nodog to bark in their presence are not conversationalists; they arelecturers. There are plenty of people who, as Mr. Benson says, "possessevery qualification for conversing except the power to converse. " Thereare plenty of people who deliver one monolog after another and calltheir talk conversation. The good conversationalists are not the oneswho dominate the talk in any gathering. They are the people who have thegrace to contribute something of their own while generously drawing outthe best that is in others. They hazard topics for discussion andendeavor each to give to the other the chance of enlarging upon them. Conversation is the interchange of ideas; it is the willingness tocommunicate thought on all subjects, personal and universal, and inturn to listen to the sentiments of others regarding the ideas advanced. Good conversation is the nimbleness of mind to take the chance word orthe accidental subject and play upon it, and make it pass from guest toguest at dinner or in the drawing-room. It is the discussion of anytopic whatever, from religion to the fashions, and the avoidance of anyphase of any subject which might stir the irascible talker tocontroversy. As exprest by Cowper in his essay, "Conversation": "Ye powers who rule the tongue, if such there are, And make colloquial happiness your care, Preserve me from the thing I dread and hate-- A duel in the form of a debate. " Wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is good for one conversationally. Ready conversers are people who give their thought to others inabundance; who make others feel a familiar heartbeat. No one canapproach so near to us as the sincere talker, with his sympathy and hiswilling utterances. Luther, who stands out as one of the giants of theRenaissance, came into close human touch with his friends in talk; inconversation with him they could always feel his fierce and steadypulse. Another element of successful conversation is good-humored tolerance, the willingness to bear rubs unavoidably occasioned. The talker whocavils at anything that is said stops conversation more than if heanswered only yes or no to all remarks addrest to him. Still anotherelement of good conversation is the right sort of gossip; gossip whichis contemporary and past history of people we know and of people wedon't know; gossip which is in no way a temptation to detract. Raillerymay also become a legitimate part of good conversation, if the ridiculeis like a good parody of good literature--in no way malignant orcommonplace. "Shop, " if nicely adjusted to the conversationalconditions, may have its rightful share in interesting talk. Friendsoften meet together just to talk things over, to get each other's pointof view, to hear each other tell of his own affairs, of his work and ofhis progress. "Shop" talk was sometimes the essence of those famousconversations of the seventeenth century coffee-house. Anecdotes are anatural part of conversation, but they become the bane of talk unlesskept in strict restraint. There are times when good conversation is momentary silence rather thanspeech. It is only the haranguers who feel it their duty to break inwith idle and insincere chatter upon a pleasant and natural pause. Apart of the good fellowship of acceptable conversation is what onemight call "interest questions. " "Interest questions" are just what thewords imply, and have about them no suspicion of the inquisitive andimpertinent catechizing which only fools, and not even knaves, indulgein. The negative phase of conversation may largely grow out of a discussionof the positive. By discovering what conversation is, we find, in ameasure, what it is not. It is not monolog nor monopolizing; it is notlecturing nor haranguing; it is not detracting gossip; it is notill-timed "shop" talk; it is not controversy nor debate; it is notstringing anecdotes together; it is not inquisitive nor impertinentquestioning. There are still other things which conversation is not: Itis not cross-examining nor bullying; it is not over-emphatic, nor is ittoo insistent, nor doggedly domineering, talk. Nor is good conversationgrumbling talk. No one can play to advantage the conversational game oftoss and catch with a partner who is continually pelting him withgrievances. It is out of the question to expect everybody, whetherstranger or intimate, to choke in congenial sympathy with petty woes. The trivial and perverse annoyances of one's own life are compensatingsubjects for conversation only when they lead to a discussion of thephase of character or the fling of fate on which such-and-such incidentsthrow light, because the trend of the thought then encourages a tossingback of ideas. Perhaps the most important thing which good conversation is not, isthis: It is not talking for effect, or hedging. There are two kinds ofhedging in conversation: one which comes from failing to follow thetrend of the discussion; another which is the result of talking atrandom merely to make bulk. The first is tolerable; the last iscontemptible. The moment one begins to talk for effect, or to hedgeflippantly, he is talking insincerely. And when a good converser runsagainst this sort of talker, his heart calls out, with Carlyle, for anempty room, his tobacco, and his pipe. It is maintained by some one thatthere are three kinds of a bore: the person who tells the plot of aplay, the one who tells the story of a novel, and the one who tells hisdreams. This may be going too far with regard to dreams; for dreams, ifhandled in the right way, are easily made a part of interesting talk. But in sophisticated society books and plays are discust only by talkingabout the prevailing idea round which the story centers. They arecriticized, not outlined. The most learned and cultivated talkers do notattempt the difficult and unrewarded feat of giving a concise summaryof plots. Good conversation, then, is the give and take of talk. A person whoconverses well also listens well. The one is inseparable from the other. Anything can be talked about in cultivated society provided the subjectsare handled with humanity and discrimination. Even the weather and thethree dreadful D's of conversation, Dress, Disease, and Domestics, maybe made an acceptable part of talk if suited to the time, the place, andthe situation. Nor is genius or scholarship essential to goodconversation. The qualities most needed are tact, a sincere desire toplease, and an appreciation of the truth that the man who never says afoolish thing in conversation will never say a wise one. CHAPTER II DISCUSSION _VERSUS_ CONTROVERSY _Dr. Johnson's and Robert Louis Stevenson's Opinion of Discussion--Politeness and Discussion--The Hostess in Discussion--Flat Contradiction in Discussion--Polemical Squabbles--Brilliant Discussion in France--The Secret of Delightful Conversation in France--Leading the Talk--Topics for Discussion--Gladstone's Conversation. _ CHAPTER II DISCUSSION _VERSUS_ CONTROVERSY Many people object to discussion, but they are invariably those on themidway rounds of the conversational ladder; people to whom the joy ofthe amicable intellectual tussle is unknown, and to whom the higheststandards of the art of talking do not appeal. Where there is muchintellectual activity discussion is sure to arise, for the simple reasonthat people will not think alike. Polite discussion is the mostdifficult and the most happy attainment of society as it is ofliterature; and why should oral discussion be less attractive thanwritten? Dr. Johnson used to express unbounded contempt for all talkthat was not discussion; and Robert Louis Stevenson has given us franklyhis view: "There is a certain attitude, combative at once anddeferential, eager to fight yet most averse to quarrel, which marks outat once the talkable man. It is not eloquence, nor fairness, norobstinacy, but a certain proportion of all these that I love toencounter in my amicable adversaries. They must not be pontiffs holdingdoctrine, but huntsmen questing after elements of truth. Neither mustthey be boys to be instructed, but fellow-students with whom I may argueon equal terms. " From Mr. John B. Yeats, one of the many Irishmen whohave written tellingly on this interesting subject of human intercourse, we have: "Conversation is an art, as literature is, as painting is, aspoetry is, and subject to the same laws from which nothing human isexcluded, not even argument. There is literature which argues, andpainting which argues, and poetry which argues, so why not conversationwhich argues? Only argument is the most difficult to mold into the mostblessed shape of art. " Some people conceive an everlasting opposition between politeness andearnest discussion. Politeness consists, they think, in always saying, "yes, yes, " or at most a non-committal "indeed?" to every word addrestto them. This is apt to be our American vice of conversation, where, forlack of courage in taking up discussion, talk often falls into a seriesof anecdotes. In Germany the tendency is to be swept away in discussionto the point of a verbal dispute. There is no greater bore in society than the person who agrees witheverybody. Discussion is the arena in which we measure the strength ofone another's minds and run a friendly tilt in pleasingself-assertiveness; it is the common meeting-ground where it isunderstood that Barnabas will take gentle reproof from Paul, and Paultake gentle reproof from Barnabas. Those who look upon any dissent fromtheir views as a personal affront to be visited with signs of resentmentare no more fit for brilliant talk than they are fit for life and itsvicissitudes. "Whoso keepeth his mouth and his tongue keepeth his soulin peace, " it is true; but he also keeps himself dead to all humanintercourse and as colorless in the world as an oyster. "Too great adesire to please, " says Stevenson, "banishes from conversation all thatis sterling. .. . It is better to emit a scream in the shape of a theorythan to be entirely insensible to the jars and incongruities of life andtake everything as it comes in a forlorn stupidity. " This is equivalentto telling the individual who treads too nicely and fears a shock thathe had pleased us better had he pleased us less, which is the subtleobservation of Mr. Price Collier writing in the _North American Review_:"It is perhaps more often true of women than of men that they conceiveaffability as a concession. At any rate, it is not unusual to find ahostess busying herself with attempts to agree with all that is said, with the idea that she is thereby doing homage to the effeminatecategorical imperative of etiquette, when in reality nothing becomesmore quickly tiresome than incessant affirmatives, no matter howpleasantly they are modulated. Nor can one avoid one of two conclusionswhen one's talk is thus negligently agreed to: either the speaker isconfining herself entirely to incontradictable platitudes, or thelistener has no mind of her own; and in either case silence weregolden. In this connection it were well to recall the really brilliantepigram of the Abbé de Saint-Réal, that '_On s'ennuie presque toujoursavec ceux que l'on ennuie. _' For not even a lover can fail to be boredat last by the constant lassitude of assent expressing itself in twinsentiments to his own. 'Coquetting with an echo, ' Carlyle called it. For, tho it may make a man feel mentally masterful at first, it makeshim feel mentally maudlin at last; and, as the Abbé says, to be boredone's self is a sure sign that one's companion is also weary. " Tho polite dissent is desirable in discussion, flat contradiction iscontemptible. Dean Swift affirms that a person given to contradiction ismore fit for Bedlam than for conversation. In discussion, far more thanin lighter talk, decency as well as honor commands that each partner tothe conversational game conform to the niceties and fairness of it. "Idon't think so, " "It isn't so, " "I don't agree with you at all, " are tooflat and positive for true delicacy and refinement in conversation. "Ihave been inclined to think otherwise, " "I should be pleased to hearyour reasons, " "Aren't you mistaken?" are more acceptable phrases withwhich to introduce dissent. In French society a discrepancy of views isalways manifested by some courtesy-phrase, such as "_Mais, nepensez-vous pas_" or "_Je vous demande pardon_"--the urbane substitutesfor "No, you are wrong, " "No, it isn't. " Our own Benjamin Franklin, whose appreciation of the conversational art in France won completelythe hearts of the French people, tells us in his autobiography that inlater life he found it necessary to throw off habits acquired in youth:"I continued this positive method for some years, but gradually leftit, retaining only the habit of expressing myself in terms of modestdiffidence: never using when I advanced anything that might possibly bedisputed, the words 'certainly, ' 'undoubtedly, ' or any others that givethe air of positiveness to an opinion, but rather say, 'it appears tome, ' or 'I should think it so-and-so, for such-and-such a reason, ' or 'Iimagine it to be so, ' or it is so 'if I am not mistaken. '" Unyielding obstinacy in discussion is deadening to conversation, and yetthe extreme contrary is crippling. Open resentment of any attempt atwarmth of speech is paralysis and torpor to talk. When one meets ahostess, or a conversational partner, "whose only pleasure is to bedispleased, " one is reminded of the railway superintendent who kept thewires hot with fault-finding messages bearing his initials "H. F. C. "until he came to be known along the road as "Hell For Certain. " Peopleof a resentful turn of mind, whose every sentence is a wager, and whoconvert every word into a missile, are fit for polemical squabbles, butnot for polite discussion. Those raucous persons who, when theiropponents attempt to speak, cry out against it as a monstrousunfairness, are very well adapted to association with Kilkenny cats, butnot with human beings. It is in order to vanquish by this means one whomight otherwise outmatch them entirely that they thus seek to reducetheir opponent to a mere interjection. "A man of culture, " says Mr. Robert Waters, "is not intolerant of opposition. He frankly states hisviews on any given subject, without hesitating to say wherein he isignorant or doubtful, and he is ready for correction and enlightenmentwherever he finds it. " Such a man never presses his hearers to accepthis views; he not only tolerates but considers opposed opinions andlistens attentively and respectfully to them. Hazlitt said of thecharming discussion of Northcote, the painter: "He lends an ear to anobservation as if you had brought him a piece of news, and enters intoit with as much avidity and earnestness as if it interested only himselfpersonally. " Of all the tenets of good conversation to which the French give heed, their devotion to listening is the most notable. From this judiciouslyreceptive attitude springs their uninterrupting shrug of assent ordisapproval. But listening is only one of their many establishedconversational dicta: "The conversation of Parisians is neitherdissertation nor epigram; they have pleasantry without buffoonery; theyassociate with skill, with genius, and with reason, maxims and flashesof wit, sharp satire, and severe ethics. They run through all subjectsthat each may have something to say; they exhaust no subject for fear oftiring their hearer; they propose their themes casually and they treatthem rapidly; each succeeding subject grows naturally out of thepreceding one; each talker delivers his opinion and supports it briefly;no one attacks with undue heat the supposition of another, nor defendsobstinately his own; they examine in order to enlighten, and stop beforethe discussion becomes a dispute. " Such was Rousseau's description ofParisian conversation; and some one else has declared that the Frenchare the only nation in the world who understand a _salon_ whether inupholstery or talk. "Every Britisher, " said Novalis more than a hundredyears ago, "is an island"; and Heine once defined silence as "aconversation with Englishmen. " We Americans, tho not so reserved intalk as our English brothers, are less respectful to conversationalamenities; and both of us are far behind the French in the gracious artof verbal expression. Not only is the spoken English of the culturedIrish the most cosmopolitan and best modulated of any English in theworld, but the conversation of cultivated Irishmen more adequatelyapproaches the perfection of the French. It is as illuminating to study the best models in human intercourse asto study the best models in literature, or painting, or any other art. One of the distinct elements in French conversation is that it isinvariably kept general; and by general I mean including in the talk allthe conversational group as opposed to _tête-à-tête_ dialog. Many peopledisagree with the French in this. Addison declared that there is no suchthing as conversation except between two persons; and Ralph WaldoEmerson and Walter Savage Landor said something of the same sort. Shelley was distinctly a _tête-à-tête_ talker, as Mr. Benson, thepresent-day essayist, in some of his intimate discourses, proclaimshimself to be. But Burke and Browning, the best conversationalists inthe history of the Anglo-Saxon race, like all the famous women of theFrench _salon_, from Mme. Roland to Mme. De Staël, kept pace with anynumber of interlocutors on any number of subjects, from the mostabstruse science to the lightest _jeu d'esprit_. Good talk between twois no doubt a duet of exquisite sympathy; but true conversation is morelike a fugue in four or eight parts than like a duet. Furthermore, general and _tête-à-tête_ conversation have both their place andoccasion. At a dinner-table in France private chats are very quicklydispelled by some thoughtful moderator. Dinner guests who devotethemselves to each other alone are not tolerated by the French hostessas by the English and American. Because _tête-à-tête_ conversation isconsidered good form so generally among English-speaking peoples, I havein other essays adapted my comments on this subject to our customs; buttalk which is distributed among several who conform to the courtesiesand laws of good conversation is the best kind of talk. In general talkevery one ought to have a voice. It is the undue humility of some andthe arrogance and polemical tendency of others that prevent good generalconversation. People have only to begin with three axioms: the first, that everybody is entitled, and often bound, to form his own opinion;second, that everybody is equally entitled to express that opinion; andthird, that everybody's opinion is entitled to a hearing and toconsideration, not only on the ground of courtesy, but because anyopinion honestly and independently formed is worth something andcontributes to the discussion. Another principle of French conversation is that it is kept personal, inthe sense, I mean, that the personality of the speakers suffuses it. "The theme being taken, " as Stevenson says, "each talker plays onhimself as on an instrument, affirming and justifying himself. " Thiscounter-assertion of personality, to all appearances, is combat, but atbottom is amicable. An issue which is essentially general and impersonalis lost in the accidental conflicts of personalities, because thequality which plays the most important part is presence of mind, notcorrect reasoning. A conversationalist whose argument is whollyfallacious will often, by exercise of verbal adroitness, dispose of anobjection which is really fatal. The full swing of the personalities ofthe speakers in a conversation is what makes the flint strike fire. Itis only from heated minds that the true essence of conversation springs;and it is in talk which glances from one to another of a group, morethan in dialog, that this personality is reflected. "It is curious tonote, " says an editorial in _The Spectator_, "how very much dialog thereis in the world, and how little true conversation; how very little, thatis, of the genuine attempt to compare the different bearing of the samesubject on the minds of different people. It is the rarest thing in theworld to come, even in the best authors, on a successful picture of thedifferent views taken by different minds on the same subject, and thegrounds of the difference. " Quite as noticeable an element in French conversation is the attitude ofthe conversers to their subject. They never try to settle matters as iftheir decisions were the last court of appeal, and as if they must makefrantic effort to carry their side of the question to victory. Theydiscuss for the pleasure of discussing; not for the pleasure ofvanquishing, nor even of convincing. They discuss, merely; they do notdebate, nor do they enter into controversy. One of the greatest conversational charms of the French is their amenityin leading talk. This grows out of a universal eagerness in France totake pains in conversation and to learn its unwritten behests. Theuninitiated suspect little of the insight and care which matures eventhe natural conversational ability of a Madame de Staël or a FrancisqueSarcey. The initiated know that the same principles which make theFrench prodigious conversationalists make them capable and charminghosts and hostesses. The talker who can follow in conversation knowshow to lead, and vice versa. Without a leader or "moderator, " as theadmirable Scotch word has it, conversation is apt to become either tepidor demoralized; and often, for the want of proper and sophisticatedleading, discussion that would otherwise be brilliant deteriorates intopandemonium. As paradoxical as it sounds on first thought, it isnevertheless true that thoroughly good conversation is impossible wherethere is too much talk. Some sort of order must be imperceptibly if notunconsciously maintained, or the sentences clash in generalconversation. Leading conversation is the adroit speech which checks therefractory conversationalist and changes imperceptibly the subject whenit is sufficiently threshed or grows over-heated; it is guiding the talkwithout palpable break into fresh fields of thought; it is the tactwith which, unperceived, the too slow narration of a guest is hurried bysuch courteous interpolations as "So you got to the inn, and what then?"or, "Did the marriage take place after all?"; it is the art with whichthe skilful host or hostess sees that all are drawn into theconversational group; it is the watchfulness that sends the shuttle oftalk in all directions instead of allowing it to rebound between a few;it is the interest with which a host or hostess solicits the opinions ofguests, and develops whatever their answers may vaguely suggest; it isthe care with which an accidentally interrupted speech of a guest isresuscitated; it is the consideration which puts one who arrives late intouch with the subject which was being discust just before hisappearance. It is this concern for conversational cues which gives anyhost or hostess an almost unbounded power in social intercourse; for heis the best talker who can lead others to talk well. It goes without saying that a people who have assimilated all theforegoing tenets of good conversation are never disjointed in theirtalk. Their consummate art of listening is responsible for their skillin following the logical trend of the discourse. This may be considereda national trait. In decent French society there are no abrupttransitions of thought in the different speeches. The speech of eachspeaker grows naturally out of what some one of his conversationalpartners has just been saying, or it is duly prefaced by an introductorysentence connecting it with a certain preceding speech. They know that, once embarked, no converser can tell where the give and take of talkwill carry him; but they also know that this does not necessitateawkward and direct changes of subject. The weakness of inattention andof unconscious shunting in conversation is virtually unknown in goodsociety in France. Is it any wonder that in a country where conversation is considered anart capable of cultivation and having certain fixt principles, so manyFrench women of humble birth, like Sophie Arnould and Julie Lespinasse, have earned their way to fame by their conversational powers? Is it anywonder that in France polite discussion is made the most exhilaratingand delightful exercise in the world? One reason there is so little acceptable conversational discussion isthe indisposition of people in society to say what they think; theirunwillingness to express their whole minds on any one subject. It isthis element of unfettered expression or revelation which makesliterature entertaining; why then withhold thought too cautiously fromconversation? The habit of evasion is cowardly as well as unsocial; andnothing so augments conversation as being pleasantly downright; lettingpeople know where to find you. The most preposterous views get respectif uttered intrepidly. Sincere speech is necessary to good conversationof any kind, and especially is it essential to discussion. One of thestupidest of conversational sins is quibbling--talking insincerely, justfor the sake of using words, and shifting the point at issue to someincidental, subordinate argument on which the decision does not at alldepend. It is the intellectually honest person who sparkles indiscussion. Another reason why discussion is waning is the disrespect we feel forgreat subjects. We only mention them, or hint at them; and this cannotlead to very brilliant talk. Tho prattle and persiflage have their placein conversation, talkers of the highest order tire of continuallyencouraging chit-chat. "What a piece of business; monstrous! I have notread it; impossible to get a box at the opera for another fortnight; howdo you like my dress? It was immensely admired yesterday at the B----s;how badly your cravat is tied! Did you know that ---- lost heavily bythe crash of Thursday? That dear man's death gave me a good fit ofcrying; do you travel this summer? Is Blank really a man of genius? Itis incomprehensible; they married only two years ago. " This sort ofnimble talk is all very well; but because one likes sillibuboccasionally is no proof that one is willing to discard meat entirely. Conversational topics can be too trivial for recreation as well as tooserious; and even important subjects can be handled in a light way ifnecessary. "Clever people are the best encyclopedias, " said Goethe; andthe great premier Gladstone was a charming man in society, though henever talked on any but serious subjects. He was noted for his abilityto pump people dry without seeming in the least to probe. "Trueconversation is not content with thrust and parry, with mere sword-playof any kind, but should lay mind to mind and show the real lines ofagreement and the real lines of divergence. Yet this is the very kind ofconversation which seems to me so very rare. " In order that a greatsubject shall be a good topic of conversation, it must provoke anenthusiasm of belief or disbelief; people must have decided opinions oneway or the other. I believe with Stevenson that theology, of allsubjects, is a suitable topic for conversational discussion, and for thereason he gives: that religion is the medium through which all the worldconsiders life, and the dialect in which people express theirjudgments. Try to talk for any length of time with people to whom youmust not mention creeds, morals, politics, or any other vital interestin life, and see how inane and fettered talk becomes. The tranquil and yet spirited discussion of great subjects is the moststimulating of all talk. The thing to be desired is not the avoidance ofdiscussion but the encouragement of it according to its unwritten codesand precepts. "The first condition of any conversation at all, " saysProfessor Mahaffy of Dublin, "is that people should have their minds sofar in sympathy that they are willing to talk upon the same subject, andto hear what each member of the company thinks about it. The highercondition which now comes before us is, that the speaker, apart from thematter of the conversation, feels an interest in his hearers as distinctpersons, whose opinions and feelings he desires to know. .. . Sympathy, however, should not be excessive in quality, which makes itdemonstrative. We have an excellent word which describes theover-sympathetic person, and marks the judgment of society, when we saythat he or she is _gushing_. To be too sympathetic makes discussion, which implies difference of opinion, impossible. " Those who try todiscover how far conversation is advanced by sympathy and hindered byover-sympathy; those who attempt to detect to what extent wholesomediscussion is degraded by acrid controversy, need not be afraid ofvigorous intellectual buffeting. Discussion springs from human naturewhen it is under the influence of strong feeling, and is as much aningredient of conversation as the vocalizing of sounds is a part of theeffort of expressing thought. CHAPTER III GOSSIP _Gossip in Literature--Gossip Comes from Being of One Kindred Under God--Gossip and the Misanthrope--Personal History of People We Know and People We Don't Know--Gossip of Books of Biography--Interest in Others Gives Fellowship and Warmth to Life--Essential Difference Between Slander and Innocent Gossip--The Psychology of the Slanderer--The Apocryphal Slanderer--"Talking Behind Another's Back"--Personal Chat the Current Coin of Conversation. _ CHAPTER III GOSSIP It seems strange that, in all the long list of brilliant dissertationson every subject under the sun, no English essayist should have yieldeda word under the seductive title of "Gossip. " Even Leigh Hunt, who wrotevivaciously and exquisitely on so many light topics, was not attractedby the enticing possibilities of this subject to which both the learnedand the unlearned are ready at all times to bestow a willing ear or eye. One usually conceives gossip as something to which one lends only one'sear, and never one's eye; but what are "Plutarch's Lives" but the rightsort of gossip? That so many literary men and women have vaguelysuspected the alluring tone-color of the word "gossip" is proved by: _AGossip in Romance_, Robert Louis Stevenson; _Gossip in a Library_, Edmund William Gosse; _Gossip of the Caribbees_, William R. H. Trowbridge, Jr. ; _Gossip from Paris During the Second Empire_, AnthonyNorth Peet; _Gossip in the First Decade of Victoria's Reign_, Jane West;_Gossip of the Century_, Julia Clara Byrne; _Gossiping Guide to Wales_, Askew Roberts and Edward Woodall; _Gossip with Girls and MaidensBetrothed and Free_, Blanche St. John Bellairs. Yet no one has everthought of writing about gossip for its own sweet sake. Among every-day words perhaps the word "gossip" is more to be reckonedwith than any other in our language. The child who runs confidingly tomother to report his grievance is a gossip; he is also an historian. Certainly gossip is in its tone familiar and personal; it is thefamiliar and personal touch which makes _Plutarch's Lives_ interesting. At the root of the word "gossip, " say etymologists, there lies an honestSaxon meaning, "God's sib"--"of one kindred under God. " It would be only a misanthrope who would assert that he has no interestin his fellows. He is invariably a selfish person who shuns personalityin talk and refuses to know anything about people; who says: "What is itto me whether this person has heard Slezak in _Tannhäuser_; what do Icare whether Mrs. So-and-So has visited the French play; what concern isit of mine if Mr. Millions of eighty marries Miss Beautiful of eighteen;what is it to me whether you have watched the agonies of a furnishingparty at Marshall Field's and have observed the bridegroom of tenderyears victimized by his wife and mother-in-law with their appeals to hisexcellent taste; of what interest to me are the accounts of thedissolute excesses which interspersed the wild outbreaks of religiousfanaticism of Henry the Third of France?" This selfish person is alsovery stupid, for nothing so augments conversation as a normal interestin other people. "I shook him well from side to side Until his face was blue. Come, tell me how you live, I cried, And what it is you do. " This plan of Alice's _Through the Looking Glass_ ballad singer forshaking conversation out of people, tho somewhat too strenuous, is lessfatiguing than Sherlock Holmes's inductive methods. Like Sherlockwithout his excuse, the kind and generous must confess to a colossalinterest in the affairs of others. Gossip is the dialog of the drama ofmankind; and we have a right to introduce any innocent and gracefulmeans of thawing their stories from the actors, and of unravelingdramatic knots. People with keen judgment of men and things gather theharvest of a quiet eye; they see in the little world of private lifehistories as wonderful and issues as great as those that get ourattention in literature, or in the theater, or in public life. Personalgossip in its intellectual form has a charm not unhealthy; and it givesnew lights on character more often favorable than unfavorable. There is no difference, between enjoying this personal talk and enjoying_The Mill on the Floss_ or books of biography. Boswell, in his _Life ofJohnson_, and Mrs. Thrale, in her _Letters_, were inveterate gossipsabout the great man. And what an incomparable little tattler was FannyBurney--Madame d'Arblay! Lord William Lennox, in his _Drafts on MyMemory_, is full of irrepressible and fascinating _memorabilia_, fromthe story of General Bullard's salad-dressing to important dramatichistory connected with the theater of his time. The _Spectator_ was thequintessence of gossip in an age of gossip and good conversation. Wecould go a great deal further back to the gossips of Theocritus, who areas living and life-like as if we had just met them in the park. Allbiography is a putting together of trifles which in the aggregate makeup the engrossing life-stories of men and women of former andcontemporary preeminence. It is to the gossips of all ages that we owemuch of value in literary history. Without the personal interest in the affairs of others which makesgossip possible, there would be no fellowship or warmth in life; socialintercourse and conversation would be inhuman and lifeless. Mr. Bensonin his essay "Conversation" tells us that an impersonal talker is likelyto be a dull dog. Mr. Henry van Dyke says that the quality oftalkability does not mark a distinction among things; that it denotes adifference among people. And Chateaubriand, in his _Mémoirsd'Outre-tombe_, confides to us that he has heard some very pleasantreports become irksome and malicious in the mouths of ill-disposedverbal historians. One can interest one's self in the dramatic incidents in the lives ofone's acquaintances without ventilating or vilifying their character. Gossip is capable of a more genial purpose than traducing people. It isthe malignity which turns gossip into scandal against which temperateconversationalists revolt; the sort of thing which Sheridan gibbeted inhis celebrated play, _The School for Scandal_: "Give me the papers, (lisp)--how bold and free! Last night Lord L. Was caught with Lady D. ! . . . . . . . . "So strong, so swift, the monster there's no gagging: Cut scandal's head off, still the tongue is wagging. " But this is scandal, not gossip, and scandal comes from people incapableof anything better either in mind or conversation. Among those whounderstand the art of conversation, libelous talk is rarely heard; withthose who cultivate it to perfection, never. It is the first commandmentof the slanderer to repeat promptly all the vitriolic talk he hears, butto keep strictly to himself all pleasant words or kindly gossip. Thosewho draw no distinction between scandal and gossip should reflect thatgossip may be good-natured and commendatory as well as hostile andadverse. In the published letters of the late James Russell Lowell is anaccount of his meeting Professor Mahaffy of Trinity College, Dublin, whois known to be one of the most agreeable of men. They met at the houseof a friend in Birmingham, England, and when Lowell took leave of Mr. Mahaffy he said to his host: "Well, that's one of the most delightfulfellows I ever met, and I don't mind if you tell him so!" When Lowell'sremark was repeated to Mr. Mahaffy, he exclaimed, "Poor Lowell! to thinkthat he can never have met an Irishman before!" And this was gossip assurely as the inimical prattle about Lord and Lady Byron was gossip. No, indeed, slander and libelous talk are not necessary ingredients ofgossip. People who take malicious pleasure in using speech for malignpurposes suffer from a mental disorder which does not come under thescope of conversation. Regarding the mental deficiencies of those who love to wallow in themire of salacious news about others, the psychologists have come to someinteresting conclusions. To them it seems that there is an essentialidentity between the gossip and the genius. In both, the mentalprocesses work with the same tendency to reproduce every fragment ofpast experience, because both think by what is known as "total recall. "From the thought of one thing their minds pass to all sorts of remoteconnections, sane and silly, rational and grotesque, relevant andirrelevant. The essential difference between the gossip mind and thegenius mind is the power of genius to distinguish between the worthy andthe unworthy, the trivial and the relevant, the true and the false. Thethoughts of the gossip, so the psychologists tell us, have connectionbut not coherence; the thoughts of the genius have coherence andlikewise connection and unity. Thus we discover that scandal-mongers areat fault in the mind more than in the heart; and that it behooves peoplewho do not wish to have themselves voted mentally defective to draw adistinction between scandal and innocent gossip. As I have already said, there is nothing so interesting as the dramatic incidents in the livesof human beings. Despite the nature-study enthusiasts who seem to refusemankind a place in nature, "the proper study of mankind is man" and willforever remain so. But this does not mean that mental weaklings shouldbe allowed to discover and talk about only salacious episodes in thehistory of their acquaintances. The vicious scandal-monger who defamesanother, or hears him defamed or scandalized, and then runs to him withenlarged and considerably colored tales of what was said about him, isthe poison of the serpent and should not be tolerated in society. Asanitarium for mental delinquents is the only proper place for such aperson. And let me add that the apocryphal slanderer, the person who never saysbut hints all sorts of malicious things, is the worst sort ofscandal-monger. The cultivated conversationalist who talks gossip in itsintellectual form does not indulge in oblique hints and insinuations. Hesays what he has to say intrepidly because he says it discriminatingly. Keen judgment which discovers the fundamental distinction betweenscandal and suitable personality in talk raises gossip to the perfectionof an art and the dignity of a science. Undiscriminating people, therefore, had better leave personalities alone and stick to the moregeneral and less resilient topics of conversation. Good gossip isattainable only by minds that are capable of much higher talk thangossip. Cultivated, well-poised, well-disposed persons need never beafraid of indulging their conversation to a certain extent with gossip, because they indulge it in the right way. And provided their personaland familiar talk is listened to by equally cultivated, well-poised, andwell-disposed people, their gossip need not necessarily be limited tothe mention of only pleasant and complimentary history; no more, indeed, than Plutarch found it necessary to tell of the glory of Demostheneswithout mention that there were those who whispered graft and bribery inconnection with his name. There are a few very good and very dull peoplewho try to stop all adverse criticism. All raillery strikes them ascruel. They would like to see every parody murdered by the commonhangman. Even the best of comedy is constitutionally repellent to them. They want only highly colored characters from which every mellow shadeof fault has been obliterated. One cannot say that they have a real loveof human nature, because they do not know what human nature is. They areready to take up arms with it at every turn. Such people cannot see thatridicule, or gossip, can be either innocent or malignant; that historycan be either prejudiced or unbiased. With many, refusing to hear adverse criticism is a mere pose, while withothers it is cynicism. In intercourse with the uneducated, any well-bredperson is properly shocked by their pleasure in detraction and in badnews of all sorts. But the detestable people who seek every occasion tovilify, and who wish to hear only harm of the world, are so exceptionalas to be negligible. These rare villains are eliminated when one speaksof inability to distinguish between detraction and adverse criticism. Those who can praise well are always adepts at criticizing adversely. They never carry their criticism too far, nor give purposely an acridtouch to it. There is a grim tradition that a person should never say anything behindanother's back which he would not say before his face. This is all verywell so far as it relates to venomous tales repeated purposely toinjure; but how colorless are the people who never have criticalopinions on anything or anybody; or people who, having them, neverexpress them! Criticism and cavil are two very different things. Absenceof criticism is absence of the power of distinction. This age of sciencehas taught people to look truth straight in the face and learn todiscriminate. That person to whom everything is sweet does not know whatsweet is. The sophisticated world, unlike the unsophisticated, is notafraid of "passing remarks. " There is no doubt that criticism, whetherit comes directly or roundabout, adds a terror to life as soon as onegoes below a certain level of cultivation. The uneducated are frightenedat the mere thought of criticism; the cultivated are not. Perhaps thereason for this difference is that ordinary people have a brutal andentirely uncritical criticism to fear. In that society sensitiveness isnot very common. They are not dishonorable; they are merely hardy andcan see no distinctions. It is not given to these people to praiserationally and to censure discriminatingly. Vilifying remarks are madeand repeated among them which clever people would be incapable ofuttering. The educated not only use a softened mode of speech, but theyavoid repeating remarks, unless with a discerning wish to be helpful toothers. The cultivated who have brought life to a far higher point thanthe uncultivated have protected their liberty by a social rule. They saywhat they like, and it does not get to the ears of the person about whomthey have said it. And if it did it wouldn't much matter. Criticismwhich is critically given is usually critically received. Themaliciousness of adverse criticism seldom lies in the person who voicesit, but in the person who carries a tale. The moment sophisticatedpeople learn that one among them has venomously repeated an adverselycritical remark, they immediately know that that person is not to themanner born. There is no surer proof. If the born advocate is not always a saint, the born critic is notalways a sinner. Robert Louis Stevenson understood the importance ofthe personal touch in conversation when he wrote: "So far asconversational subjects are truly talkable, more than half of them maybe reduced to three: that I am I, that you are you, and that there areother people dimly understood to be not quite the same as either. " So, also, did Mr. J. M. Barrie, when he told us that his beloved MargaretOgilvy, in spite of no personal interest in Gladstone, "had a profoundfaith in him as an aid to conversation. If there were silent men in thecompany, she would give him to them to talk about precisely as she woulddivide a cake among children. " It is often hinted by men that women are made good conversationalists bya sense of irresponsibility. But I am inclined to think that a littlegossip now and then is relished by the best of men as well as women. The tendency to gossip with which men constantly credit women, and inwhich tendency the men themselves keep pace, helps both men and womenvery effectually to good conversation. "It is more important, " saysStevenson again, "that a person should be a good gossip and talkpleasantly and smartly of common friends and the thousand and onenothings of the day and hour, than speak with the tongues of men andangels. .. . Talk is the creature of the street and market-place, feedingon gossip; and its last resort is still in a discussion on morals. Thatis the heroic form of gossip; heroic in virtue of its high pretensions;but still gossip because it turns on personalities. " Gossip, we must admit, has a perennial interest for all of us. Personalchat is the current coin of conversational capital. Society lives bygossip as it lives by bread. The most absurd rule in the world is toavoid personalities in conversation. To annihilate gossip would be tocut conversational topics in half. There is musical gossip, art gossip, theatrical gossip, literary gossip, and court gossip; there is politicalgossip, and fashionable gossip, and military gossip; there is mercantilegossip and commercial gossip of all kinds; there is physicians' gossipand professional gossip of every sort; there is scientists' gossip; andthere is the gossip of the schools indulged in by masters and studentsall over the educational world. Of all the gossip in the world the mostprodigious and prolific is religious gossip. Archbishops, bishops, deans, rectors, and curates are discussed unreservedly; and thequestions put and answered are not whether they are apostolic teachers, but whether they are high, low, broad, or no church; whether they wearscarlet or black, intone or read, say "shibboleth" or "sibboleth. " The roots of gossip are deep in human interest; and, despite the nearlyuniversal opinion of moralists, great reputations are more often builtout of gossip than destroyed by it. Discriminating people do not createenemies by personalities, nor separate friends, because they gossip witha heart full of love, with charity for all, and with malice toward none. Gossip as a legitimate part of conversation is defended by one of thegreatest of present-day scholars; and I cannot do better than to quote, in closing, what Mr. Mahaffy has said about it: "The topic which oughtto be always interesting is the discussion of human character and humanmotives. If the novel be so popular a form of literature, how can thenovel in real life fail to interest an intelligent company? People ofserious temper and philosophic habit will be able to confine themselvesto large ethical views and the general dealings of men; but to averagepeople, both men and women, and perhaps most of all to busy men whodesire to find in society relaxation from their toil, that lighter andmore personal kind of criticism on human affairs will prevail which isknown as gossip. It is idle to deny that there is no kind ofconversation more fascinating than this. But its immorality may easilybecome such as to shock honest minds, and the man who indulges in it toofreely at the expense of others will probably have to pay the cost of ithimself in the long run; for those who hear him will fear him, and willretire into themselves in his presence. On the other hand, nothing ismore honorable than to stand forth as the defender or the palliator ofthe faults imputed to others, and nothing is easier than to expand sucha defense into general considerations as to the purity of human motives, which will raise the conversation from its unwholesome grounds into theupper air. " CHAPTER IV WHAT SHOULD GUESTS TALK ABOUT AT DINNER? _Guests' Talk During the Quarter of an Hour before Dinner--What Guests May Talk About--Talking to One's Dinner-Companion--Guests' Duty to Host and Hostess--The Dominant Note in Table-Talk--General and_ Tête-à-Tête _Conversation between Guests--The Raconteur at Dinner. _ CHAPTER IV WHAT SHOULD GUESTS TALK ABOUT AT DINNER? "Good talk is not to be had for the asking. Humors must first beaccorded in a kind of overture for prolog; hour, company, andcircumstances be suited; and then at a fit juncture, the subject, thequarry of two heated minds, spring up like a deer out of the wood. "Stevenson knew as well as Alice in Wonderland that something has to openthe conversation. "You can't even drink a bottle of wine without openingit, " argued Alice; and every dinner guest, during the quarter of an hourbefore dinner, has felt the sententiousness of her remark. Someone inwriting about this critical period so conversationally difficult hascontended that no person in his senses would think of wasting good talkin the drawing-room before dinner, but Professor Mahaffy thinksotherwise: "In the very forefront there stares us in the face thatawkward period which even the gentle Menander notes as the worstpossible for conversation, the short time during which people areassembling, and waiting for the announcement of dinner. If the witty manwere not usually a selfish person, who will not exhibit his talentwithout the reward of full and leisurely appreciation, this is the realmoment to show his powers. A brilliant thing said at the very startwhich sets people laughing, and makes them forget that they are waiting, may alter the whole complexion of the party, may make the silent anddistant people feel themselves drawn into the sympathy of commonmerriment, and thaw the iciness which so often fetters Anglo-Saxonsociety. But as this faculty is not given to many, so the average manmay content himself with having something ready to tell, and this, ifpossible, in answer to the usual question exprest or implied: Is thereany news this afternoon? There are few days that the daily paper willnot afford to the intelligent critic something ridiculous either instyle or matter which has escaped the ordinary public; some local event, nay, even some local tragedy, may suggest a topic not worth more than afew moments of attention, which will secure the interest of mindsvacant, and perhaps more hungry to be fed than their bodies. Here then, if anywhere in the whole range of conversation, the man or woman whodesires to be agreeable may venture to think beforehand, and bring withthem something ready, merely as the first kick or starting point to makethe evening run smoothly. " However this may be, it is only with thatcommunicative feeling which comes after eating and drinking that talkerswarm up to discriminating discussion; and in the drawing-room justbefore dinner, one can scarcely expect the conversation to turn onanything but trifles. At the moment a man presents his arm to the woman he is to take in todinner, he must have something ready in the way of a remark, for if hegoes in in silence, he is lost. There are a thousand and one nothings hemay say at this time. I know a clever man who talks interestingly forfifteen minutes about the old-fashioned practice of offering a woman thehand to lead her in to dinner, and whether or not that custom was morecourteous and graceful than our modern way of proceeding. The question is often asked, "What should guests talk about at adinner?" I restrict my interrogation to guests, because there is adistinction between the directing of a dinner-guest's conversation andthe guiding of the talk by host or hostess into necessary or interestingchannels. Dinners, especially in diplomatic circles, are as often givento bring about dexterously certain ends in view as they are given formere pleasure; and when this is the case it is necessary as well asgracious to steer conversation along the paths that it should go. Aguest's first duty is to his dinner-companion, the person with whom, according to the prearranged plan of the hostess, he enters thedining-room and by whom he finds himself seated at table. His next dutyis to his hosts. He has also an abstract conversational duty to hisnext nearest neighbor at table. It is every guest's duty, too, to keephis ears open and be ready to join in general talk should the host orhostess attempt to draw all their guests into any general discussion. The best answer to the question, "What should guests at dinner talkabout?" is, anything and everything, provided the talk is tinctured withtact, discretion, and discrimination. To one's dinner-companion, if hehappens to be a familiar acquaintance, one can even forget to taboodress, disease, and domestics. One might likewise, with discretion, setat liberty the usually forbidden talk of "shop, " on condition that suchintimate conversation is to one's dinner-companion alone and is notdragged into the general flights of the table-talk. While one talks toone's dinner-companion in a low voice, however, it needs nicediscrimination not to seem to talk under one's breath, or to sayanything to a left-hand neighbor which would not be appropriate for aright-hand neighbor to hear. When in general talk, the habit somesupposedly well-bred persons have of glancing furtively at any one guestto interrogate telepathically another's opinion of some remark is badtaste beyond the power of censure or the possibility of forgiveness. At large, formal dinners, on the order of banquets, it would beimpossible for all guests to include a host or hostess in theirconversational groups from any and every part of the table; only thoseguests seated near them can do this. But at small, informal dinners allguests should, whenever possible, consider it their duty to direct muchof their conversation to their host and hostess. I have seen guests atsmall dinners of no more than six or eight covers go through thevarious courses of a three hours' dining, ignoring their host andhostess in the entire table-talk, while conversing volubly with others. There is something more due a host and hostess than mere greetings onentering and leave-takings on departing. If the dinner-party is so largethat all guests cannot show them at the table the attention due them, the delinquent ones can at least seek an opportunity in thedrawing-room, after guests have left the dining-room, to pay their hostand hostess the proper courtesy. Hosts should never be made to feel thatit is to their cook they owe their distinction, and to their table alonethat guests pay visits. To say that the dominant note in table-talk should be light and humorousis going too far; but conversation between dinner-companions should tendstrongly to the humorous, to the light, to the small change of ideas. There should be an adroit intermixing of light and serious talk. I notedonce with keen interest a shrewd mingling of serious talk and small talkat a dinner given to a distinguished German scientist. A clever woman of my acquaintance found herself the one selected toentertain at table this foreigner and scholar. When she was presented inthe drawing-room to the eminent man who was to take her in to dinner, her hostess opened the conversation by informing the noted guest thathis new acquaintance, just that morning, had had conferred upon her thedegree of doctor of philosophy, which was the reason she had beenassigned as dinner-companion to so profound a man. The foreignerfollowed the conversational cue, recounting to his companion hisobservations on the number of American women seeking higher education, _et cetera_. Such a conversational situation was little conducive tosmall talk; but on the way from the drawing-room to the dining-table, this clever woman directed the talk into light vein by assuring thescholar and diplomat that there was nothing dangerous about her even ifshe did possess a university degree; that she would neither bite norphilosophize on all occasions; that she was quite as full of life andfrolic as if she had never seen a university. You can imagine the effectof this vivacity upon the profoundest of men, and you can see how thisclever woman's ability at small talk made a comrade of a notableacademician. As the dinner progressed the talk between these two waveredfrom jest to earnest in a most charming manner. Apropos of a late bookon some serious subject not expurgated for babes and sucklings, butwritten for thinking men and women, the German scientist asked if hemight present his companion with a copy, provided he promised to gluecarefully together the pages unfit for frolicking feminine minds. Twodays later she received the book with some of the margins pasted--whichpages, of course, were the first ones she read. When making an attempt to sparkle in small talk, dinner-guests shouldremember that the line of demarcation between light talk and buffoonerymay become dangerously delicate. One can talk lightly, but nicely; whilebuffoonery is just what the lexicographers define it to be: "Amusingothers by clownish tricks and by commonplace pleasantries. " Gentledulness ever loved a joke; and the fact that very often humorists, paidso highly in literature to perform, will not play a singleconversational trick, is the best proof that they have the good senseto vote their hosts and companions capable of being entertained bysomething nobler than mere pleasantry. "When wit, " says Sydney Smith, "is combined with sense and information; when it is in the hands of onewho can use it and not abuse it (and one who can despise it); who can bewitty and something more than witty; who loves decency and good natureten thousand times better than wit, --wit is then a beautiful anddelightful part of conversation. " Opinions as to what good nature is would perhaps vary. "You may begood-natured, sir, " said Boswell to Doctor Johnson, "but you are notgood-humored. " The speech of men and women is diverse and variouslycharacteristic. All people say "good morning, " but no two of God'screatures say it alike. Their words range from a grunt to gushingexuberance; and one is as objectionable as the other. Even weightysubjects can be talked about in tones of badinage and good breeding. Plato in his wonderful conversations always gave his subject a fringe ofgraceful wit, but beneath the delicate shell there was invariably a hardnut to be cracked. If good nature above all is sincere, it will escapebeing gushing. The hypocrisy which says, "My dear Mrs. So-and-so, I'mperfectly delighted to see you; do sit right down on this bent pin!" isnot good nature; it is pure balderdash. Thoughtful dinner-guests take pains not to monopolize the conversation. They bring others of the company into their talk, giving themopportunities of talking in their turn, and listening themselves whilethey do so: "You, Mr. Brown, will agree with me in this"; or, "Mr. Black, you have had more experience in such cases than I have; what isyour opinion?" The perfection of this quality of conversational charmconsists in that rare gift, the art of drawing others out, and is asvaluable and graceful in guests as in hosts. The French have some dinner-table conventions which to us seem strange. At any small dining of eight or ten people the talk is always supposedto be general. The person who would try to begin a _tête-à-tête_conversation with the guest sitting next to him at table would soon findout his mistake. General conversation is as much a part of the repast asthe viands; and wo to the unwary mortals who, tempted by shortdistances, start to chatter among themselves. A diner-out must be ableto hold his own in a conversation in which all sorts of distant, as wellas near, contributors take part. Of course, this implies small dinners;but English-speaking people, even in small gatherings, do not attemptgeneral conversation to such an extent. They consider it a difficultmatter to accomplish the diagonal feat of addressing guests at too greata distance. Dinner-companions, however, should be alert to others of theconversational group. A guest can as easily lead the talk into generalpaths as can a host or hostess. Indeed, it is gracious for him to dothis, tho it is not his duty. The duty lies entirely with a host orhostess. At any time through the dinner a guest can help to makeconversation general: If some one has just told in a low voice, to aright-hand or left-hand neighbor alone, some clever impersonal thing, ora good anecdote, or some interesting happening suitable to generaltable-talk, the guest can get the attention of all present by addressingsome one at the furthest point of the table from him: "Mr. Snow, MissFrost has just told me something which will interest you, I know, andperhaps all of us: Miss Frost, please tell Mr. Snow about, " _et cetera_. Miss Frost, then, speaking a little louder in order that Mr. Snow mayhear, engages the attention of the entire table. The moment any oneround the table thus invites the attention of the whole dinner-group, dinner-companions should drop instantly their private chats and join inwhatever general talk may ensue on the topic generally introduced. Thethread of their _tête-à-tête_ conversation can be taken up later as thegeneral table-talk is suspended. A narration or an anecdote should not be long drawn out. A dinner-guest, or a host, or a hostess, is for the time being a conversationalist, nota lecturer. It is the unwritten law of successful dinner-talk that noone person round the table should keep the floor for more than a fewshort sentences. The point in anecdotes should be brought out quickly, and no happening of long duration should be recounted. A guest intelling any experience can break his own narration up into conversationby drawing into his talk, or recital, others who are interested in hishobby or in his experience. Responses to toasts at banquets may besomewhat longer than the individual speeches of a single person ingeneral table-talk; but any dinner-speaker knows that even his responseruns the risk of being spoiled if extended beyond a few minutes. There are never-failing topics of interest and untold material out ofwhich to weave suitable dinner-talk, provided it is woven in the rightway. And this weaving of talk is an art in which one may becomeproficient by giving it attention, just as one becomes the master ofany other art by taking thought and probing into underlying principles. So in the art of talking well, even naturally fluent talkers need byfaithful pains to get beyond the point where they only happen to talk. They need to attain that conscious power over conversational situationswhich gives them precision and grace in adapting means to ends and afine discrimination in choosing among their resources. A one-sided conversation between companions is deadly unlessdiscrimination is used in the matter of listening as well as talking. For instance: _Mr. Cook_: "Don't you think the plan of building a great riverside drive a splendid one?" _Miss Brown_: "Yes. " _Mr. Cook_: "The New York drive is one of the joys of life; it gives more unalloyed pleasure than anything I know of. " _Miss Brown_: "Yes. " Unless under conditions suitable to listening and not to talking, Mr. Cook might feel like saying to Miss Brown, as a bright young man oncesaid to a quiet, beautiful girl: "For heaven's sake, Miss Mary, saysomething, even if you have to take it back. " While it is true thatlistening attentively is as valuable and necessary to thoroughly goodconversation as is talking one's self, good listening demands the samediscretion and discrimination that good talking requires. It is thebusiness of any supposedly good conversationalist to discern when andwhy one must give one's companion over to soliloquy, and when and whyone must not do so. The dining-room is both an arena in which talkers fight with words upona field of white damask, and a love-feast of discussion. If guests areneither hatefully disputatious, nor hypocritically humble, if they aregenerous, frank, natural, and wholly honest in word and mind, theimpression they make cannot help being agreeable. CHAPTER V TALK OF HOST AND HOSTESS AT DINNER _The Amalgam for Combining Guests--Hosts' Talk During the Quarter of an Hour before Dinner--Seating Guests to Enhance Conversation--Number of Guests for the Best Conversation--Directing the Conversation at Dinner--Drawing Guests Out--Signaling for Conversation--General and_ Tête-à-tête _Conversation--Putting Strangers at Ease--Steering Talk Away from Offensive Topics--The Gracious Host and Hostess--An Ideal Dinner Party. _ CHAPTER V THE TALK OF HOST AND HOSTESS AT DINNER Sydney Smith, by all accounts a great master of the social art, said ofhimself: "There is one talent I think I have to a remarkable degree:there are substances in nature called amalgams, whose property it is tocombine incongruous materials. Now I am a moral amalgam, and have apeculiar talent for mixing up human materials in society, howeverrepellent their natures. " "And certainly, " adds his biographer, "I haveseen a party composed of materials as ill-sorted as could possibly beimagined, drawn out and attracted together, till at last you wouldbelieve they had been born for each other. " But this rôle of moral amalgam is such a difficult one, it must beperformed with such tact and delicacy, that hostesses are justified inemploying whatever mechanical aids are at their command. Indinner-giving, the first process of amalgamation is to select congenialpeople. Dinners are very often flat failures conversationally becauseguests are invited at random. Choosing the lesser of two evils, it isbetter to run the risk of offending than to jeopardize the flow of talkby inviting uncongenial people. When dinners are given to returnobligations it is not always easy to arrange profitably the inviting andseating of guests. But the judgment displayed just here makes or mars adinner. A good way out of the difficulty, where hosts have obligationsto people of different tastes and interests, is to give a series ofdinners, and to send the invitations out at the same time. If Mrs. X. Isasked to dine with Mrs. Z. The evening following the dinner to whichMrs. Z. Has invited Mrs. Y. , Mrs. X. Is not offended. To see that there is no failure of tact in seating guests should be thenext process of amalgamation. To get the best results a great deal ofcare should be bestowed upon the mixture of this human salad. Guestsshould be seated in such a way that neighbors at table will interesteach other; a brilliant guest should be placed where he may at leastsnatch crumbs of intellectual comfort if his near companions, thotalkative, are not conversationalists of the highest order; theloquacious guest should be put next to the usually taciturn, provided heis one who can be roused to conversation when thrown with talkablepeople. Otherwise one of the hosts should devote himself to the businessof promoting talk with the uncommunicative but no less interestingperson. A wise hostess will consider this matter of seating guests inconnection with selecting and inviting them. It is, therefore, one ofthe subordinate and purely mechanical processes of the real art ofamalgamation. If hosts forget nothing that will tempt a guest to his comfort, theywill remember above all the quarter of an hour before dinner, and willbegin the actual conquest of amalgamation while their friends areassembling. By animation and cordiality they will put congenial guestsin conversation with each other, and will bring forth their mines ofthings old and new, coining the ore into various sums, large and small, as may be needed. In some highly cultured circles, men and women are supposed to besufficiently educated and entertaining to require no literary orchildish aids to conversation. Every dinner-giver, however, knows thedevice of suitable quotations, or original sayings, or clever limericks, on place-cards, and the impetus they give to conversation betweendinner-companions as the guests are seated. But the responsibility ofhost and hostess does not end when they thus furnish dinner-companions aconversational cue. "This is why, " as has been well said by CanonAinger, "a dinner party to be good for anything, beyond the mereenjoyment of the menu, should be neither too large nor too small. Someforgotten genius laid it down that the number should never be less thanthat of the Graces, nor more than that of the Muses, and the latter halfof the epigram may be safely accepted. Ten as a maximum, eight forperfection; for then conversation can be either dialog, or may spreadand become general, and the host or hostess has to direct no more thancan profitably be watched over. It is the dinner party of sixteen totwenty that is so terrible a risk. .. . Good general conversation at tableamong a few is now rather the exception, from the common habit ofcrowding our rooms or our tables and getting rid of social obligationsas if they were commercial debts. Indeed many of our young people haveso seldom heard a general conversation that they grow up in the beliefthat their only duty in society will be to talk to one man or woman at atime. So serious are the results of the fashion of large dinner parties. For really good society no dinner-table should be too large to excludegeneral conversation. " At a banquet of thirty or forty, for instance, general talk is impossible. At such banquets toasts and responses takethe place of general talk; but at small dinners it is gracious for ahost and hostess to lead the conversation often into general paths. Ignoring a host and hostess through the various courses of a threehours' dining, which I have already mentioned, can as easily be thefault of the host and hostess themselves as it can be due to inattentionon the part of guests. A host and hostess should no more ignore any oneguest than any one guest should ignore them; and if they sit at theirown table, as I have sometimes seen hosts and hostesses do, assuming nodifferent function in the conversation than if they were the mostthoughtless guest at the table of another, they cannot expect their ownguests to be anything but petrified, however instinctively social. The conversational duty of a host and hostess is, therefore, to theentire company of people assembled at their board, as well as especiallyto their right-hand neighbors, the guests of honor. It is the expressfunction of a host and hostess to see that each guest takes active partin general table-talk. Leading the talk into general paths and drawingguests out thus become identical. It is this promoting of generalconversation which is the backbone of all good talk. Many people, however, do not need to be drawn out. Mr. Mahaffy cautions: "Above all, the particular guest of the occasion, or the person best known as a witor story-teller, should not be pressed or challenged at the outset, asif he were manifestly exploited by the company. " Such a guest can safelybe left quite to himself, unless he is a stranger. As drawing out thepeople by whom one finds one's self surrounded in society will betreated in a forthcoming essay, I shall not deal with it here furtherthan to tell how a famous pun of Charles Lamb's gave a thoughtful hostnot only the means of swaying the conversation of the entire table to asubject of universal interest, but as well the means of drawing out awell-informed yet timid girl. Guiding his talk with his near neighborinto a discussion of the _pros_ and _cons_ of punning, he attracted theattention of all his guests by addressing some one at the further end ofthe table: "Mr. White, we were speaking of punning as a form of wit, andit reminded me that I have heard Miss Black, at your left, repeat aclever pun of Charles Lamb's--a retort he made when some one accused himof punning. Miss Black, can you give us that pun? I'm afraid I'veforgotten it. " In order that her host and all the table might hear herdistinctly, Miss Black pitched her voice a little higher than in talkwith her near neighbors and responded quickly: "I'll try to remember it, yes: "'If I were punish-ed For every pun I've shed, I should not have a puny shed Wherein to lay my punished head!'" Thus Miss Black was not only drawn out, she was also drawn _into_ theconversation and became the center of an extended general discussion onthe very impersonal and interesting subject of punning. As the talk onpunning diverged, the conversation gradually fell back into privatechats between dinner-companions. A host or hostess will know intuitively when the conversation hasremained _tête-à-tête_ long enough, and will once more make it general. When guests pay due attention to their host and hostess, the talk willnaturally be carried into general channels, especially where guests areseated a little distance away. Even in general conversation a goodstory, if short and crisp, is no doubt a good thing; but when either ahost or a guest does nothing but "anecdote" from the soup to the coffee, story-telling becomes tiresome. Anecdotes should not be dragged in bythe neck, but should come naturally as the talk about many differentsubjects may suggest them. It is the duty of the host and hostess, and certainly their pleasure, tomake conversational paths easy for any strangers in a strange land. Itdoes not follow that a host and hostess are always well acquainted withall their guests. There are instances where they have never even metsome of them. An invitation is extended to the house-guest of a friend;or some person of distinction temporarily in the vicinity is invited, the formality of previous calls being waived for this reason or that. Unless a hostess can feel perfectly safe in delegating to some one elsethe entertaining of a stranger, it is wise to seat this guest as near toherself as possible, even tho he is not made a guest of honor. She canthus learn something about her new acquaintance and put the stranger onan equal conversational footing with the guests who know each otherwell. In their zeal to give their friends pleasure, a host or hostess oftentells a guest that he is to take a particularly brilliant woman in todinner, and the woman is informed that she is to be the neighbor of anotably clever man. To one whose powers are brought out by being put onhis mettle this might prove the best sort of conversational tonic; onthe other hand it might be better tact to say that tho a certain personhas the reputation of being exceptionally clever, he is, in truth, asnatural as an old shoe; that all one has to do to entertain him is totalk ordinarily about commonplace topics. In ninety-nine cases out of ahundred this is so. Some one is responsible for the epigram: "A greatman always lives a great way off"; and it is true that when we come toknow really great people we find that they are as much interested as anyone else in the commonplaces of life. Indeed, the more intellectualpeople are, the more the homely things of life interest them. WhenTennyson was once a passenger on a steamer crossing the English Channel, some people who had been assigned to seats opposite him in the diningsaloon learned that their neighbor at table was the great poet. In aflutter of interest they listened for the wisdom which would drop fromthe distinguished man's mouth and heard the hearty words, "What finepotatoes these are!" This particular point requires nice discernment onthe part of host and hostess; they should know when they may safelyimpress one guest with the cleverness of the other, and when it would bedisastrous to do so. Suppose the consequence is that each guest waitsfor the sparkling flow of wit from the other, and to the consternationof the host and hostess there is profound silence between two reallyinteresting people on whose cleverness they had counted to make theirdinner a success! It is also the province of a host and hostess tactfully to steer thedrift of general table-talk away from topics likely to offend thesensibilities of any one guest. Hosts owe not only attention butprotection to every person whom they ask to their home, and it devolvesupon them to interpose and come to the rescue if a guest is disabled inany way from doing himself any sort of conversational justice. Swayingconversation round and over topics embarrassing to any guest requiresthe utmost tact and delicacy on the part of a host and hostess; for inkeeping one guest from being wounded or embarrassed, the offenderhimself must not be made to feel conscious of his misstep. Indeed he maybe, and usually is, quite unconscious of the effect his words are havingon those whom he does not know well. Any subject which is being handleddangerously must be _juggled_ out of sight, and the determination tojuggle it must be concealed. Tho it is quite correct for one to sayone's self, "I beg pardon for changing the subject abruptly, " nothing isworse form than to say to another, "Change the subject, " or, "Let uschange the subject. " To do this is both rude and crude. Directingconversation means leading talkers unconsciously to talk of somethingelse. Any guest, as well as a host or hostess, may graciously steerconversation when it touches a subject some phase of which is likely tooffend sensitive and unsophisticated people. At a series of dinnersgiven to a circle of philosophic minds religious intolerance was largelythe subject of discussion. The circle, for the most part well known toeach other, was of liberal belief. A guest appeared among them, and itwas known only to one or two that this man was a sincere Catholic. Asthe talk turned upon religious discussion, one of the guests so directedthe conversation as to bring out the information that the stranger was aCatholic by faith and rearing. This was a very kind and appropriatething to do. It acquainted the hostess with a fact of which she wasignorant; and it gave all present a feeling of security in whateverthey might say. A hospitable host and hostess will not absorb the conversation at theirtable. They will render the gracious service of furnishing a backgroundfor the cleverness of others, rather than display unsparingly their ownbrilliancy. Indeed, a man or woman does not have to be brilliant orintellectual to succeed in this most gracious of social arts. The hostor hostess who possesses sympathy and tact will surpass in dinner-givingthe most brilliant person in the world who selfishly monopolizesconversation at his own table. If guests cannot go away from adinner-table feeling better pleased with themselves, that campaign ofhospitality has been a failure. When the self-satisfaction on theirfaces betrays the subtle art of the host and hostess in having convincedall their guests that they have made themselves interesting, then theacme of hospitality has been achieved. One of the most good-natured butmost inane of men was one day chuckling at having been royally divertedat a dinner-party. "He was at Mrs. X's, " said some one. "How do you know that?" "Indeed! Don't I know her way? She'd make a raven go home rivaling thenightingale. " To be able to make your guests better pleased with themselves is thegreatest of all social accomplishments. "An ideal dinner party, " says a famous London hostess, "resemblesnothing so much as a masterpiece of the jeweler's art in the center ofwhich is some crystalline gem in the form of a sparkling and sympathetichostess round whom the guests are arranged in an effective setting. " Itwould seem quite as necessary that a host prove a crystalline gem inthis masterpiece of the jeweler's art. To be signally successful atdinner-giving, care to make the talk interesting is as necessary as carein the preparation of viands. Really successful hosts and hostesses takeas much precaution against fatalities in conversation as against thosewhich offend the palate. While attending carefully to the polishing ofthe crystal and to the preparing of the menu which will make their tablea delight, they remember that the intellect of their guests must besatisfied no less than their eyes and their stomachs. CHAPTER VI INTERRUPTION IN CONVERSATION _Its Deadening Effect on Conversation--Habitual Interruption--Nervous Interruption--Glib Talkers--Interrupting by Over-Accuracy--Interruptions Outside the Conversation-Circle--Children and Their Interruption--Good Talk at Table--Anecdotes of Children's Appreciation of Good Conversation--The Hostess Who Is "Mistress of Herself Tho China Fall. "_ CHAPTER VI INTERRUPTION IN CONVERSATION Interruption, more surely than anything else, kills conversation. Theeffusive talker who, in spite of his facility for words, is in no sensea conversationalist, refuses to recognize the fact that conversationinvolves a partnership; that in this company of joint interest eachparty has a right to his turn in the conversational engagement. Heignores his conversational partners; he breaks into their sentences withhis own speech before they have their words well out of their mouths. Hehas grown so habitual in his interrupting that he rattles onunconscious of the disgust he is producing in the mind of anywell-bred, discriminating conversationalist who hears him. The best oftalkers interrupt occasionally in conversation; but the unconscious, rude interruption of the habitual interrupter, and the unintentional, conscious interruption of the cultivated talker are easily discernible, and are two very different things. We are accustomed to think that children are the only offenders ininterrupting; but, shades of the French _salon_, the crimes of theadults! The great pity about this positive phase of interrupting is thatall habitual interrupters are totally unconscious that they continuallybreak into the speeches of their conversers and literally knock theirvery words back into their mouths. Robert Louis Stevenson pronouncedthis eulogy over his friend, James Walter Ferrier: "He was the only manI ever knew who did not habitually interrupt. " Now, you who read thismay not believe that you are one of the violators of this firstcommandment of good conversation, "thou shalt not interrupt"; but stopto think what small chance you have of escape when only _one_acquaintance of Stevenson's was acquitted of this crime. One must becomeconscious of the fact that he continually interrupts before he can ceaseinterrupting. The unconsciousness is what constitutes the crime; forconscious interruption ceases to be interruption. The moment a goodtalker is aware of having broken into the speech of his converser, heforestalls interruption by waiting to hear what was about to be said. Heinstantly cuts off his own speech with the conventional courtesy-phrase, "I beg your pardon, " which is the same as saying, "Pardon me for seemingto be unwilling to listen to you; I really am both willing and glad tohear what you have to say. " And he proves his willingness by waitinguntil the other person can finish the thought he ventured upon. Whatbetter proof that conversation is listening as well as talking? Sheer, nervous inability to listen is responsible for one phase ofinterruption to conversation. It is the interruption of the wanderingeye which tells that one's words have not been heard. "The person nextto you must be bored by my conversation, for it is going into one ofyour ears and out of the other, " said a talker rather testily to hisinattentive dinner-companion whose absent-minded and tardy replies hadbeen snapping the thread of the thought until it grew intolerable. Shewas perhaps only a little less irritating than the man who became sounconscious in the habit of inattention that on one occasion hisconverser had scarcely finished when he began abstractedly: "Yes, veryodd, very odd, " and told the identical anecdote all over again. There is another phase of interrupting which proceeds from the jerkytalker whose remarks are not provoked by what his conversational partneris saying, with observation and answer, affirmation and rejoinder, butwho waits breathlessly for a pause to jump in and tell some thought ofhis own. Of this sort of talker Dean Swift wrote: "There are peoplewhose manners will not suffer them to interrupt you directly, but whatis almost as bad, will discover abundance of impatience, and lie uponthe watch until you have done, because they have started something intheir own thoughts, which they long to be delivered of. Meantime, theyare so far from regarding what passes that their imaginations are whollyturned upon what they have in reserve, for fear it should slip out oftheir memory; and thus they confine their invention, which mightotherwise range over a hundred things full as good, and that might bemuch more naturally introduced. " An anecdote or a remark will keep. Weare not under the necessity of begrudging every moment that shortens ourown innings; of interrupting our companion by our looks and voting himan impediment to our own much better remarks. A less objectionable phase of interrupting, because it as often springsfrom kind thought as from arrogance, is that of the conversationalist soanxious to prove his quickness of perception that he assumes to knowwhat you are going to say before you have finished your sentence in yourown mind, and to put an interpretation on your arguments before you aredone stating them. His interpretation is as often exactly the oppositeof your own as it is identical; and, right or wrong, the foisted-inexplanation serves only to interrupt the sequence of thought. As earlyas 1832 a writer in the _New England Magazine_ waxed wroth to pugilisticoutburst against this form of interruption: "I have heard individualspraised for this, as indicating a rapidity of mind which arrived at theend before the other was half through. But I should feel as muchdisposed to knock a man down who took my words out of my mouth, as onewho stole my money out of my pocket. Such a habit may be a credit toone's powers, but not to one's modesty or good feeling. What is it butsaying, 'My dear sir, you are making a very bungling piece of work withthat sentence of yours; allow me to finish it for you in proper style. '"Tho one is inclined to feel that this author could well have reservedhis verbal scourging for more irritating forms of impertinentinterruption, it is nevertheless true that people are more entirelyconsiderate who allow their conversational partners to finish theirstatements without fear of being tript up. It is only lack of discrimination on the part of glib talkers to supposethat those who express themselves more deliberately are less interestingin conversation. The pig is one of the most rapidly loquacious ofanimals, yet no one would say that the pig is an attractiveconversationalist. Pope may have been slow in forming the mosaic ofsymbols which express so superbly the fact that "Words are like leaves; and where they most abound Much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found, " but his deliberateness did not dim the wisdom, or interest, or beauty, of his lines. Slow talkers, if allowed to express themselves in theirown way, only add to the attractiveness of any group. Why should weenjoy characterization more in literature and in drama than in life?"Good talking, " says Stevenson, "is declarative of the man; it isdramatic like an impromptu piece of acting where each should representhimself to the greatest advantage; and that is the best kind of talkwhere each speaker is most fully and candidly himself, and where, if youshould shift the speeches round from one to another, there would be thegreatest loss in significance and perspicuity. " The Gradgrinds of society who are always coming down upon us with somehorrible and unnecessary piece of fact are another form of interruptionto good conversation. They stop you to remind you that the accidenthappened in Tremont Street, not in Boylston; and they suspend apertinent point in the air to inform you that it was Mr. Jones's eldestsister, not his youngest, who was abroad at the time of the SanFrancisco earthquake. If some one refers to an incident as havingoccurred on the tenth of the month, they deem it necessary to stop thetalker because they happen to know that it was on the ninth. People areoften their own Gradgrinds, interrupting themselves in the midst of anarration to correct some trivial mistake which has no bearing one wayor the other on what they are saying. Many otherwise good talkers are at times afflicted with aphasia and losethe simplest and most familiar word at just the crucial moment--the veryword which is necessary to the point they wish to make. This happensmore often with elderly people; and it was on such an occasion that Iheard a catchword fiend, a moderately young person, use her pet phraseas a red lantern to stop better, if more halting, talk. "Mr. Black wastelling me to-day about Mr. White's being appointed to ---- what do youcall that office?" implored the dignified matron. "Just call itanything, Mrs. Gray, a bandersnatch, or a buttonhook, or abattering-ram, " impertinently suggested the glib undergraduate who hadbeen applying these words to everybody and everything, and who continuedto do so until she had found a new catchword as the main substance ofher conversation. The infirmities of age, as well as the mellowed wisdomof it, deserve the utmost consideration, especially from youth; and inthis instance deference in aiding the elderly woman to find her wordwould have been more graceful than pleasantry, even if the pleasantrywere of a less spurious kind. Conversation suffers from outside interruptions as much as frominterrupting directly within the conversational group. Bringing verylittle children into grown-up company led Charles Lamb to propose thehealth of Herod, King of the Jews! Society is no place for youngchildren; and if older children are permitted to be present they shouldbe led to listen attentively and to join the conversation modestly. If achild ventures an opinion or asks a question concerning the topic he ishearing discust, he should be welcomed into the conversation. His viewsshould, in this case, be given the same consideration, no matter howimmature, as the riper views of his elders; he should be made alegitimate part of the conversational group. Either this, or he shouldbe sent entirely away. There are no half measures in a matter of thissort. The parent's reiterated commands to "keep quiet, " or "to be seenand not heard, " interrupt as much as the child's prattle. Furthermore, many a child's natural aptitude for talking well has been crusht byolder people stifling every thought the youngster attempted to utter. Abright young girl of my acquaintance was so supprest by her parents fromthe age of seven to fifteen that she early acquired the habit of neveropening her mouth without first getting the consent of father's eyebrow, or mother's. A child thus treated in youth grows up to be timid andhalting in speech; his individuality and spontaneity are smothered. Either let the children talk, meanwhile teaching them _how_ to converse, or send them off to themselves where they may at least express theirthoughts to citizens of their own age. The very best conversationallesson that a child can be given is imparted when he is taught not tointerrupt; when he is made to understand that he must either talkaccording to the niceties of thoroughly good conversation or must besent away. It is often contended that children are out of place at a dining-tablewhere even tolerable conversation is supposed to be carried on. Thisview is no doubt well taken regarding formal dinners; but round thefamily board is the best place in the world to implant in children theprinciples of good conversation and interesting table-talk. To this endfamily differences and unpleasantnesses should be left behind when thefamily goes to the table. Parents should insist, as far as possible, that their children discuss at the dining-table only the pleasant andinteresting happenings of the day. "First of all, " says Mr. Mahaffy, "let me warn those who think it is not worth while taking trouble totalk in their family circle, or who read the newspaper at meals, thatthey are making a mistake which has far-reaching consequences. It isnearly as bad as those convent schools or ladies' academies, whereeither silence or a foreign tongue is imposed at meals. Whatever peoplemay think of the value of theory, there is no doubt whatever thatpractise is necessary for conversation; and it is at home among thosewho are intimate, and free in expressing their thoughts, that thispractise must be sought. It is thus, and thus only, that young peoplecan go out into the world properly provided with the only universalintroduction to society--agreeable speech and manner. " Trampling on the social and conversational rights of the young was sometime ago so well commented upon in _The Outlook_ that I transfer part ofthe article to these pages. The editorial emphasized also theeducational advantages of good table-talk in the home: "There is noeducational opportunity in the home more important than the talk attable. Children who have grown up in homes in which the talk ran onlarge lines and touched all the great interests of life will agree thatnothing gave them greater pleasure or more genuine education. .. . Perhapsone reason why some American children are aggressive and lacking inrespect is the frivolity of the talk that goes on in some Americanfamilies. If children are in the right atmosphere they will not beintrusive or impertinent. Make place for their interests, theirquestions, the problems of their experience; for there are young as wellas old perplexities. Encourage them to talk, and meet them more thanhalf-way by the utmost hospitality to the subjects that interest andpuzzle them. Give them serious attention; do not ridicule theirconfusion of statement nor belittle their troubles. .. . Do not limit thetalk at table to the topics of childhood, but make it intelligible tochildren. Some people make the mistake of 'talking down' to theirchildren; of turning the conversation at table into a kind of elaborate'baby-talk'; not realizing that they are robbing their children ofhearing older people talk about the world in which they live. The childis always looking ahead, peering curiously into the mysterious worldround him, hearing strange voices from it, getting wonderful glimpsesinto it. At night when the murmur of voices comes upstairs, he hears init the sounds of a future full of great things. .. . It is not, therefore, the child of six who sits at the table and listens; it is a humanspirit, eager, curious, wondering, surrounded by mysteries, silentlytaking in what it does not understand to-day, but which will takepossession of it next year and become a torch to light it on its way. It is through association with older people that these fructifying ideascome to the child; it is through such talk that he finds the world he isto possess. .. . The talk of the family ought not, therefore, to bedirected at him or shaped for him; but it ought never to forget him; itought to make a place for him. " Apropos of children's appreciation of good talk, this story is told of ayoung son of one of the clever men of Chicago: Guests were present andthe boy sat quietly listening to the brilliant conversation of hiselders, when his father suggested to Paul that it was late and perhapshe had better go to bed. "Please, father, let me stay, " pleaded theyoungster, "I do so enjoy interesting conversation. " Another and as deepa childlike appreciation comes from the classic city of our AmericanCambridge. The little daughter of one of its representative familieshad lain awake for hours upstairs straining her ears to hear theconversation from below. When her mother came into the little one's roomafter her guests had gone, the tiny lady said plaintively, "Mother dear, while I've been lying here all alone you were having such a liberal timedownstairs. " Unconscious recognition of his just right to converseoccasionally with older people was exprest naïvely by the little son ofa prominent Atlanta family when visiting friends on a plantation. "Ilike to stay here because you let me talk every day at the table, "answered John, when his host asked him why he was pleased in thecountry. "Don't they let you talk every day at home, John?" "Oh, whenfather says 'give the kiddo a chance, ' then they let me talk. " Thisappreciation of his host's welcoming him into the conversation was arare compliment from little John to his older friends and to theirinterest in child-life. Another external and demoralizing interruption to talk is poortable-service. There can be no good conversation at table where the talkis constantly interrupted by wordy instructions to servants. A hostesswho takes pride in the table-talk of her guests assures herself inadvance that the maid or the butler serving the table is well trained, in order that no questions of servants can jeopardize the flow ofconversation. If anything makes it necessary for serving maid or butlerto confer with host or hostess, it should be done in an undertone sothat conversation is not interrupted. But no matter how quietly theservant does this, the conversation _is_ interrupted by the mere factthat the attention of the host or hostess is diverted for even a momentfrom the subject being discust. In the home, as in the business office, efficient help means efficient management. It is a reflection on anyhostess to have her table served so badly three hundred and sixty-fivedays in the year that the service is an interruption to table-talk. Ifshe were capable herself, she would have a capable, well-trained maid orbutler. If a maid or butler could not be trained properly, hercapability would show itself in dismissing that servant and getting onewho could be trained. To the end that conversation will not beinterrupted, the "Russian" method of dining-table service is preferableto all others, and is becoming as popular in America as in the rest ofthe world. [A] A host and hostess can themselves, by the very atmosphere they create, become an unconscious element of interruption to table-talk. To insurefluent conversation at table, hosts must be free from worry; they mustcultivate imperturbability; they must be able to ignore or smile at anyaccident which might happen "in the best regulated family. " There isnothing more distasteful to guests than to observe that their host isanxious lest the arrangements of the hostess miscarry, or that theirhostess is making herself quite wretched by a fear that the dishes willnot be prepared to perfection, or over the breaking of some choice bitof crystal. At a dinner recently I saw the hostess nervous enough toweep over an accident which demolished a treasured salad bowl; and theresult was that it took strong effort on the part of a self-sacrificingand friendly guest to keep up the pleasant flow of talk. How much moretactful and delightful was the manner in which another hostess treated asimilar situation. The guests were startled by a crash in the butler'spantry, and every one knew from the tinkling sound that it was cutglass. After a few words of instruction quietly given, the hostesslaughingly said, "I hope there is enough glass in reserve so that noneof you dear people will have to drink champagne from teacups. " This wasnot only a charming, informal way of smoothing out an awkward situation, but it gave the poor butler the necessary confidence to finish servingthe dinner. Had the hostess been upset over the affair her agitationwould have been communicated to the servants; and instead of one mishapthere might have been several. A hostess should still "be mistress ofherself tho China fall. " In dinner-giving, as in life, it is the partof genius to turn disaster into advantage. "I was once at adinner-party, " said an accomplisht diner-out, "apparently of undertakershired to mourn for the joints and birds in the dishes, when part of theceiling fell. From that moment the guests were as merry as crickets. " Interrupting within the conversational group is perhaps the mostinsufferable of all impediments to rippling talk; and interruptions fromwithout are quite as intolerable. What pleasure is there in conversationbetween two people, or among three or four, when the thought isinterrupted every other remark? Frequent references to subjects entirelyforeign to the topic under discussion give conversation much the samejerky, sputtering ineffectualness as sticking a spigot momentarily in afaucet prevents an even flow of water from a tank. People who have anyfeeling for really good conversation do not allow needless hindrances todestroy the continuity and joy of their intercourse with friends andacquaintances. And people who do permit these interruptions are notconversationalists; they are mere drivelers. FOOTNOTE: [Footnote A: The author, if addrest "Secretary for Mary Lavinia GreerConklin, Post Office Box 1239, Boston, Massachusetts, " would be glad togive information about the Russian method of serving, and would bepleased, also, to answer questions and to correspond with readersregarding any individual conversational situation in which they may findthemselves, provided a self-addrest and stamped envelop is enclosed forreply. ] CHAPTER VII POWER OF FITNESS, TACT, AND NICETY IN BUSINESS WORDS _Why Cultivating the Social Instinct Adds Strength to Business Persuasion--Secret of the Ability to Use Tactful and Vivid Words in Business--Essential Training Necessary to the Nice Use of Words--Business Success Depends upon Nicety and Tact More Than on Any Quality of Force. _ CHAPTER VII POWER OF FITNESS, TACT, AND NICETY IN BUSINESS WORDS There is an aspect of business words which has to do with social tact. "The social tact of business words" sounds incongruous on first thought. Business is largely force, to be sure; but a pleasing mien is oftenpowerful where force would fail. Training in social instinct and nicetyis more essential to a man's commercial interests than is visible on theface of things. For instance: _Customer_ (entering store)--"I wish a tin of 'Cobra' boot polish, black. " _Dealer_--"Sorry, madam, we do not stock 'Cobra, ' as we are seldom asked for it. Do you wish polish for the class of shoes you are wearing?" To tell a customer abruptly, "We do not carry such-and-such a brand instock" has the effect of leading her immediately to turn to go. This isnot cordial, nor gracious, nor diplomatic; hence it is unbusiness-like. Furthermore, to tell a customer that the brand she mentions is seldomasked for is immediately to question her judgment. The dealer, in thiscase, lost a chance to get attention on the part of his customer byfailing to infer, the moment he mentioned her shoes, that she wore agood quality, had good taste, or common sense, or some such thing. Hisreply could have been vastly improved by an exercise of the socialinstinct. To answer her with some non-committal, tactful response wouldopen up cordial relations at once and afford the chance easily andgracefully to lead the talk to another brand of polish. _Dealer_--"Do you prefer 'Cobra' polish, madam? For high-grade shoessuch as you wear we find this brand more generally serviceable andliked. " Telling expression, whether in business or in the drawing-room, dependsas much upon how one says a thing as upon what one says; as much uponwhat one refrains from saying as upon what one does say. What is the secret of the ability to put thought into tactful as well asvivid words? Or is there a secret? There are those who invariably saythe right word in the right way. The question is: how have they found itpossible to do this; how have they learned; how have they brought thefaculty of expression to a perfected art? Or was this ability born inthem? Or, if there is a secret of proficiency, do the adroit managersof words guard their secret carefully? And if so, why? Piano artists, and violin artists, and canvas artists, and singingartists, are uniformly proud of the persevering practise by which theywin success. Why should not ready writers and ready talkers be just asproud of honest endeavor? Are they so vain of the praise of "naturalfacility for expression" that they seldom acknowledge the steps ofprogression by which they falteringly but tenaciously climb the ladderof their attainment? A few great souls and masters of words have beenvery honest about the ways and means by which they became skilfulphrase-builders. Robert Louis Stevenson, as perfect in his talk as inhis written expression, said of himself: "Tho considered an idler atschool, I was always busy on my own private ends, which was to learn touse words. I kept two books in my pocket, one to read, one to write in. As I walked my mind was busy fitting what I saw with appropriate words. As I sat by the roadside a penny version book would be in my hand, tonote down the features of the scene. Thus I lived with words. And what Ithus wrote was written consciously for practise. I had vowed that Iwould learn to write; it was a proficiency that tempted me, and Ipractised to acquire it. I worked in other ways also; often accompaniedmy walks with dialogs and often exercised myself in writing downconversations from memory. This was excellent, no doubt; but there wasperhaps more profit, as there was certainly more effort, in my secretlabors at home. [B] That is the way to learn expression. It was so Keatslearned, and there was never a finer temperament for literature thanKeats's; it was so, if we could trace it out, that all men havelearned. " What, then, is the essential training necessary to the nice handling ofwords? The idea is quite general that an extensive vocabulary alonemakes thought flow exactly off the tip of one's tongue or pen. But isthis true? One should have a command of words, to be sure; one shouldknow more descriptive words than "awful, fierce, fine, charming"--termsused in an unthinking way by people who do not concern themselves withspecific adjectives. But to know how to use a vocabulary is of even moreimportance than to possess one. Indeed, merely to possess a vocabularywithout the ability to weave the words into accurate, characterizeddesigns on an effective background is ruinous to the success of anytalker or writer. To employ an extensive vocabulary riotously is worsethan to own none. When the poet Keats wrote those well-known lines, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever Its loveliness increases, " the first line stood originally: "A thing of beauty is a constant joy. " The poet knew that this was the thought he wanted, but he felt that ithad not the simple, virile swing he coveted. And so the line remainedfor many months, "A thing of beauty is a constant joy, " in spite of theauthor's many attempted phrasings to improve it. Finally the simple word"forever" came to him, "A thing of beauty is a joy forever. " Then he hadit, and he knew he had it--the essential note, the exact word. Certainlythe word "forever" was a part of Keats's vocabulary; he undoubtedlyknew this simple word. It was not the word, but adroitness in using it, which made Keats's lines complete in their polished and naturalperfection. One of the world's worshiped piano virtuosi, who has quite asintellectual a comprehension of words as of music, was asked by theeditor of a magazine to contribute biographical data and photographs foran article on musical composers. The pianiste had published nocompositions, and the gracious answer swung readily into line: "If yourarticle is to deal exclusively with musical composers, I cannot beincluded. I have never published any of my compositions because I feelthat they cannot add anything to my reputation as a pianiste, of which Iam----" Just here, as with Keats's line, vocabulary could not serve thepurpose. The pianiste could have said "of which I am proud. " No, amodest phrase must express honest pride--"my reputation as a pianistewhich I guard sedulously, " or "defend zealously. " No, this the exactnessand simplicity of true art rejected. Then came the simple, perfectphrasing--"my reputation as a pianiste, of which I am somewhat jealous. "Unquestionably, as with Keats's word "forever, " the word "jealous" wasperfectly familiar. It was not any one exceptional word which wasnecessary, but a weaving of simple words--if I may be permitted theexpression. Here, in order to get the effect desired this master-mindrefrained from using a vocabulary. Words came readily enough; but thetongue was in command of silence because pretentious words failed theend. This perfection of expression is not a matter of vocabulary alone. It is more than vocabulary; it is a grappling after the really subtleand intellectual elements of the art of expression and persuasion. Of what use all the delicately tinted tapestry threads in the world, spread out before a tapestry-worker, if he does not possess the abilityto weave them into faultless designs, employing his colors sparinglyhere, and lavishly there? "One's tongue and pen should be in absolute command, whether for silenceor attack, " says Stevenson again; and, more than on any quality offorce, business success depends upon that same nicety in the use ofwords which selects the tactful expression, the modest and simplephrase, in the drawing-room; the sort of nicety which is unobtrusiveexactness and delicacy; an artistry which in no way labels itselfskilful. But underneath all, the woof of the process is socialskill--that skill which is the ability to go back to unadorned firstprinciples with the dexterity of one who has acquired the power to dothe simple thing perfectly by having mastered the entire gamut of thecomplex. FOOTNOTE: [Footnote B: Even Stevenson acknowledged secrecy in his earlierclimbings. ] CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION _Conversation Is Reciprocal--Good Conversationalists Cannot Talk to the Best Advantage without Confederates--As in Whist, It Is the Combination Which Effects What a Single Whist-playing Genius Cannot Accomplish--Good Conversation Does not Mark a Distinction among Subjects; It Denotes a Difference in Talkability--The Different Degrees of Talkability--Imperturbable Glibness Impedes Good Conversation--Ease with Which One May Improve One's Conversational Powers. _ CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION Good conversation, then, is like a well-played game of whist. Each hasto give and take; each has to deal regularly round to all the players;to signal and respond to signals; to follow suit or to trump withpleasantry or jest. And neither you yourself, nor any other of theplayers, can win the game if even one refuses to be guided by its rules. It is the combination which effects what a single whist-playing geniuscould not accomplish. Good conversation, therefore, consists no more inthe thing communicated than in the manner of communicating; no more thangood whist consists entirely in playing the cards without recognizingeven one of the rules of the game. One cannot talk well about eithercabbages or kings with one whose attention wanders; with one whodelivers a sustained soliloquy, or lecture, and calls it conversation;with one who refuses to enter into amicable discussion; or, when in, does nothing but contradict flatly; with one who makes abrupttransitions of thought every time he opens his mouth; with one, inshort, who has never attempted to discover even a few of the thousandand one essential hindrances and aids to conversation. As David couldnot walk as well when sheathed in Saul's armor, so even nimble mindscannot do themselves justice when surrounded by people whose everyutterance is demoralizing to any orderly and stimulating exchange ofideas. "For wit is like a rest Held up at tennis, which men do the best With the best players, " said Sir Foppling Flutter; and few would refuse to admit that fortunatecircumstances of companionship are as much a factor of good conversationas is native cleverness. Satisfactory conversation does not depend uponwhether it is between those intellectually superior or inferior, orbetween strangers or acquaintances; but upon whether, mentally superioror inferior, known or unknown, each party to the conversation talks withdue recognition of its first principles. There are, to be sure, different classes of talkers. There are those of the glory of the sunand others of the glory of the moon. It is easy enough to catch the noteof the company in which one finds one's self; but the most entertainingand captivating person in the world is petrified when he can not put hisfinger on one confederate who understands the simplest mandates of hisart, whether talking badinage or wisdom. Without intelligent listeners, the best talker is at sea; and any good conversationalist is defeatedwhen he is the only member of a crowd of interrupters who scream eachother down. Conversation is essentially reciprocal, and when a good converser flingsout his ball of thought he knows just how the ball should come back tohim, and feels balked and defrauded if his partner is not even watchingto catch it, much less showing any intention of tossing it back onprecisely the right curve. "The habit of interruption, " says Bagehot, "is a symptom of mental deficiency; it proceeds from not knowing what isgoing on in other people's minds. " It is impossible for a good talker totalk to any advantage with a companion who does not concern himself inthe least with anybody's mental processes--not even his own. Given conversation which is marked by conformity to all its unwrittenprecepts, "Men and women then range themselves, " says Henry ThomasBuckle, "into three classes or orders of intelligence. You can tell thelowest class by their habit of talking about nothing else but persons;the next by the fact that their habit is always to talk about things;the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas. " Discussionis the most delightful of all conversation, if the company are _up toit_; it is the highest type of talk, but suited only to the highest typeof individuals. Therefore, a person who in one circle might observe aprudent silence may in another very properly be the chief talker. Highlybred and cultured people have attained a certain unity of type, and areinterested in the same sort of conversation. "Talk depends so wholly onour company, " says Stevenson. "We should like to introduce Falstaff andMercutio, or Falstaff and Sir Toby; but Falstaff in talk with Cordeliaseems even painful. Most of us, by the Protean quality of man, can talkto some degree with all; but the true talk that strikes out all theslumbering best of us comes only with the peculiar brethren of ourspirits. .. . And hence, I suppose, it is that good talk most commonlyarises among friends. Talk is, indeed, both the scene and the instrumentof friendship. " On the whole, then, the very best social intercourse is possible onlywhen there is equality. Hazlitt in one of his delightful essays has saidthat, "In general, wit shines only by reflection. You must take your cuefrom your company--must rise as they rise, and sink as they fall. Youmust see that your good things, your knowing allusions, are not flungaway, like the pearls in the adage. What a check it is to be asked afoolish question; to find that the first principles are not understood!You are thrown on your back immediately; the conversation is stopt likea country-dance by those who do not know the figure. But when a set ofadepts, of _illuminati_, get about a question, it is worth while to hearthem talk. " If we are to have a rising generation of good talkers, by our own choiceand deliberate aim social intercourse should be freed from thebarbarisms which so often hamper it. Conversation at its highest is themost delightful of intellectual stimulants; at its lowest the mostdeadening to intellect. Better be as silent as a deaf-mute than toindulge carelessly in imperturbable glibness which impedes rather thanencourages good conversation. Really clever people dislike to compete ina race with talkers who rarely speak from the abundance of their heartsand often from the emptiness of their heads. On the other hand, one caneasily imagine a sage like Emerson the victim of conceited prigs, listening to their vapid conversational performances, and can readilyunderstand why he considered conversation between two congenial soulsthe only really good talk. Marked conversational powers are in some measure natural and in someacquired; "and to maintain, " says Mr. Mahaffy, "that they dependentirely upon natural gifts is one of the commonest and mostwidely-spread popular errors. .. . It is based on the mistake that art isopposed to nature; that natural means _merely_ what is spontaneous andunprepared, and artistic what is _manifestly_ studied and artificial. .. . Ask any child of five or six years old, anywhere over Europe, to drawyou the figure of a man, and it will always produce very much the samekind of thing. You might therefore assert that this was the _natural_way for a child to draw a man, and yet how remote from nature it is. Ifone or two children out of a thousand made a fair attempt, you wouldattribute this either to special genius or special training--and why?because the child had really approached nature. " Just as a child, eitherwith talent for drawing or without it, can draw a better picture of aman after he has been trained, than before, so can those not endowed bynature with ready speech polish and amend their natural defects. Neitherneed there be artificiality or affectation in talk that is consciouslycultivated; no more indeed than it is affectation to eat with a forkbecause one knows that it is preferable to eating with a knife. The faculty of talking is too seldom regarded in the light of a talentto be polished and variously improved. It is so freely employed in allsorts of trivialities that, like the dyer's hand, it becomes subdued tothat it works in. Canon Ainger has declared positively that"Conversation might be improved if only people would take pains and havea few lessons. " Nearly two hundred years before Canon Ainger came tothis decision, Dean Swift contended that "Conversation might be reducedto perfection; for here we are only to avoid a multitude of errors, which, altho a matter of some difficulty, may be in every man's power. Therefore it seems that the truest way to understand conversation is toknow the faults and errors to which it is subject, and from thence everyman to form maxims to himself whereby it may be regulated, because itrequires few talents to which most men are not born, or at least maynot acquire, without any great genius or study. For nature has leftevery man a capacity for being agreeable, tho not of shining in company;and there are hundreds of people sufficiently qualified for both, who, by a very few faults that they might correct in half an hour, are not somuch as tolerable. " It is recorded of Lady Blessington by Lord Lennox inhis _Drafts on My Memory_ that in youth she did not give any promise ofthe charms for which she was afterwards so conspicuous, and which, inthe first half of the nineteenth century, made Gore House in Londonfamous for its hospitality. A marriage at an early age to a man subjectto hereditary insanity was terminated by her husband's sudden death, andin 1818 she married the Earl of Blessington. Everything goes to provethat, in those few years during her first husband's life, she setherself earnestly to cultivating charm of manner and the art ofconversation. Talking well is given so little serious consideration that the averageperson, when he probes even slightly into the art, is as surprized aswas Molière's _bourgeois gentilhomme_ upon discovering that he hadspoken prose for forty years. Plato says: "Whosoever seeketh must knowthat which he seeketh for in a general notion, else how shall he know itwhen he hath found it?" And if what I write on this subject enablesreaders to know for what they seek in good conversation, even inabstract fashion, I shall be grateful. When all people cultivate the artof conversation as assiduously as the notably good talkers of the worldhave done, there will be a general feast of reason and flow of soul;each will then say to the other, in Milton's words, "With thee conversing, I forget all time. " IN PREPARATION: _The Art of Drawing Others Out_ _Conversation versus Mere Talk_ _Following the Trend of the Conversation; Abrupt Transitions of Thought_ _Listening in Conversation_ _Some Common Errors in Making Introductions_ _Raconteurs and Their Anecdotes_ _Commonplaces of Conversation_ _Subjects for Conversation; Book Talk_ _The Give and Take of Talk_ _Distinction Between Inquisitive Questioning and "Interest Questions"_ _Justifiable Limits of Wit, Raillery, and Humor_ _The Use and Abuse of Slang_ _Small Talk: Glib Talkers_ _Adjusting "Shop" to the Time, the Place, and the Situation_ _Giving and Accepting Compliments_ _Joking and Jesting; Difference Between Pleasantry and Buffoonery_ _A Softened Mode of Speech_ _Brutal Frankness and Intellectual Honesty_ _Thrusting and Parrying in Conversation_ _The Value in Conversation of Knowing "Who's Who"_ * * * * * Transcriber's note The following changes have been made to the text: Page 41: "it isn't so" changed to "It isn't so". Page 65: "Tannhaüser" changed to "Tannhäuser".