TALK AND TALKERS

I

"Sir, we had a good talk."[1]--JOHNSON.

"As we must account[2] for every idle word, so we must for every idle

silence."--FRANKLIN.

There can be no fairer ambition than to excel in talk; to be affable,

gay, ready, clear and welcome; to have a fact, a thought, or an

illustration, pat to every subject; and not only to cheer the flight

of time among our intimates, but bear our part in that great

international congress, always sitting, where public wrongs are first

declared, public errors first corrected, and the course of public

opinion shaped, day by day, a little nearer to the right. No measure

comes before Parliament but it has been long ago prepared by the grand

jury of the talkers; no book is written that has not been largely

composed by their assistance. Literature in many of its branches is no

other than the shadow of good talk; but the imitation falls far short

of the original in life, freedom and effect. There are always two to a

talk, giving and taking, comparing experience and according

conclusions. Talk is fluid, tentative, continually "in further search

and progress;" while written words remain fixed, become idols even to

the writer, found wooden dogmatisms, and preserve flies of obvious

error in the amber[3] of the truth. Last and chief, while literature,

gagged with linsey-woolsey, can only deal with a fraction of the life

of man, talk goes fancy free[4] and may call a spade a spade.[5] It

cannot, even if it would, become merely aesthetic or merely classical

like literature. A jest intervenes, the solemn humbug is dissolved in

laughter, and speech runs forth out of the contemporary groove into

the open fields of nature, cheery and cheering, like schoolboys out of

school. And it is in talk alone that we can learn our period and

ourselves. In short, the first duty of a man is to speak; that is his

chief business in this world; and talk, which is the harmonious speech

of two or more, is by far the most accessible of pleasures. It costs

nothing in money; it is all profit; it completes our education, founds

and fosters our friendships, and can be enjoyed at any age and in

almost any state of health.

The spice of life is battle; the friendliest relations are still a

kind of contest; and if we would not forego all that is valuable in

our lot, we must continually face some other person, eye to eye, and

wrestle a fall whether in love or enmity. It is still by force of

body, or power of character or intellect; that we attain to worthy

pleasures. Men and women contend for each other in the lists of love,

like rival mesmerists; the active and adroit decide their challenges

in the sports of the body; and the sedentary sit down to chess or

conversation. All sluggish and pacific pleasures are, to the same

degree, solitary and selfish; and every durable bond between human

beings is founded in or heightened by some element of competition.

Now, the relation that has the least root in matter is undoubtedly

that airy one of friendship; and hence, I suppose, it is that good

talk most commonly arises among friends. Talk is, indeed, both the

scene and instrument of friendship. It is in talk alone that the

friends can measure strength, and enjoy that amicable

counter-assertion of personality which is the gauge of relations and

the sport of life.

A good talk is not to be had for the asking. Humours must first be

accorded in a kind of overture or prologue; hour, company and

circumstance be suited; and then, at a fit juncture, the subject, the

quarry of two heated minds, spring up like a deer out of the wood. Not

that the talker has any of the hunter's pride, though he has all and

more than all his ardour. The genuine artist follows the stream of

conversation as an angler follows the windings of a brook, not

dallying where he fails to "kill." He trusts implicitly to hazard; and

he is rewarded by continual variety, continual pleasure, and those

changing prospects of the truth that are the best of education. There

is nothing in a subject, so called, that we should regard it as an

idol, or follow it beyond the promptings of desire. Indeed, there are

few subjects; and so far as they are truly talkable, more than the

half of them may be reduced to three: that I am I, that you are you,

and that there are other people dimly understood to be not quite the

same as either. Wherever talk may range, it still runs half the time

on these eternal lines. The theme being set, each plays on himself as

on an instrument; asserts and justifies himself; ransacks his brain

for instances and opinions, and brings them forth new-minted, to his

own surprise and the admiration of his adversary. All natural talk is

a festival of ostentation; and by the laws of the game each accepts

and fans the vanity of the other. It is from that reason that we

venture to lay ourselves so open, that we dare to be so warmly

eloquent, and that we swell in each other's eyes to such a vast

proportion. For talkers, once launched, begin to overflow the limits

of their ordinary selves, tower up to the height of their secret

pretensions, and give themselves out for the heroes, brave, pious,

musical and wise, that in their most shining moments they aspire to

be. So they weave for themselves with words and for a while inhabit a

palace of delights, temple at once and theatre, where they fill the

round of the world's dignities, and feast with the gods, exulting in

Kudos. And when the talk is over, each goes his way, still flushed

with vanity and admiration, still trailing clouds of glory;[6] each

declines from the height of his ideal orgie, not in a moment, but by

slow declension. I remember, in the _entr'acte_ of an afternoon

performance, coming forth into the sunshine, in a beautiful green,

gardened corner of a romantic city; and as I sat and smoked, the music

moving in my blood, I seemed to sit there and evaporate _The Flying

Dutchman_[7] (for it was that I had been hearing) with a wonderful

sense of life, warmth, well-being and pride; and the noises of the

city, voices, bells and marching feet, fell together in my ears like a

symphonious orchestra. In the same way, the excitement of a good talk

lives for a long while after in the blood, the heart still hot within

you, the brain still simmering, and the physical earth swimming around

you with the colours of the sunset.

Natural talk, like ploughing, should turn up a large surface of life,

rather than dig mines into geological strata. Masses of experience,

anecdote, incident, cross-lights, quotation, historical instances, the

whole flotsam and jetsam of two minds forced in and in upon the matter

in hand from every point of the compass, and from every degree of

mental elevation and abasement--these are the material with which talk

is fortified, the food on which the talkers thrive. Such argument as

is proper to the exercise should still be brief and seizing. Talk

should proceed by instances; by the apposite, not the expository. It

should keep close along the lines of humanity, near the bosoms and

businesses of men, at the level where history, fiction and experience

intersect and illuminate each other. I am I, and You are You, with all

my heart; but conceive how these lean propositions change and brighten

when, instead of words, the actual you and I sit cheek by jowl, the

spirit housed in the live body, and the very clothes uttering voices

to corroborate the story in the face. Not less surprising is the

change when we leave off to speak of generalities--the bad, the good,

the miser, and all the characters of Theophrastus[8]--and call up

other men, by anecdote or instance, in their very trick and feature;

or trading on a common knowledge, toss each other famous names, still

glowing with the hues of life. Communication is no longer by words,

but by the instancing of whole biographies, epics, systems of

philosophy, and epochs of history, in bulk. That which is understood

excels that which is spoken in quantity and quality alike; ideas thus

figured and personified, change hands, as we may say, like coin; and

the speakers imply without effort the most obscure and intricate

thoughts. Strangers who have a large common ground of reading will,

for this reason, come the sooner to the grapple of genuine converse.

If they know Othello and Napoleon, Consuelo and Clarissa Harlowe,

Vautrin and Steenie Steenson,[9] they can leave generalities and begin

at once to speak by figures.

Conduct and art are the two subjects that arise most frequently and

that embrace the widest range of facts. A few pleasures bear

discussion for their own sake, but only those which are most social or

most radically human; and even these can only be discussed among their

devotees. A technicality is always welcome to the expert, whether in

athletics, art or law; I have heard the best kind of talk on

technicalities from such rare and happy persons as both know and love

their business. No human being[10] ever spoke of scenery for above two

minutes at a time, which makes me suspect we hear too much of it in

literature. The weather is regarded as the very nadir and scoff of

conversational topics. And yet the weather, the dramatic element in

scenery, is far more tractable in language, and far more human both in

import and suggestion than the stable features of the landscape.

Sailors and shepherds, and the people generally of coast and mountain,

talk well of it; and it is often excitingly presented in literature.

But the tendency of all living talk draws it back and back into the

common focus of humanity. Talk is a creature of the street and

market-place, feeding on gossip; and its last resort is still in a

discussion on morals. That is the heroic form of gossip; heroic in

virtue of its high pretensions; but still gossip, because it turns on

personalities. You can keep no men long, nor Scotchmen[11] at all, off

moral or theological discussion. These are to all the world what law

is to lawyers; they are everybody's technicalities; the medium through

which all consider life, and the dialect in which they express their

judgments. I knew three young men who walked together daily for some

two months in a solemn and beautiful forest and in cloudless summer

weather; daily they talked with unabated zest, and yet scarce wandered

that whole time beyond two subjects--theology and love. And perhaps

neither a court of love[12] nor an assembly of divines would have

granted their premises or welcomed their conclusions.

Conclusions, indeed, are not often reached by talk any more than by

private thinking. That is not the profit. The profit is in the

exercise, and above all in the experience; for when we reason at large

on any subject, we review our state and history in life. From time to

time, however, and specially, I think, in talking art, talk becomes

effective, conquering like war, widening the boundaries of knowledge

like an exploration. A point arises; the question takes a

problematical, a baffling, yet a likely air; the talkers begin to feel

lively presentiments of some conclusion near at hand; towards this

they strive with emulous ardour, each by his own path, and struggling

for first utterance; and then one leaps upon the summit of that matter

with a shout, and almost at the same moment the other is beside him;

and behold they are agreed. Like enough, the progress is illusory, a

mere cat's cradle having been wound and unwound out of words. But the

sense of joint discovery is none the less giddy and inspiring. And in

the life of the talker such triumphs, though imaginary, are neither

few nor far apart; they are attained with speed and pleasure, in the

hour of mirth; and by the nature of the process, they are always

worthily shared.

There is a certain attitude, combative at once and deferential, eager

to fight yet most averse to quarrel, which marks out at once the

talkable man. It is not eloquence, not fairness, not obstinacy, but a

certain proportion of all of these that I love to encounter in my

amicable adversaries. They must not be pontiffs holding doctrine, but

huntsmen questing after elements of truth. Neither must they be boys

to be instructed, but fellow-teachers with whom I may, wrangle and

agree on equal terms. We must reach some solution, some shadow of

consent; for without that, eager talk becomes a torture. But we do not

wish to reach it cheaply, or quickly, or without the tussle and effort

wherein pleasure lies.

The very best talker, with me, is one whom I shall call Spring-Heel'd

Jack.[13] I say so, because I never knew anyone who mingled so largely

the possible ingredients of converse. In the Spanish proverb, the

fourth man necessary to compound a salad, is a madman to mix it: Jack

is that madman. I know not what is more remarkable; the insane

lucidity of his conclusions, the humorous eloquence of his language,

or his power of method, bringing the whole of life into the focus of

the subject treated, mixing the conversational salad like a drunken

god. He doubles like the serpent, changes and flashes like the shaken

kaleidoscope, transmigrates bodily into the views of others, and so,

in the twinkling of an eye and with a heady rapture, turns questions

inside out and flings them empty before you on the ground, like a

triumphant conjuror. It is my common practice when a piece of conduct

puzzles me, to attack it in the presence of Jack with such grossness,

such partiality and such wearing iteration, as at length shall spur

him up in its defence. In a moment he transmigrates, dons the required

character, and with moonstruck philosophy justifies the act in

question. I can fancy nothing to compare with the _vim_ of these

impersonations, the strange scale of language, flying from Shakespeare

to Kant, and from Kant to Major Dyngwell[14]--

"As fast as a musician scatters sounds

Out of an instrument--"

the sudden, sweeping generalisations, the absurd irrelevant

particularities, the wit, wisdom, folly, humour, eloquence and bathos,

each startling in its kind, and yet all luminous in the admired

disorder of their combination. A talker of a different calibre, though

belonging to the same school, is Burly.[15] Burly is a man of great

presence; he commands a larger atmosphere, gives the impression of a

grosser mass of character than most men. It has been said of him that

his presence could be felt in a room you entered blindfold; and the

same, I think, has been said of other powerful constitutions condemned

to much physical inaction. There is something boisterous and piratic

in Burly's manner of talk which suits well enough with this

impression. He will roar you down, he will bury his face in his hands,

he will undergo passions of revolt and agony; and meanwhile his

attitude of mind is really both conciliatory and receptive; and after

Pistol has been out-Pistol'd,[16] and the welkin rung for hours, you

begin to perceive a certain subsidence in these spring torrents,

points of agreement issue, and you end arm-in-arm, and in a glow of

mutual admiration. The outcry only serves to make your final union the

more unexpected and precious. Throughout there has been perfect

sincerity, perfect intelligence, a desire to hear although not always

to listen, and an unaffected eagerness to meet concessions. You have,

with Burly, none of the dangers that attend debate with Spring-Heel'd

Jack; who may at any moment turn his powers of transmigration on

yourself, create for you a view you never held, and then furiously

fall on you for holding it. These, at least, are my two favourites,

and both are loud, copious intolerant talkers. This argues that I

myself am in the same category; for if we love talking at all, we love

a bright, fierce adversary, who will hold his ground, foot by foot, in

much our own manner, sell his attention dearly, and give us our full

measure of the dust and exertion of battle. Both these men can be beat

from a position, but it takes six hours to do it; a high and hard

adventure, worth attempting. With both you can pass days in an

enchanted country of the mind, with people, scenery and manners of its

own; live a life apart, more arduous, active and glowing than any real

existence; and come forth again when the talk is over, as out of a

theatre or a dream, to find the east wind still blowing and the

chimney-pots of the old battered city still around you. Jack has the

far finer mind, Burly the far more honest; Jack gives us the animated

poetry, Burly the romantic prose, of similar themes; the one glances

high like a meteor and makes a light in darkness; the other, with many

changing hues of fire, burns at the sea-level, like a conflagration;

but both have the same humour and artistic interests, the same

unquenched ardour in pursuit, the same gusts of talk and thunderclaps

of contradiction.

Cockshot[17] is a different article, but vastly entertaining, and has

been meat and drink to me for many a long evening. His manner is dry,

brisk and pertinacious, and the choice of words not much. The point

about him is his extraordinary readiness and spirit. You can propound

nothing but he has either a theory about it ready-made, or will have

one instantly on the stocks, and proceed to lay its timbers and launch

it in your presence. "Let me see," he will say. "Give me a moment. I

_should_ have some theory for that." A blither spectacle than the

vigour with which he sets about the task, it were hard to fancy. He is

possessed by a demoniac energy, welding the elements for his life, and

bending ideas, as an athlete bends a horseshoe, with a visible and

lively effort. He has, in theorising, a compass, an art; what I would

call the synthetic gusto; something of a Herbert Spencer,[18] who

should see the fun of the thing. You are not bound, and no more is he,

to place your faith in these brand-new opinions. But some of them are

right enough, durable even for life; and the poorest serve for a

cock-shy--as when idle people, after picnics, float a bottle on a pond

and have an hour's diversion ere it sinks. Whichever they are, serious

opinions or humours of the moment, he still defends his ventures with

indefatigable wit and spirit, hitting savagely himself, but taking

punishment like a man. He knows and never forgets that people talk,

first of all, for the sake of talking; conducts himself in the ring,

to use the old slang, like a thorough "glutton,"[19] and honestly

enjoys a telling facer from his adversary. Cockshot is bottled

effervescency, the sworn foe of sleep. Three-in-the-morning Cockshot,

says a victim. His talk is like the driest of all imaginable dry

champagnes. Sleight of hand and inimitable quickness are the qualities

by which he lives. Athelred,[20] on the other hand, presents you with

the spectacle of a sincere and somewhat slow nature thinking aloud. He

is the most unready man I ever knew to shine in conversation. You may

see him sometimes wrestle with a refractory jest for a minute or two

together, and perhaps fail to throw it in the end. And there is

something singularly engaging, often instructive, in the simplicity

with which he thus exposes the process as well as the result, the

works as well as the dial of the clock. Withal he has his hours of

inspiration. Apt words come to him as if by accident, and, coming from

deeper down, they smack the more personally, they have the more of

fine old crusted humanity, rich in sediment and humour. There are

sayings of his in which he has stamped himself into the very grain of

the language; you would think he must have worn the words next his

skin and slept with them. Yet it is not as a sayer of particular good

things that Athelred is most to be regarded, rather as the stalwart

woodman of thought. I have pulled on a light cord often enough, while

he has been wielding the broad-axe; and between us, on this unequal

division, many a specious fallacy has fallen. I have known him to

battle the same question night after night for years, keeping it in

the reign of talk, constantly applying it and re-applying it to life

with humorous or grave intention, and all the while, never hurrying,

nor flagging, nor taking an unfair advantage of the facts. Jack at a

given moment, when arising, as it were, from the tripod, can be more

radiantly just to those from whom he differs; but then the tenor of

his thoughts is even calumnious; while Athelred, slower to forge

excuses, is yet slower to condemn, and sits over the welter of the

world, vacillating but still judicial, and still faithfully contending

with his doubts.

Both the last talkers deal much in points of conduct and religion

studied in the "dry light"[21] of prose. Indirectly and as if against

his will the same elements from time to time appear in the troubled

and poetic talk of Opalstein.[22] His various and exotic knowledge,

complete although unready sympathies, and fine, full, discriminative

flow of language, fit him out to be the best of talkers; so perhaps he

is with some, not _quite_ with me--_proxime accessit_,[23] I should

say. He sings the praises of the earth and the arts, flowers and

jewels, wine and music, in a moonlight, serenading manner, as to the

light guitar; even wisdom comes from his tongue like singing; no one

is, indeed, more tuneful in the upper notes. But even while he sings

the song of the Sirens, he still hearkens to the barking of the

Sphinx. Jarring Byronic notes interrupt the flow of his Horatian

humours. His mirth has something of the tragedy of the world for its

perpetual background; and he feasts like Don Giovanni to a double

orchestra, one lightly sounding for the dance, one pealing

Beethoven[24] in the distance. He is not truly reconciled either with

life or with himself; and this instant war in his members sometimes

divides the man's attention. He does not always, perhaps not often,

frankly surrender himself in conversation. He brings into the talk

other thoughts than those which he expresses; you are conscious that

he keeps an eye on something else, that he does not shake off the

world, nor quite forget himself. Hence arise occasional

disappointments; even an occasional unfairness for his companions, who

find themselves one day giving too much, and the next, when they are

wary out of season, giving perhaps too little. Purcel[25] is in

another class from any I have mentioned. He is no debater, but appears

in conversation, as occasion rises, in two distinct characters, one of

which I admire and fear, and the other love. In the first, he is

radiantly civil and rather silent, sits on a high, courtly hilltop,

and from that vantage-ground drops you his remarks like favours. He

seems not to share in our sublunary contentions; he wears no sign of

interest; when on a sudden there falls in a crystal of wit, so

polished that the dull do not perceive it, but so right that the

sensitive are silenced. True talk should have more body and blood,

should be louder, vainer and more declaratory of the man; the true

talker should not hold so steady an advantage over whom he speaks

with; and that is one reason out of a score why I prefer my Purcel in

his second character, when he unbends into a strain of graceful

gossip, singing like the fireside kettle. In these moods he has an

elegant homeliness that rings of the true Queen Anne. I know another

person[26] who attains, in his moments, to the insolence of a

Restoration comedy, speaking, I declare, as Congreve[27] wrote; but

that is a sport of nature, and scarce falls under the rubric, for

there is none, alas! to give him answer.

One last remark occurs: It is the mark of genuine conversation that

the sayings can scarce be quoted with their full effect beyond the

circle of common friends. To have their proper weight they should

appear in a biography, and with the portrait of the speaker. Good talk

is dramatic; it is like an impromptu piece of acting where each should

represent himself to the greatest advantage; and that is the best kind

of talk where each speaker is most fully and candidly himself, and

where, if you were to shift the speeches round from one to another,

there would be the greatest loss in significance and perspicuity. It

is for this reason that talk depends so wholly on our company. We

should like to introduce Falstaff and Mercutio, or Falstaff and Sir

Toby; but Falstaff in talk with Cordelia seems even painful. Most of

us, by the Protean[28] quality of man, can talk to some degree with

all; but the true talk, that strikes out all the slumbering best of

us, comes only with the peculiar brethren of our spirits, is founded

as deep as love in the constitution of our being, and is a thing to

relish with all our energy, while, yet we have it, and to be grateful

for forever.

Essays of Robert Louis Stevenson Selected and Edited With an Introduction and Notes by William Lyon Phelps · 第 28 / 48 题