§ 8. Far more important than the physical gifts of nature, which can
only be slightly improved, though they can be completely marred by
habit, are the mental conditions of conversation. Among these the most
obvious is, of course, Knowledge. An ignorant man is seldom agreeable in
conversation, except as a butt; a man full of knowledge is certain to be
agreeable if he will conform to the other conditions of the game. The
word _knowledge_ is, however, so vague, that we must be at pains to
define more particularly its divisions, and consider what kind of
knowledge is most conducive to good conversation.
Of course the first question suggested to the reader is whether general
or special knowledge in the speaker is to be preferred. There are
arguments in favour of each. Let us take the specialist first. There is
undoubtedly a great satisfaction in talking to a man who is master of
any special subject, even if it be remote from ordinary life.
Intelligent questions will draw from the astronomer, from the chemist,
possibly from the pure mathematician, curious facts and interesting
views on the progress of discovery, which will pleasantly beguile the
time even in a light-minded and frivolous company. This opens a field
for conversation which is inaccessible if there be no one present to
explain or to speak with authority, and so no invitation is more
frequent or more welcome than to come and meet a man celebrated in his
own line and of wide reputation. The very fact of meeting such a man
disposes the company to be sympathetic, and to draw from him the secrets
of his knowledge.
This kind of vantage-ground may be occupied by a man of no original
capacity or deep learning, if accident has made him intimate with some
exciting or absorbing subject of the day. The man who has just escaped a
shipwreck, or fought in a famous battle, or survived some catastrophe,
has for the moment the advantage of being endowed with special
knowledge, which everybody wants to talk about, and to learn particulars
from the actual eye-witness. Akin to this is the advantage of having
seen and conversed with the greatest men of the day—a feature which
lends the principal charm to those volumes of autobiography or of
_recollections_, which approach nearer than any other kind of book to
the conditions of a conversation.
§ 9. Of course the danger with either of these specialists, the
specialist of a day or the specialist of years, is that he will not
leave his subject when it has been sufficiently discussed, as he will
probably gauge the interest of others by his own preoccupation, and so
may become not a blessing but a bore to his company. Though this is
frequently the case, those who have gathered company about them for
conversation, and have long experience of what is most likely to
succeed, will agree with me that to have a specialist present is always
valuable. If other topics flag an appeal to this abundant source will
always introduce a new current of talk, and often of the most agreeable
kind.
Neither of these mental conditions, which are distinctly valuable in
society, include the case of specialists on topics which are of no
universal or no permanent interest. Thus there are in English society
men devoted to one particular sport or one narrow pursuit, upon which
they can talk with authority indeed, and with interest, but only to
those who have received the same training. A party of fox-hunters, or
racing-men, or college dons, or stockbrokers, who rehearse again in the
evening what they have been doing all day, may indeed amuse themselves
with talk, but in no sense is it good conversation. One specialist, as I
have said, may be of the greatest use in conversation. A set of
specialists when they get together are either unintelligible to the
average mind or exceedingly tedious.
The same remarks apply to specialists, men or women, who can only
discuss topics interesting to one sex. I will not go so far as to say
that no conversation can be really good which does not include speakers
of both sexes; the divergence in the education and the life of our boys
and of our girls is still too wide to make such a limitation reasonable.
But it is surely a bad sign of any society to find men’s parties
considered more agreeable than those of both sexes, for it is a sign
either of licence in men’s talk or of narrowness in women’s education.
There are cases of both within most people’s experience. The latter is
notably the case in some parts of Ireland, and arises from the want of
_political_ education in Irish women of any but the highest classes. And
so it is in many other countries. But this is verging upon the
educational conclusions which we must postpone to another occasion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------