§ 15. We cannot analyse the second form of conscious modesty, Reserve,
till we have said a few words on the virtue akin to modesty which
reserve particularly violates, I mean of the quality of Simplicity. It
is a great mistake to say that simplicity as such is always a virtue.
There is for example the _enfant terrible_ who upsets everybody and
causes shocking shame and confusion by the indiscreet directness of his
inquiries. The very same kind of mistake is made by grown people who are
ignorant of the ways of society, such as country girls, or girls of an
inferior rank, who are married into a cultivated society, and who are
allowed such liberties, either for their beauty’s sake, or for novelty’s
sake, that they announce whatever comes into their head, and disturb
conversation by their irrelevancy and shallowness, if not by suggesting
subjects undesirable in general society. There is also the blunt man,
whose simplicity takes the form of rudeness, who thinks it more
important that he should speak out the plain truth, than that he should
spare the feelings of others. This is again a vice parading under the
form of a virtue—perhaps here of truthfulness rather than simplicity,
but the two are so akin that at this point we need not draw
distinctions. The conversational side of truthfulness is after all
little more than directness and simplicity of utterance.
So far then I have put the defects of simplicity first, because they are
more likely to be overlooked than its advantages. When, therefore, these
important limitations are made, and they affect a great number of cases,
we must admit that there is the greatest charm in simplicity, in the
temper which without assumption of ignorance, or parade of inexperience,
opens a candid eye of inquiry upon the company, receives with readiness
new information, and is ready to tell without conceits or ornaments the
actual impressions in the speaker’s mind.
It may be found not only along with genius, which is often of this
character, but along with great experience and acuteness; we hear for
example, that it is the leading characteristic of Prince Bismarck’s
conversation. I remember it likewise with delight in the conversation of
the late Isaac Butt, an Irish genius of the highest order, and a talker
second to none, whose life was stormy, and whose character not by any
means such as would naturally imply this quality of simplicity. On the
other hand, it is quite extravagant to postulate it as a necessary sign
of genius, and to say that those who are wanting in it are certainly
wanting either in ability or honesty. There are great minds naturally
wanting in simplicity, just as there are great minds wanting in modesty
or in truthfulness—such as J. J. Rousseau and the great Napoleon in the
latter two, and one great English writer of our day in the former, whom
I need not name. Human nature will not be tied down in any such fetters.
But when all has been said that can be said on either side, it will
remain certain that the man who appears simple, and who therefore
affects his company with the impression that they are in direct contact
with his mind, has a distinct advantage over those who either from
conceits of style, or over-delicacy of sentiment, or education in an
artificial atmosphere, appear with their minds, as it were, dressed or
tattooed, and not in the purity of nature.
I need hardly add that it is necessary to sever simplicity from modesty
as social qualities, since the one may even contradict the other, though
they are so often in harmony. The blunt man above mentioned, who speaks
out his mind with over-simplicity, may be very devoid of modesty, and
conversely there are certain phases of modesty, such as _prudery_, which
make the speaker avoid simplicity, and cover his meaning by various
subterfuges. It is when the two qualities work together, and appear
habitual to the speaker, that they produce their admirable effect. If he
is narrating, for example, a tragic history, or story of adventure in
which he has taken part, while his modesty will prevent him from
magnifying his own share in the matter, and so trying to the utmost the
faith of his hearers, his simplicity will prevent him from unduly
concealing his action, and will ensure that he tells the whole truth, so
far as he knows it. If again he be asked his opinion on a question which
he has studied, and upon which he ought to be an authority, his modesty
may prevent him from giving the company the benefit of his knowledge,
unless his simplicity makes him attend directly to the matter in hand,
and not to the position of referee in which he suddenly comes to be
placed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------