§ 54. Having now exhausted the subjective side, that is to say the
qualities in the speaker and the conditions among the hearers which make
or mar conversation, it is natural to proceed to the objective side and
see how far we can classify the topics which form the matter of our
talk. Of course a division of the actual subjects under specific heads
would require an encyclopædia, and even then would never be complete,
for the very essence of good conversation is to wander through all
possible things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth without bond or
limit, the only universal condition being that we should range far and
near and seek all possible variety, or rather let ourselves drift from
point to point, and not determine to hold a fixed course. The quantity,
therefore, of subjects being infinite, and so not to be described, we
must content ourselves with regarding them in quality as either serious
or trivial; in relation to the speakers, as either universal or
personal; in the mode of treatment, as handled either in council, in
controversy, or in exposition.
§ 55. Our theory has declared itself long ago against over-seriousness
in conversation. This caution is specially necessary nowadays,—when
people read so many books and work so hard,—lest they should regard
conversation as a deliberate method of instruction and channel of
improvement. Nay, these very objects will be far better attained
indirectly and by the way, while the company is indulging in talk as a
recreation.
But it is almost needless to say that the most solid and lasting
recreation, the most excellent refreshment of the soul, is to be had
from very serious converse, especially where not more than two or three
are gathered together, and to exclude this precious comfort from any
theory of conversation would be absurd. On the other hand, when two
people are earnestly engaged on a really serious topic, we may leave
them to themselves, and need not intrude upon them any idle
considerations as to their manner of treating it. For this is not
conversation in the proper sense. ‘In this frame of mind,’ says
Hawthorne in his _Transformation_ (chap. ii.), ‘men sometimes find their
profoundest truths side by side with the idlest jest, and utter one or
the other, apparently without distinguishing which is the more valuable
or assigning any considerable value to either.’ He hits the truth
exactly. Great seriousness is as detrimental to a general talk as
excessive trifling. For as the latter fails after a few moments to
interest people who have any sense, so the former fails to recreate or
amuse, and is in fact earnest work invading the proper domain of
leisure.
There is therefore no general direction here possible save to avoid both
extremes, or rather to avoid persistence in either extreme, for it is
better to have them in turn, than to cultivate subjects which are
indifferent. Brilliant talk should alternate between grave and gay, and
above all shun dryness, detail, minuteness—in a word, tediousness.
The moment at which by common consent people talk trivialities is the
moment of first introduction. And here the weather is almost invariably
the first pawn to be moved. It is amazing what triteness and endless
repetition is tolerated by society on this point. The facts stated are
common property, and agreed to by all, so that the first object of
ordinary people seems to be to express nothing while they are saying
something. Yet I suppose what is sanctioned by almost universal practice
must have some good reason behind it, and is perhaps meant to give
people time to observe each other without apparent rudeness. This method
of opening the game seems, however, so stale that every sensible person
should have some paradox or heresy about the weather ready whereby he
may break through this idle skirmishing and make the people about him
begin to think as soon as possible. On the other hand it is easy to
overdo this attempt, and begin with something so serious that the
unprepared audience is frightened and chilled. Thus there can be no
greater blunder than to inquire suddenly about the state of a man’s
soul, a sort of _coup_ which many pious people have actually thought a
decent introduction to a conversation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------