§ 58. Finally, we may distinguish the mode in which all subjects may be
treated, just as the old rhetoricians divided the various modes of
oratory; for, as we said at the outset, conversation may be in theory
regarded as informal rhetoric. The old division, then, of orations was
based on the form which the company of hearers and speakers assumed. Was
it a deliberative assembly, which sat in conclave, as it were, to find
out the truth or the right thing to do upon an open question? Then the
proper form of eloquence was the _Deliberative_, that of the
Senate-house or Parliament suggesting arguments with gravity and
modesty,[13] receiving with deference and attention the views of others,
stimulating all to give their opinions. Was it a judicial court, where
the question was a dispute, and the speakers had their line determined
as plaintiffs or defendants? Then the form was the _Controversial_, in
which each side was bound to make the best of its own case, and the
worst of the adversary’s; in which each speaker was to bid for the
favour of the court, and only limit the violence of his invective by the
fear of alienating the judges of the case, and so defeating the object
he had in view. Lastly, was the meeting one which merely came together
to be impressed or amused by the display of a single speaker, to whom
the topic was prescribed, and whose duty it was to excite the emotions
and enlist the sympathy of his hearers? Then the proper form was the
_Florid_, or _Epideictic_, as they called it, where display was the
object, where pomp and ornament were in their proper place.
Footnote 13:
I need hardly say that the present Houses of Parliament in England and
elsewhere, if we except the House of Lords, will not serve as
specimens.
§ 59. These distinctions are with reasonable reservations clearly
applicable to conversation. The best kind is when the subject is
discussed by the company as if at an informal council, in which each
member gives his opinion, and contributes something to the common stock;
where each is not only listened to in turn, but is expected to speak,
and where the variety of views and of the expression of them constitutes
the very charm of the company. The more people succeed in adopting this
form of discussion, the more successful their society will be. The most
perfect host and hostess are those who induce all their guests to talk,
and elicit even from the silent and the bashful some stray flash of
intelligence, which gives additional flavour to the spiritual repast.
It may happen, however, that the topic is taken up by two leading minds
in the company, and discussed as a controversy, each putting forth his
strength to wrestle with his friendly adversary. Then it may be
desirable for the rest to take sides in sympathy, and encourage the
conflict of wit or argument. This sort of society may be exceedingly
pleasant, provided the disputants keep their temper, and provided they
do not monopolise too great a share of the time and attention of the
rest. There is hardly a company which will not tire of the discussion of
a single subject, however important or interesting. Nevertheless the
controversial form is distinctly an agreeable and often highly
instructive form of conversation, and many a society of ordinary people
attain to the enjoyment of an excellent evening by encouraging two
leading spirits to show their powers.
The same good result may be obtained when the company comes together for
the purpose of hearing some remarkable person, who is held out as the
attraction of the party. It is not conversation, in any real sense,
unless it stimulates others to speak; but still we must include in our
survey those cases where the funny man, or the Arctic traveller, or the
superannuated detective, or the escaped nihilist, undertakes to tell his
experiences, and delight us with ‘real fiction.’ This is truly the
epideictic or _show-off_ style, in which the solitary speaker is
supposed to delight and display himself without a rival, or with a rival
silenced before him. Indeed, it is matter of common remark that two or
three such talkers are apt to neutralise one another and produce no
effect. Each is supposed to be afraid of the other, or jealous of the
other, and so wanting in that spontaneity or _abandon_ only attained in
a congenial atmosphere. This is not my experience of Irish wits, of whom
a wise English friend often remarked to me: There is no use in asking
one Irishman to dinner; you must ask another to draw him out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------