who formerly did not exist, that a clever man when he has anything to say, reserves it for his publisher, instead of enlivening the company with it.

In the good old times, conversation had a high educational value, especially as its pleasures were a skilful combination of the dulce and the utile. Good conversation required among friends some similarity of tastes and conduct, and some differences of opinion in matters not subject to law. In this way knowledge was strengthened by argument, and opinions were corrected even while they were being formed.

Under such a happy state of things, conversation had for its object the diversion, as well as the information of the company. People did not talk about themselves in mixed society, for there was an instinctive feeling that no one cared about one's private affairs, at the same time the speakers did not parade their own faults or their own virtues ; neither did they talk of domestic affairs, nor of the weather. A good speaker never talked Latin, seeing that he was mindful of the medieval saying, that a fool is never a complete fool unless he knows Latin; in other words, the pedant is a man who has been educated above his capacity. People never praised without giving reasons, otherwise the praise would seem like flattery. People sought for equality, not for superiority in conversation, and a good talker would enter the company with a general feeling of good will to all, knowing that this would thaw off the hoar frost of caution which encrusts some people. Every thing in this life is reciprocal, and a feeling of good will towards others excites a benevolent feeling in them towards us.

But even in the best times society had its conversational bores, and the family has not diminished since. We have already referred to some of the species. Among others are

those who talk much and say little. The celebrated anatomist Bichat was lecturing on the anatomy of the monkey, and showed that its organs of speech are identical with those of man. After the lecture one of the pupils enquired, "Then why doesn't the monkey talk?" "I suppose it is because he has nothing to say!" was the reply.

If people only talked when they had something to say, it would be a silent world. But there are many persons who place themselves on a level with the monkey and only

chatter.

La Bruyère says, "Il y a des gens qui parlent un moment avant d'avoir pensé." Still, however, the art of saying nothing well is an agreeable one, and some people have a reputation in this way which is not at all despicable. The same acute writer confers great dignity on this art. ing to him, "to trifle gracefully and to treat the smallest subjects happily, requires not only skill, but creative power; for it is making something out of nothing."

Accord

Of course there are persons to whom talk for the sake of talking is intolerable, just as taking up a book for the sake of reading something is unendurable to a literary man. Thus, a very bookish man who seldom went into society was induced one evening to go to a mixed party. On his return, his housekeeper asked him how he had enjoyed himself with all those people? His reply was, "All I can say is, that if those people were books, I would not read them."

Studious men are impatient of small talk, and do not always cultivate the forbearance required in listening to ordinary mortals. A dignitary of the Church once walked with Dr. Johnson from Fleet-street to St. James's Park without a word being said, until, wishing to break the ice, he remarked that the trees grew very well in the park. "They've nothing else

to do," growled out the doctor. Such conduct as abominable. Anyone with the feelings of a gentleman have shown courtesy to a man who waited on him to p respects and do him honour. Equally reprehensible conduct of a University Professor who occasionally i one of his class to accompany him in his daily walk. On one occasion the first quarter of an was passed in silence, when the young man to introduce conversation, remarked that the looked stormy. There was no reply, and nothing f was said, until, in parting, the professor remarked, the-bye, that meteorological remark of yours wa strong."

W

I cannot help thinking that such conduct was sno Common courtesy required the professor to draw o young man by starting topics of conversation, and not him thus mortified and humiliated. But if some youn are too bashful, others are forward enough, as in the c the two collegians whom Sir T. Fowell Buxton shooting over his grounds without permission. He we and remonstrated strongly with them, winding up wit question, "Now, what would you do if you found tw shooting over your grounds without leave ?" "We s ask them in to lunch!" was the saucy reply, and which the intended effect.

Among the bores are those who are in the habit of ing of their acquaintance with great people. One remarked in a club room loud enough to be heard by body, "What a remarkable thing it was that at Lord the evening before, there was no fish at dinner.” said Douglas Jerrold, "they ate it all up stairs!" Me have risen from the lowe ranks of life are often gu

self-assertion in general society.

asseveration, for, as the poet says,—

It is not easy to meet

"Asseveration blustering in your face,

Makes contradiction such a hopeless case,"

except, perhaps, by some well-directed sarcasm, as in the following instance:-A man who took the lead in an afterdinner conversation frequently asserted that he was a selfmade man. Now it so happened that he was very bald, and a quiet man, who had listened to him some time, remarked, "You say you are a self-made man ?" "Yes, sir, I am a self-made man, and I'm proud of it." "Then if you're a self-made man, why the d― didn't you put more hair on your head ?"

If we study the various talkers in society, it will be found that man's inner nature, however modified by education, habits of life, companions, &c., is the mordant that fixes the colour of his conversation. He may often disguise his nature under the mask of politeness-which, according to La Bruyère, makes a man appear outside what he ought to be within-still, however, it may generally be found that persons of good social position never obtrude their rank, but cultivate that affability which puts other people on a level with themselves, and constitutes, in fact, the tone of the best society. People do not always understand this, even when under its influence. It is an extreme case, that of the commercial traveller who found himself in the same railway compartment with the Duke of Northumberland and the Duke of Argyle, and only recognised the former by his servants' liveries at Alnwick, where the Duke left; whereupon the man turned to his companion and said, “Only think ! if that isn't the Duke of Northumberland who has been talking all this time, in the most familiar manner, to a couple of snobs like us!"

There are other varieties of conversation bores; such as the tedious bores, who are like slow chess players. If you hurry them, they become all the more tedious. Perhaps it is a virtuous act of self-denial to be tolerant to them all, seeing that we must sometimes put up with them. We cannot always be talking with the witty and the wise, and much of our own brilliant conversation must often be thrown away upon dullards. If we have nothing but gold coin to give, I suppose we must give it; at the same time, it is convenient to be provided with the small change of talk.

The choice of subjects for conversation ought to be as unrestrained as possible; but there are some subjects which cannot be properly discussed in general society; such as those of a technical kind, or questions in metaphysics. And the reason is, the want of interest in such subjects. This arises from the same cause that leads a healthy person to pay no attention to the action of his lungs, heart, and other organs, which exercise their functions independently of the will. In like manner, a healthy intellect cares little about the distinctions between the reason and the understanding, freewill and necessity, the real and the ideal, the existence of matter, &c., which lead only to verbal distinctions, and never helped anyone to discover a new fact in nature, or to improve his worldly affairs. On such questions the metaphysicians themselves are at variance. Mr. Lewes relates. that Sir James Mackintosh once observed to Dr. Thomas Brown that Reid and Hume differed more in words than in opinion. Brown answered, "Yes. Reid bawled out, 'We must believe in an outward world,' but added in a whisper, 'We can give no reason for our belief.' Hume cries out, 'We can give no reason for such a notion,' and whispers, 'I own we cannot get rid of it.'