Conversation

Conversation (pronounced kon-ver-sey-shuhn)

(1) A (usually) informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc, by spoken words; oral communication between persons; talk; colloquy.

(2) Association or social intercourse; intimate acquaintance.

(3) In tort law, as criminal conversation, an action variously available (according to circumstances), pursuant to adultery.

(4) Behavior or manner of living (obsolete).

(5) Close familiarity; intimate acquaintance, as from constant use or study (now rare).

1300–1350: From the Middle English conversacion & conversacioun, from the Old French conversacion (behavior, life, way of life, monastic life), from the Latin conversātiōnem (accusative singular of conversātiō) (conversation) (frequent use, frequent abode in a place, intercourse, conversation), noun of action from the past-participle stem of conversari (to live, dwell, live with, keep company with), the passive voice of conversare (to turn about, turn about with (conversor (abide, keep company with) a frequently used derivative)), from an assimilated form, the construct being com (with, together) + versare, frequentative of vertere (to turn), from the primitive Indo-European root wer (to turn, bend).  Both the mid-fourteenth century meanings (1) "place where one lives or dwells" and (2) "general course of actions or habits, manner of conducting oneself in the world" are long obsolete.  Those senses were picked up from the Old French conversacion and directly from the Latin conversationem.

The modern sense of "informal interchange of thoughts and sentiments by spoken words" dates from the 1570s but this for a long time ran in parallel with being a synonym for "sexual intercourse", in use since at least the late fourteenth century.  Depending on the circles in which one moved, that might have been the source of misunderstandings.  In common law, the tort of criminal conversation emerged in the late eighteenth century.  The "conversation-piece" was noted from 1712 in the sense of "painting representing a group of figures arranged as if in conversation" al la "still life"; by 1784 it had come to mean "subject for conversation, something about which to talk".

The tort of criminal conversation

Like “knowing” (of biblical origin), "conversation" was a euphemism for illicit sex and in this sense has long been obsolete except as “criminal conversation”. which, at common law, is a tort which can be used in proceedings pursuant to certain types of adultery.  Dating from the eighteenth century, although abolished in England in 1857, the tort survived in Australia until 1975 when the Family Law Act replaced the old Matrimonial Causes Act, a piece of law reform which much disappointed Liberal Party lawyers, not a few moralists (professional & amateur) and readers of the Melbourne Truth, a most disreputable tabloid noted for its outstanding racing form guide and publication of salacious photographs (often taken through the windows of St Kilda motels) used as evidence in divorce cases.  The action remains available in a handful of jurisdictions in the United States where the rules can be more liberal than permitted in English courts in that women are entitled to sue.  The name has always been misleading; although called "criminal" conversation, the action was only ever strictly a claim for damages in money.

Example one (Cheryl & Gareth): A man has an affair with a married woman.  

The husband of the unfaithful wife would have been able to sue the unfaithful husband in the tort of criminal conversation.

It was a precisely defined tort which existed to allow wronged parties to seek monetary compensation for acts of unfaithfulness.  Under criminal conversation, within certain limitations of timings and sequence of events, a husband could sue any man who slept with his wife, even if consensual.  If the couple was already separated, the husband could sue only if the separation was caused by the person he was suing.

Example two (Vikki & Barnaby): A man has an affair with an unmarried woman.  

No action would have been possible in the tort of criminal conversation because the woman has no husband to raise the action.  Only a husband could be the plaintiff, and only the "other man" could be the defendant.

Reflecting the moral basis of the tort, each separate adulterous act could give rise to a separate claim for criminal conversation and curiously, the plaintiff, defendant and wife were not permitted to take the stand, evidence being given by other observers, often servants in the employment of one of the parties to the suit.  The tort was a matter wholly a creature of civil law and the definitions of adultery codified in canon law had no relevance to the offence or any subsequent penalty.  Under canon law, someone was deemed to have committed adultery if they enjoyed intimacy with someone while married to another whereas if the other party was also married, the offence was double adultery but neither aggravated the offence or could be offered in mitigation.

Conversation piece: Lindsay Lohan in conversation with her sister Aliana, La Conversation bakery & café, West Hollywood, California, April 2012.  Sadly, La Conversation is now closed.

Conversation piece: The Schutz Family and their Friends on a Terrace (1725) by Philip Mercier, Tate Gallery.  As a genre in painting, the "conversation piece" was a notionally informal (though obviously often staged) group portrait, usually small in scale and depicting families (and sometimes groups of friends) in domestic interior or garden settings.  They were popular for much of the eighteenth century, the most noted artists in the style including Philip Mercier (1689-1760), William Hogarth (1697-1764), Arthur Devis (1712-1787) and Johan Zoffany (1733-1810).

The form is interesting because it reflects the emergence of a new component of the leisured class, the newly rich merchants, or mine and factory owners whose wealth was derived from the profits of industrial revolution and the country’s expanding international trade.  The painters tended to show their subjects in genteel interaction, taking tea, playing games or sitting with their pets.  Conversation pieces were thus different from the formal court or grand style portraits favored by the aristocracy and were an attempt to represent the new middle class behaving as they imagined the old gentry did in everyday life.  Their influence worked also in reverse, aristocratic and royal patrons soon commissioning artist to paint their families in a similar vein.