I began reading On Friendship, a collection of Michel de Montaigne’s essays, mostly as a change of pace from Gaston Bachelard’s The Poetics of Space, which is one of those books, at least for me, that is best enjoyed in smaller sections separated by sufficient time for reflection.  Rather than merely changing Bachelard’s pace, however, Montaigne soon set a pace of his own, and I found suddenly that I had read him from cover to cover, though I had intended to read him only an essay at a time.

The collection is seven essays long, but it is the first piece, “On Friendship”, that I found most compelling.  Some of the later essays in the volume, like “On the Affection Of Fathers For Their Children” or “That We Should Not Be Deemed Happy Until After Our Death”, are certainly interesting in their way and certainly fine examples of writing as well, but they lack the passion that is so clear in “On Friendship”, where Montaigne describes his relationship with Etienne de La Boetie with real intensity.  “In the friendship which I am talking about,” he says, “souls are mingled and confounded in so universal a blending that they efface the seam which joins them together so that it cannot be found,” and this kind of personal passion distinguishes the essay from all the others in the collection.

Interestingly, Montaigne locates the origin of this friendship, not in a face to face encounter, but in a text that La Boetie had written against tyranny.  “I am particularly indebted to that treatise,” says Montaigne, “because it first brought us together,”  and he goes on to say that this treatise was what prepared him “for that loving-friendship between us which as long as it pleased God we fostered so perfect and so entire that it is certain that few such can even be read about, and no trace at all of it can be found among men of today.”

While I am more than a little sceptical of Montaigne’s claims about the exclusive nature of his friendship, I am fascinated by the role that writing played in the development of his relationship with La Boetie.  Montaigne read the work of La Boetie long before he met him in person, and he claims that this reading made him acquainted with La Boetie, preparing the conditions which would enable their friendship to develop when they did at last meet.  Here, at least, whatever poststructuralist criticism might say about the absence of the author and the illusion of authorial intention and whatever else, here, a reader claims that the act of reading made him acquainted with a writer in such a way that a friendship became possible.

Writing is never adequate to its author, of course, to its author’s thinking or to its author’s intention.  It is only ever adequate to itself.  Its function is not to mean what the author thought or intended, but simply to mean what it comes to mean.  Nevertheless, the example of Montaigne and La Boetie shows, as does my own experience, that writing does return us to its author in some way.  It is not that writing allows us to determine anything about the author, and it is not that writing makes its author somehow present to us.  Writing merely turns us toward an author, indefinite and undetermined though this author may be.  It allows us to make an author’s acquaintance.  It opens the possibility of friendship.

It is this possibility that underwrites the act of reading for me.  Though many of the authors I read are now dead, and though it is not likely that I will ever meet and befriend those of them who are still living, I still read in order to be turned toward the author, toward this someone else who writes for me without knowing me.  I read in order to make the aquaintence of this unknown one, to open a possible friendship with this anonymous other, even and especially because the possible friendship will almost certainly remain unrealized.

I read to encounter this impossible possibility.

  1. Isaiah said:

    I’ve read the Poetics of Space, it makes me survive going into disgusting cellars as I remember some of what he wrote in the book.

  2. Isaiah,

    We really do need to get together for coffee sometime. You keep reading these books and we never get to talk about them.

    I agree with you. Bachelard makes me recognize the significance of even the darkest and most disconcerting spaces of the house. My house seems different to me after reading him. I will post on the book when I have finished it.

  3. Curtis said:

    Once again I lean towards an existential explanation. But, I am rather interested how people who suddenly assign themselves a school, suddenly become hamstrung into thinking that this, most interesting of tidbits for them, is the inevitable pivot of the universe- like with Socrates and his gnosis.

    So rather, I will comment on an interesting note that you point out. That reading an author’s work allows us to meet their acquaintance. Opening the possibility of friendship. But I have a problem with this, only from what you point out. It would seem that Montaigne admits your conclusion- that the treatise on Tyranny surpassed the establishment of acquaitanceship, allowing them to be faster friends. But on the other hand he makes it out that almost this treatise made them friends. Which means to me, either they would have nothing to say to one another but, ‘Hello, I am me, you are you, I like’ end of conversation, or else they would have nothing to say. The other possibility I find would be that Montaigne would swirl around this treatise and the conversation would be child to adolescent, and eventually annoying for the adolescent. Is there no awareness of this limitation in how he writes about it?

  4. Curtis,

    Nothing of what Montaigne says would actually claim that the treatise made them friends. He says that the treatise “brought them together” and that it “prepared” them for the friendship that they would have. It opened Montaigne to the author in a way that disposed him to a friendship.

    Even if this were not so, however, even if the friendship had been caused through the treatise itself, this does not necessarily imply that the friendship would need to remain within the context of the treatise. Like all friendships, it would define itself through many contexts, even if it found itself through one in particular.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s