The subject of friendship has a lower place in the modern than in the
ancient world, partly because a higher place is assigned by us to love
and marriage. The very meaning of the word has become slighter and more
superficial; it seems almost to be borrowed from the ancients, and has
nearly disappeared in modern treatises on Moral Philosophy. The received
examples of friendship are to be found chiefly among the Greeks and
Romans. Hence the casuistical or other questions which arise out of the
relations of friends have not often been considered seriously in modern
times. Many of them will be found to be the same which are discussed
in the Lysis. We may ask with Socrates, 1) whether friendship is 'of
similars or dissimilars,' or of both; 2) whether such a tie exists
between the good only and for the sake of the good; or 3) whether there
may not be some peculiar attraction, which draws together 'the neither
good nor evil' for the sake of the good and because of the evil; 4)
whether friendship is always mutual,--may there not be a one-sided and
unrequited friendship? This question, which, like many others, is only
one of a laxer or stricter use of words, seems to have greatly exercised
the minds both of Aristotle and Plato.
5) Can we expect friendship to be permanent, or must we acknowledge
with Cicero, 'Nihil difficilius quam amicitiam usque ad extremum vitae
permanere'? Is not friendship, even more than love, liable to be swayed
by the caprices of fancy? The person who pleased us most at first sight
or upon a slight acquaintance, when we have seen him again, and under
different circumstances, may make a much less favourable impression
on our minds. Young people swear 'eternal friendships,' but at these
innocent perjuries their elders laugh. No one forms a friendship with
the intention of renouncing it; yet in the course of a varied life it
is practically certain that many changes will occur of feeling, opinion,
locality, occupation, fortune, which will divide us from some persons
and unite us to others. 6) There is an ancient saying, Qui amicos amicum
non habet. But is not some less exclusive form of friendship better
suited to the condition and nature of man? And in those especially who
have no family ties, may not the feeling pass beyond one or a few,
and embrace all with whom we come into contact, and, perhaps in a few
passionate and exalted natures, all men everywhere? 7) The ancients
had their three kinds of friendship, 'for the sake of the pleasant, the
useful, and the good:' is the last to be resolved into the two first; or
are the two first to be included in the last? The subject was puzzling
to them: they could not say that friendship was only a quality, or a
relation, or a virtue, or a kind of virtue; and they had not in the age
of Plato reached the point of regarding it, like justice, as a form or
attribute of virtue. They had another perplexity: 8) How could one
of the noblest feelings of human nature be so near to one of the most
detestable corruptions of it? (Compare Symposium; Laws).
Leaving the Greek or ancient point of view, we may regard the question
in a more general way. Friendship is the union of two persons in mutual
affection and remembrance of one another. The friend can do for his
friend what he cannot do for himself. He can give him counsel in time of
difficulty; he can teach him 'to see himself as others see him'; he can
stand by him, when all the world are against him; he can gladden and
enlighten him by his presence; he 'can divide his sorrows,' he can
'double his joys;' he can anticipate his wants. He will discover ways
of helping him without creating a sense of his own superiority; he will
find out his mental trials, but only that he may minister to them. Among
true friends jealousy has no place: they do not complain of one another
for making new friends, or for not revealing some secret of their lives;
(in friendship too there must be reserves;) they do not intrude upon one
another, and they mutually rejoice in any good which happens to either
of them, though it may be to the loss of the other. They may live apart
and have little intercourse, but when they meet, the old tie is as
strong as ever--according to the common saying, they find one
another always the same. The greatest good of friendship is not daily
intercourse, for circumstances rarely admit of this; but on the great
occasions of life, when the advice of a friend is needed, then the word
spoken in season about conduct, about health, about marriage, about
business,--the letter written from a distance by a disinterested person
who sees with clearer eyes may be of inestimable value. When the heart
is failing and despair is setting in, then to hear the voice or grasp
the hand of a friend, in a shipwreck, in a defeat, in some other failure
or misfortune, may restore the necessary courage and composure to the
paralysed and disordered mind, and convert the feeble person into a
hero; (compare Symposium).
It is true that friendships are apt to be disappointing: either we
expect too much from them; or we are indolent and do not 'keep them in
repair;' or being admitted to intimacy with another, we see his faults
too clearly and lose our respect for him; and he loses his affection for
us. Friendships may be too violent; and they may be too sensitive. The
egotism of one of the parties may be too much for the other. The word of
counsel or sympathy has been uttered too obtrusively, at the wrong time,
or in the wrong manner; or the need of it has not been perceived until
too late. 'Oh if he had only told me' has been the silent thought of
many a troubled soul. And some things have to be indicated rather than
spoken, because the very mention of them tends to disturb the equability
of friendship. The alienation of friends, like many other human evils,
is commonly due to a want of tact and insight. There is not enough
of the Scimus et hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim. The sweet
draught of sympathy is not inexhaustible; and it tends to weaken the
person who too freely partakes of it. Thus we see that there are many
causes which impair the happiness of friends.
We may expect a friendship almost divine, such as philosophers
have sometimes dreamed of: we find what is human. The good of it is
necessarily limited; it does not take the place of marriage; it affords
rather a solace than an arm of support. It had better not be based on
pecuniary obligations; these more often mar than make a friendship.
It is most likely to be permanent when the two friends are equal and
independent, or when they are engaged together in some common work or
have some public interest in common. It exists among the bad or inferior
sort of men almost as much as among the good; the bad and good, and
'the neither bad nor good,' are drawn together in a strange manner by
personal attachment. The essence of it is loyalty, without which it
would cease to be friendship.
Another question 9) may be raised, whether friendship can safely exist
between young persons of different sexes, not connected by ties of
relationship, and without the thought of love or marriage; whether,
again, a wife or a husband should have any intimate friend, besides his
or her partner in marriage. The answer to this latter question is rather
perplexing, and would probably be different in different countries
(compare Sympos.). While we do not deny that great good may result
from such attachments, for the mind may be drawn out and the character
enlarged by them; yet we feel also that they are attended with many
dangers, and that this Romance of Heavenly Love requires a strength, a
freedom from passion, a self-control, which, in youth especially, are
rarely to be found. The propriety of such friendships must be estimated
a good deal by the manner in which public opinion regards them; they
must be reconciled with the ordinary duties of life; and they must be
justified by the result.
Yet another question, 10). Admitting that friendships cannot be always
permanent, we may ask when and upon what conditions should they be
dissolved. It would be futile to retain the name when the reality has
ceased to be. That two friends should part company whenever the relation
between them begins to drag may be better for both of them. But then
arises the consideration, how should these friends in youth or friends
of the past regard or be regarded by one another? They are parted, but
there still remain duties mutually owing by them. They will not
admit the world to share in their difference any more than in their
friendship; the memory of an old attachment, like the memory of the
dead, has a kind of sacredness for them on which they will not allow
others to intrude. Neither, if they were ever worthy to bear the name
of friends, will either of them entertain any enmity or dislike of the
other who was once so much to him. Neither will he by 'shadowed hint
reveal' the secrets great or small which an unfortunate mistake has
placed within his reach. He who is of a noble mind will dwell upon his
own faults rather than those of another, and will be ready to take upon
himself the blame of their separation. He will feel pain at the loss of
a friend; and he will remember with gratitude his ancient kindness.
But he will not lightly renew a tie which has not been lightly
broken...These are a few of the Problems of Friendship, some of them
suggested by the Lysis, others by modern life, which he who wishes to
make or keep a friend may profitably study. (Compare Bacon, Essay on
Friendship; Cic. de Amicitia.)