the essays of montaigne, v6-第2章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


and　difference　of　offices　betwixt　the　lovers；　answered　no　more　to　the
perfect　union　and　harmony　that　we　here　require　than　the　other：

　　　　　　　　　〃Quis　est　enim　iste　amor　amicitiae？　cur　neque　deformem
　　　　　　　　　　adolescentem　quisquam　amat；　neque　formosum　senem？〃

　　　　　＇〃For　what　is　that　friendly　love？　why　does　no　one　love　a　deformed
　　　　　youth　or　a　comely　old　man？〃Cicero；　Tusc。　　Quaes。；　iv。　33。＇

Neither　will　that　very　picture　that　the　Academy　presents　of　it；　as　I
conceive；　contradict　me；　when　I　say；　that　this　first　fury　inspired　by　the
son　of　Venus　into　the　heart　of　the　lover；　upon　sight　of　the　flower　and
prime　of　a　springing　and　blossoming　youth；　to　which　they　allow　all　the
insolent　and　passionate　efforts　that　an　immoderate　ardour　can　produce；
was　simply　founded　upon　external　beauty；　the　false　image　of　corporal
generation；　for　it　could　not　ground　this　love　upon　the　soul；　the　sight　of
which　as　yet　lay　concealed；　was　but　now　springing；　and　not　of　maturity　to
blossom；　that　this　fury；　if　it　seized　upon　a　low　spirit；　the　means　by
which　it　preferred　its　suit　were　rich　presents；　favour　in　advancement　to
dignities；　and　such　trumpery；　which　they　by　no　means　approve；　if　on　a
more　generous　soul；　the　pursuit　was　suitably　generous；　by　philosophical
instructions；　precepts　to　revere　religion；　to　obey　the　laws；　to　die　for
the　good　of　one's　country；　by　examples　of　valour；　prudence；　and　justice；
the　lover　studying　to　render　himself　acceptable　by　the　grace　and　beauty
of　the　soul；　that　of　his　body　being　long　since　faded　and　decayed；　hoping
by　this　mental　society　to　establish　a　more　firm　and　lasting　contract。
When　this　courtship　came　to　effect　in　due　season　（for　that　which　they　do
not　require　in　the　lover；　namely；　leisure　and　discretion　in　his　pursuit；
they　strictly　require　in　the　person　loved；　forasmuch　as　he　is　to　judge　of
an　internal　beauty；　of　difficult　knowledge　and　abstruse　discovery）；　then
there　sprung　in　the　person　loved　the　desire　of　a　spiritual　conception；
by　the　mediation　of　a　spiritual　beauty。　　This　was　the　principal；　the
corporeal；　an　accidental　and　secondary　matter；　quite　the　contrary　as　to
the　lover。　　For　this　reason　they　prefer　the　person　beloved；　maintaining
that　the　gods　in　like　manner　preferred　him　too；　and　very　much　blame　the
poet　AEschylus　for　having；　in　the　loves　of　Achilles　and　Patroclus；　given
the　lover's　part　to　Achilles；　who　was　in　the　first　and　beardless　flower
of　his　adolescence；　and　the　handsomest　of　all　the　Greeks。　　After　this
general　community；　the　sovereign；　and　most　worthy　part　presiding　and
governing；　and　performing　its　proper　offices；　they　say；　that　thence　great
utility　was　derived；　both　by　private　and　public　concerns；　that　it
constituted　the　force　and　power　of　the　countries　where　it　prevailed；　and
the　chiefest　security　of　liberty　and　justice。　　Of　which　the　healthy　loves
of　Harmodius　and　Aristogiton　are　instances。　　And　therefore　it　is　that
they　called　it　sacred　and　divine；　and　conceive　that　nothing　but　the
violence　of　tyrants　and　the　baseness　of　the　common　people　are　inimical　to
it。　　Finally；　all　that　can　be　said　in　favour　of　the　Academy　is；　that　it
was　a　love　which　ended　in　friendship；　which　well　enough　agrees　with　the
Stoical　definition　of　love：

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　〃Amorem　conatum　esse　amicitiae　faciendae
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ex　pulchritudinis　specie。〃

　　　　　＇〃Love　is　a　desire　of　contracting　friendship　arising　from　the　beauty
　　　　　of　the　object。〃Cicero；　Tusc。　Quaes。；　vi。　34。＇

I　return　to　my　own　more　just　and　true　description：

　　　　　　　　　　〃Omnino　amicitiae；　corroboratis　jam　confirmatisque；
　　　　　　　　　　et　ingeniis；　et　aetatibus；　judicandae　sunt。〃

　　　　　＇〃Those　are　only　to　be　reputed　friendships　that　are　fortified　and
　　　　　confirmed　by　judgement　and　the　length　of　time。〃
　　　　　Cicero；　De　Amicit。；c。　20。＇

For　the　rest；　what　we　commonly　call　friends　and　friendships；　are　nothing
but　acquaintance　and　familiarities；　either　occasionally　contracted；　or
upon　some　design；　by　means　of　which　there　happens　some　little　intercourse
betwixt　our　souls。　　But　in　the　friendship　I　speak　of；　they　mix　and　work
themselves　into　one　piece；　with　so　universal　a　mixture；　that　there　is　no
more　sign　of　the　seam　by　which　they　were　first　conjoined。　　If　a　man
should　importune　me　to　give　a　reason　why　I　loved　him；　I　find　it　could　no
otherwise　be　expressed；　than　by　making　answer：　because　it　was　he；　because
it　was　I。　　There　is；　beyond　all　that　I　am　able　to　say；　I　know　not　what
inexplicable　and　fated　power　that　brought　on　this　union。　　We　sought　one
another　long　before　we　met；　and　by　the　characters　we　heard　of　one
another；　which　wrought　upon　our　affections　more　than；　in　reason；　mere
reports　should　do；　I　think　'twas　by　some　secret　appointment　of　heaven。
We　embraced　in　our　names；　and　at　our　first　meeting；　which　was
accidentally　at　a　great　city　entertainment；　we　found　ourselves　so
mutually　taken　with　one　another；　so　acquainted；　and　so　endeared　betwixt
ourselves；　that　from　thenceforward　nothing　was　so　near　to　us　as　one
another。　　He　wrote　an　excellent　Latin　satire；　since　printed；　wherein　he
excuses　the　precipitation　of　our　intelligence；　so　suddenly　come　to
perfection；　saying；　that　destined　to　have　so　short　a　continuance；　as
begun　so　late　（for　we　were　both　full…grown　men；　and　he　some　years　the
older）；　there　was　no　time　to　lose；　nor　were　we　tied　to　conform　to　the
example　of　those　slow　and　regular　friendships；　that　require　so　many
precautions　of　long　preliminary　conversation：　This　has　no　other　idea　than
that　of　itself；　and　can　only　refer　to　itself：　this　is　no　one　special
consideration；　nor　two；　nor　three；　nor　four；　nor　a　thousand；　'tis　I　know
not　what　quintessence　of　all　this　mixture；　which；　seizing　my　whole　will；
carried　it　to　plunge　and　lose　itself　in　his；　and　that　having　seized　his
whole　will；　brought　it　back　with　equal　concurrence　and　appetite　to　plunge
and　lose　itself　in　mine。　　I　may　truly　say　lose；　reserving　nothing　to
ourselves　that　was　either　his　or　mine。　＇All　this　relates　to　Estienne　de
la　Boetie。＇

When　Laelius；　＇Cicero；　De　Amicit。；　c。　II。＇　in　the　presence　of　the
Roman　consuls；　who　after　thay　had　sentenced　Tiberius　Gracchus；　prosecuted
all　those　who　had　had　any　familiarity　with　him　also；　came　to　ask　Caius
Blosius；　who　was　his　chiefest　friend；　how　much　he　would　have　done　for
him；　and　that　he　made　answer：　　〃All　things。〃　　〃How！　　All　things！〃　　said
Laelius。　　〃And　what　if　he　had　commanded　you　to　fire　our　temples？〃　　〃He
would　never　have　commanded　me　that；〃　replied　Blosius。　　〃But　what　if　he
had？〃　said　Laelius。　　〃I　would　have　obeyed　him；〃　said　the　other。　　If　he
was　so　perfect　a　friend　to　Gracchus　as　the　histories　report　him　to　have
been；　there　was　yet　no　necessity　of　offending　the　consuls　by　such　a　bold
confession；　though　he　might　still　have　retained　the　assurance　he　had　of
Gracchus'　disposition。　　However；　those　who　accuse　this　answer　as
seditious；　do　not　well　understand　the　mystery；　nor　presuppose；　as　it　was
true；　that　he　had　Gracchus'　will　in　his　sleeve；　both　by　the　power　of　a
friend；　and　the　perfect　knowledge　he　had　of　the　man：　they　were　more
friends　than　citizens；　more　friends　to　one　another　than　either　enemies　or
friends　to　their　country；　or　than　friends　to　ambition　and　innovation；
having　absolutely　given　up　themselves　to　one　another；　either　held
absolutely　the　reins　of　the　other's　inclination；　and　suppose　all　this
guided　by　virtue；　and　all　this　by　the　conduct　of　reason；　which　also
without　these　it　had　not　been　possible　to　do；　Blosius'　answer　was　such　as
it　ought　to　be。　　If　any　of　their　actions　flew　out　of　the　handle；　they
were　neither　（according　to　my　measure　of　friendship）　friends　to　one
another；　nor　to　themselves。　　As　to　the　rest；　this　answer　carries　no　worse
sound；　than　mine　would　do　to　one　that　should　ask　me：　〃If　your　will　should
command　you　to　kill　your　daughter；　would　you　do　it？〃　and　that　I　should
make　answer；　that　I　would；　for　this　expresses　no　consent　to　such　an　act；
forasmuch　as　I　do　not　in　the　least　suspect　my　own　will；　and　as　little
that　of　such　a　friend。　　'Tis　not　in　the　power　of　all　the　eloquence　in　the
world；　to　dispossess　me　of　the　certainty　I　have　of　the　intentions　and
resolutions　of　my　friend；　nay；　no　one　action　of　his；　what　face　soever　it
might　bear；　could　be　presented　to　me；　of　which　I　could　not　presently；
and　at　first　sight；　find　out　the　moving　cause。　　Our　souls　had　drawn　so
unanimously　together；　they　had　considered　each　other　with　so　ardent　an
affection；　and　with　the　like　affection　laid　open　the　very　bottom　of　our
hearts　to　one　another's　view；　that　I　not　only　knew　his　as　well　as　my　own；
but　should　certainly　in　any　concern　of　mine　have　trusted　my　interest　much
more　willingly　with　him；　than　with　myself。

Let　no　one；　therefore；　rank　other　common　friendships　with　such　a　one　as
this。　　I　have　had　as　much　experience　of　these　as　another；　and　of　the　most
perfect　of　their　kind：　but　I　do　not　advise　that　any　should　confound　the
rules　of　the　one　and　the　other；　for　they　would　find　themselves　much
deceived。　　In　those　other　ordinary　friendships；　you　are　to　walk　with
bridle　in　your　hand；　with　prudence　and　circumspection；　for　in　them　the
knot　is　not　so　sure　that　a　man　may　not　half　suspect　it　will　slip。　　〃Love
him；〃　said　Chilo；＇Aulus　Gellius；　i。　3。＇　〃so　as　if　you　were　one　day　to
hate　him；　and　hate　him　so　as　you　were　one　day　to　love　him。〃　　This
precept；　though　abominable　in　the　sovereign　and　perfect　friendship　I
speak　of；　is　nevertheless　very　sound　as　to　the　practice　of　the　ordinary
and　customary　ones；　and　to　which　the　saying　that　Aristotle　had　so
frequent　in　his　mouth；　〃O　my　friends；　there　is　no　friend；〃　may　very　fitly
be　applied。　　In　this　noble　commerce；　good　offices；　presents；　and
benefits；　by　which　other　friendships　are　supported　and　maintained；　do　not
deserve　so　much　as　to　be　mentioned；　and　the　reason　is　the　concurrence　of
our　wills；　for；　as　the　kindness　I　have　for　myself　receives　no　increase；
for　anything　I　relieve　myself　withal　in　time　of　need　（whatever　the　Stoics
say）；　and　as　I　do　not　find　myself　obliged　to　myself　for　any　service　I　do
myself：　so　the　union　of　such　friends；　being　truly　perfect；　deprives　them
of　all　idea　of　such　duties；　and　makes　them　loathe　and　banish　from　their
conversation　these　words　of　division　and　distinction；　benefits；
obligation；　acknowledgment；　entreaty；　thanks；　and　the　like。　　All　things；
wills；　thoughts；　opinions；　goods；　wives；　children；　honours；　and　lives；
being　in　effect　common　betwixt　them；　and　that　absolute　concurrence　of
affections　being　no　other　than　one　soul　in　two　bodies　（according　to　that
very　proper　definition　of　Aristotle）；　they　can　neither　lend　nor　give
anything　to　one　another。　　This　is　the　reason　why　the　lawgivers；　to　honour
marriage　with　some　resemblance　of　this　divine　alliance；　interdict　all
gifts　betwixt　man　and　wife；　inferring　by　that；　that　all　should　belong　to
each　of　them；　and　that　they　have　nothing　to　divide　or　to　give　to　each
other。

If；　in　the　friendship　of　which　I　speak；　one　could　give　to　the　other；　the
receiver　of　the　benefit　would　be　the　man　that　obliged　his　friend；　for
each　of　them　contending　and　above　all　things　studying　how　to　be　useful　to
the　other；　he　that　administers　the　occasion　is　the　liberal　man；　in　giving
his　friend　the　satisfaction　of　doing　that　towa