De Montaigne’s unusual conception of friendship
Can we have more than one true friend?
Friendship is a topic that has been discussed for many centuries, with major theories about it dating back to the likes of Aristotle. An interesting scholar addressing the question of friendship and its true nature was the French philosopher Michel de Montagne (1533–1592). In one of his key works, The Essays (Essais), de Montagne lays out his concept of the idea of friendship in ‘Of Friendship’ (Book 27).
Where Aristotle distinguished between three types of friendship, namely friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure, and friendships of the good, de Montaigne focuses on only one of these types: the third type, friendships of the good or virtue. In contrast to Aristotle, de Montaigne defines friendship in negative terms of what it is not rather than in positive terms of what it is.
Ordinary vs. true friendship
First of all, de Montaigne differentiates between ordinary and true friendship. Ordinary friendships or mere acquaintanceships are those relationships we form in daily life to oil the wheels of social discourse and to negotiate everyday life and navigate its various social challenges.
According to de Montaigne, these friendships are friendships of convention or utility and we enter into them to make society function. We have many such superficial acquaintances or professional relationships with work colleagues, but we do not truly connect with them on a deeper, spiritual level and therefore do not derive any spiritual fulfillment from them. While Aristotle considered a friend as another self, friendship is defined by de Montaigne as a spiritual experience where one soul finds itself in two bodies and reconnects to such an extent that even death becomes irrelevant. In fact, de Montaigne considered only true friendship of the type he described as an end in itself, while all other types of friendship were merely means to a particular end.
A true friend, according to de Montaigne, fulfilled multiple roles for the other person. La Boétie, for example, seemed to function at one time or another as de Montaigne’s ‘father, brother, friend and beloved’. While de Montaigne clearly contrasted true friendship with family, sexual and romantic relationships, his conception of friendship seemed to define a superior relationship that fulfills all of these diverse and by themselves inferior roles in one single, a special relationship characterized by ‘wholeness, perfection, uniqueness’ and spirituality.
Further, de Montaigne posits that such a spiritual friendship is akin to a meeting of soulmates and an extremely rare experience. He himself had found such a perfect friendship in his relationship with Étienne de La Boétie, and as he considered it irreplaceable and a unique, once-in-a-lifetime event, de Montaigne made no efforts to find a new true friend after La Boétie’s death.
The perfect bromance
Interestingly, de Montaigne believed that the kind of true friendship he envisaged and claimed to have experienced with La Boétie, could only take place between two males, not between a male and a female, and he provided two reasons for this theory. Firstly, de Montaigne deemed women to be intellectually incapable of forming such a close and genuine bond. Considering the time in which de Montaigne wrote his Essais, such an opinion is understandable and makes sense in light of the general belief, educational and cultural system in place at the time. We therefore cannot look at this aspect under the modern lens of today but shall accept it as accurate from de Montaigne’s perspective at the time he wrote ‘Of Friendship’ in the period around 1580. Men and women could therefore only engage in purely sexual relationships or form romantic unions including marriage, but not experience true friendship. Secondly, de Montaigne posited that in contrast to the ancient Greek conventions, homosexual relations between males are to be frowned upon, which was also a typical attitude prevalent at that time. Interestingly, de Montaigne explains that in his view, the ideal friendship would be a male/male friendship that also includes a sexual aspect, for a physical union would make the union of the soul even more perfect.
In contrast to a traditional male/female relationship, de Montaigne further stresses that the goal of any physical union in the sense of perfect friendship is pure pleasure, not reproduction, which he considers one of the utilitarian purposes of marriage. As homosexuality was considered immoral though, de Montaigne had to settle for the next best possible definition of friendship, which was a true friend of virtue between two males without any sexual involvement. In today’s terms, we would liken such a relationship to an intimate ‘bromance’.
Beyond rationality
A further important aspect of de Montaigne’s conception of friendship is that of involuntary attraction. Unlike Cicero and Aristotle, for example, de Montaigne thought of friendship not as something that is actively pursued, but rather as an inexplicable phenomenon that happens to two persons involuntarily without them having any choice in the matter. However, according to this concept, friendship is not a love of properties of the other person, i.e. haecceity love, but rather a love for the person itself and who they really are; the other person’s traits are specifically not the foundation for the friendship here. When questioned about his reasons for his friendship with La Boétie, de Montaigne famously stated ‘If one were to press me to say why I loved him, I feel that this cannot be expressed. […] Because it was he; because it was I.’ (de Montaigne in Schachter 2002). This suggests that there was a mutual attraction to the very essence of the other person rather than a mere attraction of de Montaigne to La Boétie’s features and traits, and vice versa. This description also ties in with the already discussed claim of de Montaigne that his experience of friendship with La Boétie was entirely involuntary and not a rational choice.
‘Because it was he; because it was I.’ — de Montaigne
The one and only
Furthermore, de Montaigne posited that it is only possible to have one true friend in one’s lifetime and that it is impossible to repeat or recreate this experience with other people, and that any other relationship is merely a casual friendship that can never reach the depths of the true friendship described by him. In fact, according to de Montaigne, a participant in a true friendship ‘gives himself so wholly to his friend that he has nothing left to distribute elsewhere’ (Schachter 2002). Loyalty to one’s one and only true friend is therefore of major importance for de Montaigne, so important that it should ’cause one to defy all norms’ (Chappell 2017). As he describes it, a true friend should put his best friend above all else and be loyal to him above anyone else. According to de Montaigne, having multiple friends would create conflict, as these friends may have conflicting interests and it would not be clear who should be put first. If there is only one main friend though, who commands and deserves loyalty above all else, this conflict does not arise. In my view, this concept and idea of unidirectional loyalty is also entirely plausible and indeed commendable to avoid conflict between groups of individuals.
Closet homosexual?
Some contemporary scholars might dismiss de Montaigne’s concept of friendship purely on the basis of it seemingly being at least to some degree homophobic and misogynistic. However, de Montaigne’s works and ideas need to be considered against the backdrop of the prevailing ideas, social norms, and cultural conditions of his time, which were naturally very different from our modern times. His ideas should therefore not be dismissed outright on this basis although they may conflict with modern societal norms and ideas.
His idea that souls can connect without any need for a romantic or sexual relationship is certainly plausible. The fact that de Montaigne suggests such true friendships are rare, once-in-a-lifetime events are also plausible. Due to geographical and social restrictions, meeting such a soulmate must by nature be a rare event. Although we may have a multitude of what de Montaigne would term casual friendships, ranging from sports to professional to social contexts, it is rare that we truly connect with another person and feel that we are one soul in two bodies, as de Montaigne had described it. That one should feel love for such a person but not necessarily a sexual attraction is also the only natural. Although we do of course recall that de Montaigne considered a sexless male/male friendship only the second-best option.
The question, therefore, arises whether de Montaigne really had the desire to lead a homosexual relationship with La Boétie, and this was examined by scholars such as Schachter. However, although de Montaigne does praise a relationship that combines physical with the spiritual union as the ideal friendship, he ultimately rejects homosexual relationships between males and pederasty in particular. Taking him at face value, we must therefore assume that de Montaigne did not have any sexual interest in La Boétie.
Platonic plausibility and fake friendships
In fact, I would posit that finding or desiring to find a unique soulmate for a purely platonic, close friendship without any romantic interest is perfectly plausible. And indeed, the chances of finding a soulmate on the intimate level described by de Montaigne and then additionally happening to find them physically attractive and striving for a sexual relationship must be exceedingly rare and an unimaginable and very uncommon coincidence and therefore nothing to particularly strive for. Additionally, any sexual attraction is likely to fade over time, but true friendship according to de Montaigne is not subject to such physical fluctuations, which makes it preferable. In fact, de Montaigne speaks of sexual desire as a burning flame while friendship is a warm glow, and he considers both as mutually exclusive.
The fact that such friendship is a rare and unique event, as claimed by de Montaigne, also appears to be true to date when considering interpersonal relationships in our own environments and society at large. In today’s modern society, in particular, we seem to have fallen prey to the illusion of friendship, above all on social media, where some individuals have thousands of ‘friends’ but barely have any true connection with them in real life at all. Today’s lifestyle with remote working and a focus on the online world is making it increasingly rare to find that one person to connect with and form a true friendship according to de Montaigne’s definition. Hence, de Montaigne’s distinction between friendships of utility and friendships of value is also perfectly plausible and still as relevant today as in his day, if not even more so.
Beyond the grave
An interesting point though is de Montaigne’s preoccupation with La Boétie after his friend’s death. Death has no relevance to de Montaigne’s friendship concept. In fact, de Montaigne seems to elevate and idolize his friend after his death in a utopian manner while ascribing to him almost religious significance akin to Jesus Christ or Socrates. De Montaigne ‘praises his friend quite literally into heaven; almost as if the friend here replaces the position of God’ (Wenink 2019).
De Montaigne continued his friendship with the deceased La Boétie through his writings for almost three decades, in particular through the Essais. In his literary works, de Montaigne clearly reveres his friend and glorifies him and their friendship. Given that the two men only knew each other for approximately four years prior to La Boétie’s untimely death, which is a relatively short period of time, the question arises whether the friends might have still been in a ‘honeymoon period’ and not yet have gone through a more difficult patch. One might posit that, had they been acquainted for longer, cracks might have started to appear in the initially seemingly perfect friendship, and de Montaigne might have revised his position on such true friendship and its existence. It is possible that de Montaigne fell prey to an illusion of perfection, which was never revised due to his friend’s early death but might have changed if the men had known each other for longer than four years.
Neurodiversity in friendships
Another point worth exploring in more detailed investigations that far exceed the scope of this paper is whether de Montaigne might have had an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD), which affected this definition of and view on the concept of friendship. Individuals with ASD often struggle to form friendships in the traditional sense and frequently feel the need to have only one close friend rather than multiple friendships and have fewer reciprocal friendships than their neurotypical peers. This would tie in with de Montaigne’s view, but naturally, a complex subject such as this would require further in-depth investigation. However, from the perspective of ASD, de Montaigne’s conception of friendship makes perfect sense and is entirely plausible.
In a similar vein, de Montaigne’s conception of friendship appears to be based on the idea of true friendship as a meeting of similar minds. The question arises whether de Montaigne may have been intellectually gifted and if La Boétie was likewise gifted. As evidenced by the sophisticated writings of the two men, such an intellectual relationship would lead to a sense of ‘coming home’ in the other person and feeling understood in a way a neurotypical friend or acquaintance could never offer. If this was the case, de Montaigne may have drawn the conclusion that this type of friendship per se may be something very unique and special that could never be matched by another person. However, this conclusion may have been down to the fact that he simply did not have the opportunity to meet many like-minded and equally gifted peers due to the rare nature of intellectual giftedness, specifically less than two percent of the population.
What’s more, such a friendship between like-minded gifted individuals may be just as normal as a friendship between two neurotypical individuals; the mere fact that two friends may both be gifted does not make the friendship itself particularly unique or of better quality, it is merely of a different nature than neurotypical friendships. Had de Montaigne been able to establish more such friendships, he may have revised his definition of true friendship and come to the conclusion that it can be replicated and is not exclusive and unique in one’s lifetime. Yet, given the rarity of intellectual giftedness and the small chance one of making the acquaintance of a fellow gifted individual, de Montaigne’s concept of friendship is indeed plausible from this perspective.
Therapists as perfect friends?
Further, one can argue that de Montaigne’s stipulation that true friendships on the soulmate level he describes are very rare indeed is very much true, especially in today’s society. I would argue that this is partly the reason many individuals today choose to engage in psychotherapy and replicate the elusive perfect friendship in a therapy relationship, where they are guaranteed to find unconditional positive regard and love, and even seeming connecting of souls or at least the illusion of it. The perfect friendship as described by de Montaigne, therefore, does exist in therapy relationships, but the question then arises how real these relationships are, and one must likely conclude that they are for the large part merely an illusion or ‘idealizing transference’. However, while the psychotherapist may only play a part and see the relationship as a professional one, it often happens that the client views it as a genuine and true friendship as defined by de Montaigne, not realizing that the therapeutic alliance is not friendship. Given La Boétie’s older age and more dominant position compared to de Montaigne, the question then arises whether a therapy-like relationship may have existed between the two men, which was misinterpreted by de Montaigne.
Allegory of the Cave
Finally, de Montaigne’s conception of friendship is reminiscent of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave and can be interpreted from this perspective. Having multiple casual friendships and relationships is akin to being trapped in the cave and seeing only the shadows on the walls, mistakenly thinking they represent the real world or real friendship. Only in the very rare event that one gets to meet a suitable person and experience the unique, true friendship de Montaigne describes, does one leave the cave behind and experience the real world for the first time. Just like the escaped prisoner in Plato’s narrative feels superior to his peers upon his return and would not want to return to his previous oblivious status quo, de Montaigne appears to feel superior towards those individuals who have never experienced true friendship and dismisses their relationships as mere casual acquaintances of no consequence.
Given the rarity of de Montaigne’s proposed friendship concept, however, and the potential problems with it that we have discussed, it is possible that de Montaigne’s conception of friendship is a workable theoretical construct which is plausible in itself, but which cannot be readily applied to the real world of experience most of us are caught in, not least by his own definition. Like the Allegory of the Cave, de Montaigne’s focus seems to be more on the idea of the perfect friendship rather than the ability of everyday people to experience it, as evidenced by his lack of trying to pursue a new perfect friendship with someone else after La Boétie’s death. De Montaigne seems to be content with merely elaborating on the concept in theoretical terms for decades after his close friend’s death rather than actively seeking out a new true friend and potentially proving his own theory wrong.
Theory vs. practice
In conclusion, de Montaigne’s conception of friendship is entirely plausible as a theoretical construct, but in practical, real-life it is very difficult to come by a friend such as the one he describes. When defining friendship, not only does he rule out a concurring sexual or romantic relationship; he also rules out more casual acquaintances and professional relationships in a business context. Furthermore, he posits that women are incapable of forming the deep bond characteristic of the type of friendship described by him. From a real-life perspective, this would limit the number of potential friendship suitors to such a small number that this type of friendship is perhaps not feasible in our practical, real world. Rather, de Montaigne’s concept of friendship reminds us of Plato’s shadow world, a mere ideal that is impossible to experience in the real world.
Despite his apparent true friendship with La Boétie, de Montaigne might have found that after the initial honeymoon period, the friendship has more flaws than initially apparent and does not meet his own stringent criteria. Due to La Boétie’s untimely death though, de Montaigne clung to the idealized version of his friend that he had formed in his mind and used it as the foundation for his concept of friendship with no possibility of being proven wrong, as his cherished friend was no longer alive.
Sources:Bermudez, M., Can we have more than one friend? Calder, L., Hill, V. and Pellicano, E., ‘“Sometimes I want to play by myself”: Understanding what friendship means to children with autism in mainstream primary schools’, in Autism, vol. 17, no. 3Chappell, B., On Friendship – Michel de Montaigne, Mouse Book Club CatalogConley, T., ‘Friendship in a Local Vein: Montaigne's Servitude to La Boétie’, in South Atlantic Quarterly, vol. 97, no. 1de Montaigne, M n.d., Of FriendshipD’Olimpio L., Ethics Explainer: Plato’s CaveEdyvane, D., Rejecting Society: Misanthropy, Friendship and Montaigne, Res Publica, vol. 19 no. 1Hook, J. & Devereux, D., ‘Boundary violations in therapy: the patient's experience of harm’, in BJPsych Advances, vol. 24, no. 6Keener, A., ‘Prefatory Friendships: Florio’s Montaigne and Material Technologies of the Self’, in J Pearce & J Kucinski (eds), Renaissance Papers 2013Borjesson G., ‘Friendship and Psychotherapy: Reflections on Friendship’s Therapeutic Power‘, in Ramify, vol. 6, no. 1Schachter, M., ‘That Friendship Which Possesses the Soul’, in Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 41, no. 3-4Schlossman, B., ‘From La Boetie to Montaigne: The Place of the Text’, in MLN, vol. 98, no. 5Silverman, L., ‘The measurement of giftedness’, in L V Shavinina (ed), International handbook on giftednessWeller, B., ‘The Rhetoric of Friendship in Montaigne's Essais’, in New Literary History, vol. 9, no. 3Wenink, E., Friendship, death, and writing in Michel de Montaigne's EssaysZalloua, Z., ‘Alterity and “Care of the Self” in Montaigne's Essay “Of Friendship”’, Intertexts, vol. 6, no. 2
