Part the second: Friendship

Just under a month ago, I set myself up for defeat by starting a series of long posts on the several chapters in C.S. Lewis' book The Four Loves. However, I am continuing it here and, since I never set myself a time limit, may eventually get all four gleaned of my favourite quotes.

In the chapter on Friendship, C.S. Lewis raises some interesting points. At times I cannot relate to every situation he mentions since it is from the male perspective but most of it is fairly universal truths.

On the topic of whether friendship should be classified as a love at all he notes that "To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves." But in comparison the modern world ignores it. He attributes this to several sources. First he says that "...few value it because few experience it." because it is the least natural of the loves; it is highly possible to go through life without a true taste of it. He says that it is this very "non-natural" quality to it that the Ancients valued (they distrusted the nature of man) and which our age trivialises. He claims that the age of Romanticism and its exaltation of Sentiment is still felt in our world. Within this great tide of emotion Friendship appears colourless.

He also has some good comments in rebuttal of the homosexual theory. It is unfortunate that in our society such an argument is neccessary but he deals with it well. He talks of the subtle ways such accusations worm their way in:

To say that every Friendship is consciously and explicity homosexual would be too obviously false; [they posit]...the less palpable charge that it is really--unconsciously, cryptically...--homosexual. And this, though it cannot be proved, can never of course be refuted. The fact that no positive evidence of homosexuality can be discovered in the behaviour of two friends... [means nothing]: "That", the say gravely, "is just what we should expect." The absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden. Yes--if it exists at all. But we must first prove its existence. Otherwise we are arguing like a man who should say "If there were an invisible cat in that chair, the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it."

A belief in invisible cats cannot perhaps be logically disproved, but it tells us a good deal about those who hold it. Those who cannot concieve Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elabouration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend.

On a broad historical view it is, of course, not the demonstrative gestures of Friendship among our ancestors but the absence of such gestures in our own society that calls for some explanation. We, not they are out of step.

He makes a distinction between companionship and friendship and says that the first is the springboard to the second and stresses the need for a common object:

The very condition of having Friends is that we should want something else besides Friends. Where the truthful answer to the question Do you see the same truth? would be "I see nothing and I don't care about the truth; I only want a Friend", no Friendship can arise...There would be nothing for the Friendship to be about; and a Friendship must be about something, even if it were only an enthusiasm for dominoes or white mice. Those who have nothing can share nothing; those who are going nowhere can have no fellow travellers.

He then talks of how friendship "is both a possible benefactor and a possible danger to the community." How they are the start of many movements: "The little knots of Friends who turn their backs on the 'World' are those who really transform it." He speaks of what it can mean to society:

Every real Friendship is a sort of secession, even a rebellion... Men who have real Friends are less easy to manage... harder for good Authorities to correct or for bad Authorities to corrupt. Hence if our masters...ever succeed in producing a world where all are Companions and none are Friends, they will have removed certain dangers, and will also have taken from us what is almost our strongest safeguard against complete servitude.
[Friendship] makes good men better and bad men worse.

He talks of some of the bad results in the situation of a debate where he came up against blind resistance to relation on a personal level:

...Behind this, almost certainly, there lies a circle of the Titanic sort--self-dubbed Knights Templar perpetually in arms to defend a critical Baphomet. We--who are they to them--do not exist as persons at all. We are spcimens of various Age Groups, Types, Climates of opinion, or Interests, to be exterminated... They are not, in the ordinary human sense, meeting us at all; they are merely doing a job of work--spraying (I have heard one use the image) insecticide.

Another, perhaps less violent yet still negative, result of the exclusiveness of friendship is the idea of "corporate superiority" which we witness when

...people talk very intimatly and esoterically in order to be overheard. Everyone who is not in the circle must be shown that he is not in it. Indeed the Friendship may be "about" almost nothing except the fact that it excludes.

On a happier, more general note of friendship he says

The mark of perfect Friendship is not that help will be given when the pinch comes (of course it will) but that, having been given, it makes no difference at all.

People who bore one another should meet seldom; people who interest one another, often.

He ends with the truth that, whatever we may think, we do not really choose our friends any more than we do our family:

...we think we have chosen our peers. In reality, a few years' difference in the dates of our births, a few more miles between certain houses, the choice of one University instead of another, posting to different regiments, the accident of a topic being raised or not raised at first meeting--any of the chances might have kept up apart. But, for a Christian, there are, strictly speaking, no chances. A secret Master of the Ceremonies has been at work. Christ who said to the disciples "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you," can truly say to every group of Christian friends "You have not chose one another but I have chosen you for one another." The Friendship is not a reward for our discrimination and good taste in finding one another out. It is the instrument by which God reveals to each the beauties of all the others... They are, like all beauties, derived from Him, and then, in a good Friendship, increased by Him through the Friendship itself... At this feast it is He who has spread the board and it is He who has chosen the guests. It is He we may dare to hope, who sometimes does, and always should, preside.