Comparing Montaigne And Emerson's Essay

Montaigne and Emerson both wrote philosophies that introduced their perspectives on friendship. The main topic that both philosophers explore in their essays is how friendship can influence a person’s growth. Although both philosophers analyze the effects of friendship, they present their arguments differently.
“Is it not that the soul puts forth friends as the tree puts forth friends as the tree puts forth leaves, and presently, by the germination of new buds, extrudes the old leaf” (Emerson 223)? Emerson presents the concept of friendship as a tree where the soul of a person is the foundation and the leaves represent friends old and new. By presenting friendship this way, Emerson creates imagery for the reader of blossoming friendships, friends that will always stay, and friendships dying out. He also talks about how “the soul environs itself with friends that it may enter into grander self-acquaintance or solitude” (Emerson 223). THis can reflect back to the tree analogy because in winter, the tree has no leaves but will soon regrow them and leaves like a person will flourish with friends. Emerson took into consideration the tree as a whole and how it can represent a person’s relationship with their friends.
Montaigne’s idea of friendship is different than Emerson’s because it focuses on the friendship rather than the person.
Montaigne stated, “one could give to the other, it would be the one who received the benefit who would oblige his friend,” (Montaigne 194). Montaigne explains that one receives benefits from a friend because he provides it. This is more of a cyclical friendship because both friends in the relationship give and receive benefits. Emerson takes a different approach and focuses on what a man’s soul can give to his friend. In Emerson’s perspective, the man doesn’t expect anything in return and gives to his friends. In Montaigne’s perspective, a man expects benefits from the
friendship. Both philosophers use the claim of a beneficial friendship to include the idea of personal growth. Emerson states, “but we have aimed at a swift and petty benefit, to suck a sudden sweetness,” (Emerson 224). Emerson’s argument is focused on the fact that the benefit is giving “new buds” and not “to suck a sudden sweetness”. Emerson is saying that you do not need to receive anything in return to benefit from the friendship. A man’s soul doesn’t require this obligation. Montaigne’s opinion about receiving benefits differs from Emerson’s opinion. Montaigne states, “for each of them seeking above all things to benefit the other,” (Montaigne 195). Montaigne’s view is friendship is a two way engagement and both people should be giving and receiving equally. Montaigne’s argument is an extension of Emerson’s because he believes in giving during a friendship. Emerson focuses on giving one’s soul while Montaigne’s focuses more on “giving a friend satisfaction” (Montaigne 195). Montaigne then extends Emerson’s argument because he says that a man has an obligation to the other person. Since he believes in a “more equitable and more equable kind of friendship,” (Montaigne 192) the amount of giving and receiving should be equal. Overall both philosophers have the same general topic in friendship regarding benefits and the friendship itself. The main difference between the two philosophers is that Emerson’s core principle is the concept of a man’s soul in a friendship and Montaigne’s core principle is that friendship is a mutual relationship of giving and receiving.