1

After Twenty Years :Analysis

O. Henry's short story "After Twenty Years" makes it clear why he has become such a respected author.
He had, as it is said, a way with words. At times, his carefully selected words add to the humor of a story.
At times, they intensify a story. In most of O. Henry's stories, however, his choice of words aids the irony
that has characterized so much of his work. Without the use of irony, "After Twenty Years" would hardly
appeal to a normal reader.

As the first-time reader opens "After Twenty Years," he sees the story of a long time friendship unfold.
Twenty years earlier, Jimmy and Bob had agreed to meet each other at the same time and place. Each
went his own way; one stayed in New York, and the other moved to the West. At the beginning of the
story, Bob is waiting at the appointed spot, waiting for his friend to come. A policeman approaches him,
and Bob immediately explains the reason he is waiting for his friend, assuring the policeman that he has a
good reason for standing there on the street late at night. Presumably out of a friendly interest, the
policeman asks if Bob will "call time" on his friend, or if he would permit him to be a bit late. At this, Bob
assures him that he would give his friend half an hour, at the least; giving his friend extra time would be
the only courteous thing to do. The policeman goes his way and soon after, another man shows up and
approaches Bob. "'Is that you, Jimmy Wells?' cried the man in the door. 'Bless my heart!' exclaimed the
new arrival, grasping both the other's hands with his own." The two take their time catching up with each
others' lives. Bob told Jimmy all about his success and fortune in the West. When he asked Jimmy how
he had done in New York, Jimmy replied, "Moderately. I have a position in one of the city departments."
They continue chatting and walking down the street. However, when they see each others' faces clearly
for the first time, Bob realizes that this is not his friend Jimmy. Upon Bob's realization of this, the imposter
hands him a note in which the irony of the story is revealed.

When the reader reads the story again, the details of the story take a completely different meaning. The
policeman himself was Jimmy Wells. He was at the appointed spot at the appointed time, and he met his
old friend there. However, when he met Bob, he saw not just his old friend, but a wanted man. He didn't
feel that he could arrest his friend himself, so he asked Bob if he would "call time" on his friend. Bob's
answer gave him enough time to have a different man come around, pretend to be Jimmy, and finally
arrest Bob. When the second man comes around, he never actually answers Bob's question, "Is that you,
Jimmy Wells?" Instead of answering the question with a "yes" or "no," he avoids the question and lets
Bob think he is Jimmy. He carefully avoids direct mention of his own life, mentioning only that he has a
place in one of the city departments (not specifying that it is a police department), and lets Bob do most of
the talking. Bob is thoroughly convinced that this is his old friend - until they reach a street light. Part of O.
Henry's success in this ironic story lies in that not only Bob was fooled, but the reader also is fooled until
the very end of the story.

When Bob saw his companion's face in the light and realized that the man he was conversing with was
not his old friend, he became upset, stating that even twenty years couldn't change the shape of a man's
nose. The man that Jimmy had sent to meet Bob, however, pointed out that twenty years can change a
good man to a bad man. Bob may have made his fortunes in the West, and Jimmy may have stayed at
home, but Bob had become a notorious criminal while Jimmy had gone the opposite direction, becoming
an upholder of the law. "After Twenty Years" was referring to the two friends meeting after twenty years.
Twenty years is also a typical sentence for serious crimes. Twenty years in the West changed Bob from a
good man to a bad man, but twenty years in prison could also have the opposite effect, changing Bob
from a bad man into a good man.
 2

A little irony can make a world of difference in writing. A person could understand "After Twenty Years"
one way the first time he or she reads it, but understand it a completely different way the second time. O.
Henry's characteristic use of irony makes his writings interesting and intriguing. Because of irony, "After
Twenty Years" has become a favorite - both for its intriguing plot and literary quality.

Brief Character sketches

Jimmy is honest and responsible. This is clear for several reasons. As a policeman, he is charged with
ensuring the safety of the storefronts on his beat. Although it is rainy and clearly a night where it would
be more comfortable to be inside, Jimmy walked his beat "trying doors as he went." He does this work
with style and confidence, twirling his club "with many intricate and artful movements," yet he is a
humble man as he is a patrolman and content with his lot in life. He is also a man of integrity. This is
clear because of his actions. First, he fulfills his obligation to meet his friend Bob after twenty years;
second, realizing Bob is a criminal, he arranges to have him arrested by another officer since Bob is a
friend from years ago. Clearly, Jimmy takes his job responsibilities seriously. Bob even describes Jimmy
is the policeman as "the truest, staunchest old chap in the world."

Bob is showy. He wears a diamond scarf pin and pulls out a watch set with diamonds. He is boastful,
bragging about all the hustles he pulled out West. Bob is descibed by the narrator as egotistical because
he begins bragging about his successes to the second policeman who poses as Jimmy Wells. Even so, he
is also a loyal friend, made clear by the fact he returned to the site of the restaurant he and Jimmy
agreed to meet at twenty years ago to see how each had fared in life.

Characters
In After Twenty Years, there are only three characters that are found within the entire story. These
characters, although each characterised significantly different, all play a vital role within the reading of
the text. The characters also develop and change as the story progresses, which gives strong
representations of each character and their identities.

The main character and protagonist is Bob, as the story is centred around him waiting for his old friend
to meet him at their chosen time and place. Although he is represented briefly by his appearance, it is
the small descriptions described that are of importance in his characterisation, in addition to
his personality that is expressed throughout the story. We learn of Bob’s loyalty to his friends and that
he is wealthy, supposedly from hard work. In this way, Bob is a round character, as he is complex and
immediately capable of change. As the story progresses, Bobs identity is exposed even more when the
climax of the story is revealed. It is immediately presumed that Bob is a successful career driven man
when he tells the police officer “I’ve had to compete with some of the sharpest wits going to get my
pile.” However, in the turn of events, Bobs character is identified as actually being a wanted criminal in
Chicago by the same of ‘Silky’ Bob.

The second character, the policeman, who also turns out to be Jimmy Wells, is in this sense seen as a
protagonist, as the story is centred around Bob and his best friend Jimmy. Throughout the story, it is led
to believe that the police officer is nothing more than an antagonist within the story, as he walks off to
 3

leave Bob waiting for his friend. The characters identity in the story is shown when it is seen that he is in
fact, represented as two different people, as he is the friend Jimmy who also happens to be a policeman.
The character of the policeman is represented briefly in his appearance, and although he does not
express much personality, we learn of this side of him from Bob as his dear friend Jimmy.

“But I know Jimmy will meet me here if he’s alive, for he always was the truest, stanchest old chap in the
world. He’ll never forget. I came a thousand miles to stand in this door to-night, and it’s worth it if my old
partner turns up…. He was a kind of plodder, though, good fellow as he was.”

Jimmy’s character is expressed through the dialogue of Bob, and it is the convergence of both characters
in the end that also show him to be a round character. This turn of events also outlines Jimmy’s
dedication to the police force, which he regards as more important than his loyalty to his friend.
Although his old friend had traveled far to meet him twenty years later, he had to do what was right and
arrest him for the criminal he was.

Plot

The story is introduced with the first character, a policeman making his rounds on the dark, windy, rainy
streets of New York, rattling door knobs as he checks everything is secure on his beat. It is here we meet
the second character, as the policeman approaches a man standing in a doorway of a hardware store.
This character is Bob, and Bobs explains his reason as to why he is standing on the street at that time of
night. Twenty years ago, Bob and his best friend Jimmy agreed to meet at that exact spot at 10 o’clock at
night. As Bob relates his tale, it is come to light that Bob and Jimmy have chosen two different paths in
life. Bob moved away to the west to seek fortune, while Jimmy chose to stay in New York City. After
hearing Bob’s story, the police officer, who noticeably has not been given a name, goes on his way.

Soon, Bob is approached by the third and final character in the story, who greets Bob as his old friend
Jimmy. Together they walk down the street to find a place to eat, but it is during this time that the light
shines on Jimmy’s face and Bob notices it isn’t his friend. The surprise climax is then revealed, as this
man tells Bob he is under arrest and hands him a note. As Bob reads this note, it is then the plot is
unified as he realises that he did meet his old friend Jimmy at the right time in the right place as he was
in fact the first policeman who stopped to talk to him on the street. Knowing he was a criminal, yet
unable to arrest his friend, the policeman walked away and asked a random bystander to confront Bob
instead.

Narrative Sequence

• Exposition: The setting of the dark street in New York is introduced and the characters of Bob
and Jimmy are described.

• Rising Action: Bob’s tension is increased as he waits for his long time friend who has not shown
up on time. Bob sees the policeman walking up the street, explains his situation, then the
policeman walks away. Next a tall man walks up to Bob, giving him the assumption that it is
 4

Jimmy. This man and Bob walk down the road and Bob sees the man in front of the bright lights
of a drug store.

• Crisis/Climax: Bob realises the man is not Jimmy.

• Falling action: The man tells Bob he is under arrest and hands him a note.

• Resolution: Bob reads the note and realises that the policeman he spoke to earlier was in fact
his old friend Jimmy.

The gift of the Magi

Summary
The story opens with $1.87. That's all Della Dillingham Young has to buy a present for her beloved
husband, Jim. And the next day is Christmas. Faced with such a situation, Della promptly bursts into
tears on the couch, which gives the narrator the opportunity to tell us a bit more about the situation of
Jim and Della. The short of it is they live in a shabby flat and they're poor. But they love each other.

Once Della's recovered herself, she goes to a mirror to let down her hair and examine it. Della's
beautiful, brown, knee-length hair is one of the two great treasures of the poor couple. The other is
Jim's gold watch. Her hair examined, Della puts it back up, sheds a tear, and bundles up to head out into
the cold. She leaves the flat and walks to Madame Sofronie's hair goods shop, where she sells her hair
for twenty bucks. Now she has $21.87 cents.

With her new funds, Della is able to find Jim the perfect present: an elegant platinum watch chain for his
watch. It's $21, and she buys it. Excited by her gift, Della returns home and tries to make her now-short
hair presentable (with a curling iron). She's not convinced Jim will approve, but she did what she had to
do to get him a good present. When she finishes with her hair, she gets to work preparing coffee and
dinner.

Jim arrives at 7pm to find Della waiting by the door and stares fixedly at her, not able to understand that
Della's hair is gone. Della can't understand quite what his reaction means.

After a little while, Jim snaps out of it and gives Della her present, explaining that his reaction will make
sense when she opens it. Della opens it and cries out in joy, only to burst into tears immediately
afterward. Jim has given her the set of fancy combs she's wanted for ages, only now she has no hair for
them. Jim nurses Della out of her sobs. Once she's recovered she gives Jim his present, holding out the
watch chain. Jim smiles, falling back on the couch. He sold his watch to buy Della's combs, he explains.
He recommends they put away their presents and have dinner. As they do so, the narrator brings the
story to a close by pronouncing that Della and Jim are the wisest of everyone who gives gifts. They are
the magi.
 5

Setting:A drab flat in a gray city on Christmas Eve The narrator calls our attention almost immediately
to the two most important details of the story's setting: it takes place on a Christmas Eve, and its two
main characters live in a very unassuming flat. The action of the story depends on the fact that
Christmas is sufficiently close that Della needs to buy a present now, even with her small amount of
money. The couple's very humble abode brings out their poverty vividly. It's their poverty which both
forces them to make the sacrifices they do, and which makes those sacrifices meaningful. O. Henry
sketches the flat with just enough detail to convey an image of its squalor: it's cheap, sparsely furnished,
and has a broken mailbox and a broken doorbell.

The drabness of the physical setting in which Jim and Della live creates a contrast with the warmth and
richness of their love for each other. The fact that everything outside the flat is "grey" – Della watches a
"gray cat walking a gray fence in a gray backyard" (6) – develops the contrast even further. Inside, we
get the sense, Jim and Della's affection creates a welcoming love nest, in spite of the flat's humble
nature. Outside, it's a cold, gray world, and one that is about as uncaring as Madame Sofronie.

As for the larger "where and when," we don't have much in the way of specifics. It is possible the story is
set in a city – "flats" are the kind of thing you often associate with cities – but not necessarily so (the flat
has a backyard, which is a little less urban). From the "gas" which Della lights (20) and the gadgets she
has (i.e., a stove and curling irons), it is a safe bet that the story is set just about the time O. Henry wrote
it (first decade of the 20th century), or slightly earlier.

Point of view: Third Person (Omniscient) Technically, the story seems to be third person limited
omniscient. It's told in the third-person, and only follows Della. We don't see what Jim is doing during
the story, and once he does show up, he remains closed to us: we don't know what his reaction to
Della's hair is any more than Della does.

We can't be entirely satisfied with this classification, though, because the narrator has such an
independent personality and seems to know a lotmore than Della does at times. He's "The Storyteller."
It's as if he sees everything, but usually limits himself to Della's point of view by choice for storytelling
purposes. If the narrator described everything that were going on, he'd ruin the surprise ending.

We know the narrator is really more like an omniscient being, though, because every so often he
"zooms out" to make much more general pronouncements that fly way above the action of the story's
characters. The most obvious of these is at the end, when he mentions "the magi" (to which Della and
Jim are totally oblivious). But there are other places too, like when he zooms out from the weeping Della
to describe the flat. There are also all those moments when he makes a more universal remark about
"the way life is," such as, "Life is made up of sobs, sniffles, and smiles, with sniffles predominating" (2).

Genre: Parable The key feature of a parable is that it uses a situation, which feels very simple to make a
more complex or general point, often a moral one. (Also, unlike a fable, a parable does this with people,
not animals.) This classification defines "The Gift of the Magi," which is a remarkably simple story. It
boils down to a few bare essentials: Della and Jim are poor, but love each other very much; they each
 6

want to buy the perfect Christmas gift for each other; they each have one prized possession which they
give up to buy the other a present, and the presents they buy are meant for the prized possessions
they've sacrificed. You don't need to know almost anything else about the story to "get it," and there's
very little in the story itself that doesn't serve to develop one of those elements.

That there is actually something specific to get is the other reason "The Gift of the Magi" is a parable: it
has a point, and yes, it is a moral one. This story is about what it means to give a gift. All of the elements
of the story serve to bring that point across. And yes, the slightly "preachy" tone of the story is part of
the parable. That last paragraph especially, which is just a slightly more stylish version of the "moral"
that predictably comes at the end of an Aesop fable.

Tone :Wise, A Bit Preachy, Grandfatherly (Take a story's temperature by studying its tone. Is it hopeful?
Cynical? Snarky? Playful?)

The narrator of "Gift of the Magi" is not a character, but he's certainly not a neutral observer either.
Rather, he comes across distinctively as a person, and one who's telling you a story, maybe even at your
bedside. He's willing to take breaks from the "action" of the story to paint a vivid scene. The narrator
seems to speak directly to his "audience":

While the mistress of the home is gradually subsiding from the first stage to the second, take a look at
the home. A furnished flat at $8 per week. (3)

The narrator also take breaks from the action to "make a point." He speaks as if he's seen the world and
understood it well – he's wise, in other words – and he wants to teach you some lessons about it. Mainly
on the nature of gift-giving, but he's plenty happy making short but sweeping statements about other
things – like the nature of life, love, or women – while he's at it:

Which instigates the moral reflection that life is made up of sobs, sniffles, and smiles, with sniffles
predominating. (2)

She got out her curling irons and lighted the gas and went to work repairing the ravages made by
generosity added to love. Which is always a tremendous task, dear friends--a mammoth task. (20)

Although it might feel slightly heavy-handed at times, on the whole the narrator seems like a very
gentle, well meaning, and wise fellow.

Language (Writing style) Oral, Simple, Informal (and spun together from incomplete sentences)

The story is narrated as if someone were telling it to you aloud. How does O. Henry achieve this effect?
Basically he breaks grammar rules. There are lots of sentences that aren't really sentences, like the
opening one: "One dollar and eighty-seven cents" (1). There's no verb or action in that sentence; it just
states a sum of money. We need more information about what that sum of money "means" or "does" in
order to understand the sentence. We get that information in the next sentence: "That was all" (1).
 7

Although the second sentence at least has a verb, it's also technically not a complete sentence: the
subject, "that," is unspecified, and only makes sense given the previous sentence.

Likewise, the narrator is fond of starting sentences with words that grammar sticklers would say you're
not supposed to start with, like "And" or "Which." This also has the effect of making one sentence hinge
on the sentence before. (And if you look, you'll notice that Shmoop does this sometimes too – it's part of
what makes us and O. Henry sound conversational.)

Looking at those first two sentences clues us in on how the story's style tends to operate as a whole: lots
of short sentences that often depend on other sentences in order to work. This technique has a way of
weaving together the story across individual sentences and gives it a flow that would be broken apart by
writing in more complete, self-contained sentences. It's typical of the ways we tell stories when
we speak. This style keeps listeners hanging on from one sentence to the next. It also prevents them
from getting lost in overly long sentences. Since when you're listening to a story you can't go back and
read a sentence again, it's important that you don't get lost. If you get caught on a particular sentence it
might make you lose the thread of the whole story.

Of course, as O. Henry is trying to capture that feel of telling a story orally, he also throws in plenty of
addresses to his audience of listeners, as in, "Which is always a tremendous task, dear friends – a
mammoth task" (20). This further creates the feeling that he is talking directly to us.

Ending

O. Henry is known for his "twist endings," and the ending of "The Gift of the Magi" is probably the most
famous of them all. At the end of the story Della cuts and sells her hair to buy Jim a chain for his watch,
and Jim sells his watch to buy Della combs for her hair. Here we have a classic case of irony. The
determination to find the perfect gift leads each character to make a sacrifice; that sacrifice makes each
gift useless. The result is the exact opposite of what Jim and Della intended. What makes this ending so
bittersweet is that it only comes about because they acted on their intentions: their gifts wouldn't have
been useless if they hadn't given up their prize possessions. And since we follow only Della in the story,
we don't know what has happened until the very end, during the exchange itself. It's the sudden,
unexpected irony, which only strikes at the very end that makes the ending a twist.

Now that we've talked about what makes the ending a twist, let's ask another question: how do
we feel about the ending? From one perspective, it's disastrous. Jim and Della seem much better off
before the gift exchange. At the end, they have exchanged their most prized possessions to buy each
other gifts that are now useless. Their original possessions – the watch and the hair – were valuable on
their own. Not only that, their original possessions seem more precious because they were theirs – Jim's
watch was a family heirloom passed down from his granddad, and Della's hair was literally a part of
Della. Their gifts, on the other hand, are just new store-bought things that have no special connection to
either person. Since each person wanted to buy the other the perfect gift, this means they have both
failed colossally.
 8

But then there's the narrator's perspective in that last paragraph, according to which the gifts they've
given each other are the "wisest" gifts of all, the "gifts of the magi." If we agree, then of course they've
succeeded in what they wanted to do. Both Jim and Della have shown that they're willing to sacrifice the
most valuable thing they have to give something to the other. That makes their "useless" gifts incredibly
valuable after all: the selfless love each feels for the other is embodied in those gifts. As long as they
have the gifts, they'll be able to remember it. That kind of thing can't be bought. And it makes the gifts
even more special and personal than what they replaced.

Which leads us to another point. Before the exchange, Jim and Della each had one prize possession.
Each possession was valuable on its own and belonged to each person individually. The watch was Jim's,
and the hair was Della's. Both possessions are sacrificed. In the exchange, each gains something new,
which doesn't have any sentimental value as a token of their love for each other. That love isn't
something they have as individuals, it's something they share together. So in the gift exchange, the two
of them come closer together in a very concrete way.

Plot: Most good stories start with a fundamental list of ingredients: the initial situation, conflict,
complication, climax, suspense, denouement, and conclusion. Great writers sometimes shake up the
recipe and add some spice.

Initial Situation "One dollar and eighty-seven cents. That was all." (1)

The story's opening sentences confront us right away with the problem: Della only has $1.87 to buy a
Christmas present, and it's Christmas Eve. After the first paragraph, the narrator gives us a bit more
fleshing out of the situation. Della's in a meager flat, she and her husband Jim are poor, she loves her
husband more than anything else in the whole world. Plus, she positively needs to buy him the perfect
Christmas present. With $1.87. When Della lets down her hair, we also learn the other most important
fact for the story: her hair and Jim's gold watch are the only prized possessions the couple has.
Everything is now set up for the rest of the story to unfold.

Conflict Della sells her hair.

The conflict is supposedly the moment where the "problem" in the story appears, but this story began
right from the first with a problem. In "Gift of the Magi" the point of conflict actually solves the first
problem and replaces it with a second. By selling her hair, Della gets the money to buy Jim a great
present, eliminating the first problem through decisive action. Shortly thereafter she finds the perfect
present, so neither the money nor the present is the issue any longer. But now there's a new problem:
will Jim be pleased by Della's action and appreciate her gift, or will he be angry with her for parting with
the hair he loved so much?

Complication Jim is shocked by Della's short hair.

When Jim arrives, he doesn't seem to react well: he stares at Della and can't seem to process that her
hair is gone. But it doesn't look like he's angry, so much as simply shocked. Della can't quite understand
 9

what kind of reaction he's having, nor can we. This creates suspense; we want to know what it is he's
actually feeling. We also want to know how he'll react to Della's gift. When Jim snaps out of his shock,
he tells Della (and us) that his reaction will make sense when Della opens the present he bought her…

Climax Combs!

When Della opens Jim's present to find the combs, we understand why Jim was so shocked. It also
becomes clear now that he's not angry with Della, and he assures her he'll love her no matter how she
looks. Although the climax doesn't fully "predict" the ending, it is the first half of the twist. And if we do
get to thinking about where Jim got the money to buy those combs, we might be able to guess what
happens next.

Suspense Della's Turn

We're still waiting to know how Jim will react to Della's gift, and we might also be wondering just how
he got the money to buy those expensive combs. Della gives Jim the watch chain, and…

Denouement

Presented with his gift, Jim calmly reveals (with a smile) that he sold his watch to buy Della her combs.
So her present is useless too. Well, that does it for the Christmas presents. Not much left to do but eat
those pork chops. In the narrator's final paragraph, the narrator tells us that it doesn't really matter that
Jim and Della's presents turned out to be useless. They are the wisest givers of all – in fact, they're the
magi. We leave feeling satisfied and happy

Character Analysis

Jim's job is not so great. He's the only breadwinner for the Dillingham Young family (that is, him and
Della), and it seems he works long hours, but his salary is low. And it recently went from bad to worse:
whereas he used to make $30 a week he's now down to just $20. He and Della are struggling just to pay
the expenses of their small flat. So if Jim happens to seem a little tired, serious, overworked, and
perhaps a tad underweight, there's a good reason for it.

He looked thin and very serious. Poor fellow, he was only twenty-two--and to be burdened with a family!
He needed a new overcoat and he was without gloves. (22)

The one thing that keeps Jim going is his love for Della. She's his Della (33).We don't get half as much
exposure to his feelings as we do for Della's, but all evidence points to him being just as devoted to her
as she is to him. Just like Della, Jim gives up his most precious possession to find a perfect gift for the
person he loves. And it's not just because of her looks, even though she worries about them:

"Don't make any mistake, Dell," he said, "about me. I don't think there's anything in the way of a haircut
or a shave or a shampoo that could make me like my girl any less." (35)
 10

Why does Jim love Della so much? Probably in part because she loves him so much.

You may have noticed that Della is also a little jumpy. Jim's definitely the more levelheaded one in the
relationship. While she reacts to his present with shrieks and wails, he just reacts to hers by rolling onto
the couch and smiling (43).

Della

Della is the loving, warm, selfless, and occasionally hysterical heroine of the story. Della's financially
poor. She spends all of her days in a cramped flat, as "mistress of the home" (3). In other words, she's a
homemaker. Della basically lives for one thing (or rather, person): Jim, her husband. She's spent a lot of
the time leading up to Christmas just thinking of what to get him:

She had been saving every penny she could for months, with this result. Twenty dollars a week doesn't go
far. Expenses had been greater than she had calculated. They always are. Only $1.87 to buy a present for
Jim. Her Jim. Many a happy hour she had spent planning for something nice for him. (5)

As you might gather from that, Della throws just about every bit of energy she has into being good to
Jim. She's been saving for months just to round up money for a Christmas present. She has even
endured the humiliation of pinching pennies at stores.

He may not be bringing in much money, but Jim is the cat's pajamas for Della. He deserves the absolute
best, which is why she's so set on getting him the perfect present: "Something fine and rare and sterling
– something just a little bit near to being worthy of the honor of being owned by Jim" (6).

Della is willing to go to any length to achieve this goal, and ends up selling her one prized possession –
her hair – to do it. Although she sheds a tear or two over the hair, really it doesn't seem to affect her
that much. She doesn't even think it's much of a choice. She has to get Jim a present: "I had my hair cut
off and sold because I couldn't have lived through Christmas without giving you a present. It'll grow out
again – you won't mind, will you? I just had to do it" (28).

In fact, the thing that seems to bother Della most about losing her hair is that Jim likes it so much. She's
worried he won't find her pretty anymore (though she doesn't really have anything to worry about). She
barely seems to think of herself at all. That's devotion.

Is Della Too Devoted?

Della's so devoted, in fact, you might be a little bit bothered. It might be difficult to define Della apart
from Jim: she lives for her husband. But it looks like her husband might live only for her too. After all, he
sacrifices his watch – which is a precious object that's been passed down through his family for
generations (and won't grow back) – to get her a gift. And given how humble their circumstances are,
and how hard his work must be, it's not clear what else he would have to live for besides Della. So is Jim
just as devoted to Della as Della is to Jim? It's likely that he is.
 11

If that's the case, though Della and Jim definitely play different roles, they're in a relationship of
equality, and equal devotion. That makes Della's own devotion less strange, and kind of wonderful – like
it's supposed to be. Della and Jim's utter devotion to each other is the whole point of the story, after all.
It's because of this devotion that both sacrifice their only prized possessions to get gifts for each other.
That selflessness is what makes them wise givers – magi – and what teaches us the lesson about the
meaning of giving that the narrator wants to get across.

Still, it's true that we don't actually ever get to go inside Jim's head and see whether he loves her as
much as she loves him. So if you want to be skeptical of the narrator's heartwarming ending and be
cynical about Della, we suppose you can.

Della's Hysteria

But you might still find one more complaint to make about Della. She might seem unrealistically
emotional. The very first thing we see her do is collapse into a sobbing fit on the couch. And once she
gets Jim's present, she shrieks in ecstasy only to burst into tears almost immediately afterwards:

And then an ecstatic scream of joy; and then, alas! a quick feminine change to hysterical tears and wails,
necessitating the immediate employment of all the comforting powers of the lord of the flat. (37)

Not only that, throughout the story Della just seems on edge, as if she were continuously overexcited.
Do you ever notice how Della never just walks or turns, she "suddenly whirls"? As in "suddenly she
whirled from the window" (8) or "with a whirl of skirts and with the brilliant sparkle still in her eyes, she
fluttered out the door" (11). Then there's the time when she "leap[s] up like a little singed cat and crie[s]
'Oh, oh!'" just because she wants Jim to have his present so badly (40).

Yes, Della's a little on the excitable side, to say the least. You might find it particularly irritating that the
narrator seems to think that's part of what it means to be "feminine" (let's remember that O. Henry
wrote this story in 1906). Still, in our opinion, Della's excitement is more something to make you
chuckle. It makes her more lovable. Della's just head over heels in love. That inflates the importance of
just about everything, and makes it rather easy to swing from the heights of happiness to the depths of
despair in a matter of seconds. Can't we all relate to that a bit?

The Piece of String

The prolific French author, Guy de Maupassant, is primarily remembered for his mastery of the
short story, although he wrote novels and travel memoirs as well. Maupassant published his
first short story, “Boule de Suif,” in 1880 at the age of thirty.

A realist author, Maupassant’s stories tell the tales of common people permanently altered by
larger forces at work in the world. “The Piece of String” is no exception. The story was
 12

published in 1884, within Maupassant’s larger collection, Miss Harriet. “The Piece of String”
follows the experience of Maitre Hauchecorne, a peasant and farmer, as he is accused of theft.

As you read “The Piece of String,” consider these questions:

• “The Piece of String” is predominantly concerned with the physical world – the story is
full of physical details and physical description: the peasants’ bodies, the animals they
bring with them to market and the clothes they wear, the specific movements Maitre
Hauchecorne makes as he picks up the string and then realizes someone has seen him
do it. These physical markers are important clues into the characters’ class status and to
the differences between people in nineteenth-century France. In what ways do we still
use physical characteristics to divide or unite us?

• Picking up a piece of string seems like an innocent enough action – and yet, Maitre
Hauchecorne feels ashamed of it. Later, we learn that his motivation and actions are
misunderstood by virtually everyone else in the story. What does the clash of
perspectives – Hauchecorne’s and the other character’s – reveal about the difficulty of
being understood? Have you had similar experiences being misunderstood or
misinterpreting other’s actions in your own life?

• This story hinges on a lie, and yet it’s never clear whether Maitre Malandainknows he
has told a falsehood. What we do know is that Maitre Hauchecorne and Maitre
Malandain have a long-standing enmity, and that the lie is ultimately more believable
than the truth. What does this conflict say about our inherent biases, especially when
we already have enmity in a relationship? In what ways does this conflict – and the
fallout from it – reflect real-world relationships on both large and small scales?

The Piece of String (Summary outline)

In "The Piece of String," crafty old Maitre Hauchecome is falsely accused of having stolen a
man's pocketbook. He explains that he merely bent down to pick up a piece of string, but no
one believes him—not even after the pocketbook is found and returned.
One day, on his way to the marketplace, Hauchecorne bends down to pick up a piece of
string. His enemy, Malandain, sees him do this. When a peasant claims to have been lost his
wallet, Malandain accuses Hauchecome.

Hauchecorne proclaims his innocence. In the morning, the pocketbook is found on the side
of the road. Hauchecorne points to this as proof of his innocence, but the villagers still think
he was the culprit.
 13

Hauchecorne realizes that his reputation as a crafty old man has turned the villagers against
him. He can't convince them of his innocence. He dies repeating, "A little bit of string."

Themes and Meanings

In “The Piece of String,” Maupassant is dramatizing at least two of his more familiar themes:
his intense dislike of the peasantry and the peasants’ abiding distrust of one another.
Although Maupassant came from a well-to-do Norman background, his disillusioning
experiences as a private in the Franco-Prussian War served to harden his soul against the
lower class. In addition, his years of sharp scrutiny of their Norman ways and mores—their
everyday habits—strengthened his cynical attitude toward them. It is generally agreed that
he was misanthropic, but never more so than when he set his sights on those Norman men
and women. Their hardiness and endurance notwithstanding, Maupassant’s composite
portrait of them is almost without qualification unflattering, and often sardonic. So he often
enumerates their failings: They are greedy and deceitful, and they can be very treacherous.

Early in “The Piece of String,” he sets the tone for their behavior that will follow. Gathered
in the Goderville marketplace, they are ever trying to discover “the tricks of the man and
the defect in the beast.” Those two phrases, “the tricks of the man” and “the defect in the
beast,” say it all. Indeed, the trick in Hauchecorne is that he surely had a hand in the loss of
the pocketbook; the defect in him is that he foolishly and vainly persists in voicing his
innocence long after anyone has even thought him to be innocent, if ever anyone did.

Maupassant was no sociologist, and he did not expand on the fact that hundreds of years of
debasement caused the peasants to see themselves as individuals who, by their intrinsic
nature, were both unworthy and untrustworthy. Ironically, when Hauchecorne goes home
after being mocked out of town, he arrives at the same conclusion that Maupassant had
held for years. That is, Hauchecorne’s Norman simplicity readily understands that there is
considerable justice in the peasants’ disbelief of his story. The peasants’ ingrained
suspiciousness has singled out this old man as a thief, even disregarding the fact that the
pocketbook had been recovered a day later; this, too, is how Maupassant treats his
peasant: as a man not to be trusted.

Q- In the story "The Piece of String," do you think Malandain really believes Hauchecorne
found the wallet? If not,why does he lie?

Maitre Malandain probably does not truly believe that Maitre Hauchcorne has stolen the
wallet, but having "the tendency to hold grudges," he takes advantage of an opportunity to
deal misery to his foe.
 14

Just as Saki satirized those of the Edwardian Age in England, Guy de Maupassant mocked
the pettiness of the peasantry of Normandy, a province in northwestern France. In the
exposition of his story, Maupassant describes the Norman women in the market who
stubbornly held to their prices in the market and would only relent when a customer began
to walk away. Then, they would shout after him or her, "All right...It's yours."

It is this same obstinate and petty personality that Hauchcorne and Maladain exhibit. So,
when Malandain is asked by the authorities if he has noticed any suspicious behavior, he
readily mentions that he has seen Maitre Hauchcorne bend and pick up something, then
stoop again sweeping the dirt with his hand as though searching for something else.

When the authorities interrogate Maitre Hauchorne he explains that he merely bent to pick
up a piece of string; however, he is too proud to admit that his brushing the ground with his
hand afterwards has been done only to make Malandain believe that he was searching for
something he lost. Instead, he protests that he has done nothing wrong, but Maitre
Malandain confronts him and even repeats the statement he has given to authorities under
oath.

They hurled insults at each other for a full hour. Maitre Hauchecorne was searched at his
own request. They found nothing on him.

When the villagers question Hauchecorne out of "good-humored curiosity," he retells his
story, but then they begin to not believe him. The more he protests, the more they begin to
doubt his honesty because of their ingrained suspiciousness. They now call him "a sly old
rascal" because Maitre Malandain, has fed suspicions that grow each time his foe protests
the accusations.

Vocabulary
1. perpetually – adv. constantly
2. penchant – n. fondness for
3. pompous – adj. self-important
4. indignation – n. anger resulting from injustice
5. incredulity – n. disbelief; doubt

Dramatic Irony

Irony is a part of our life. When we say 'thanks' sarcastically to someone for taking up two parking spots,
we are using irony. If someone were to choke on an apple piece requiring medical attention after saying,
'an apple a day keeps the doctor away,' this is ironic. Irony is also used in literature. One form of irony
used in literature that can't really be found in life is dramatic irony. Dramatic irony is when the audience
knows something that the rest of the characters don't know. This typically leads to conflict in the story.
 15

Guy de Maupassant uses dramatic irony in his short story 'A Piece of String.' In this story, Maitre
Hauchecorne is falsely accused of stealing another man's wallet. He tries to declare his innocence until
his dying breathe. It is ironic to us, as the reader, because we know that the reason he was accused was
because he was actually seen picking up a piece of string and not the wallet. He had looked guilty picking
up the piece of string because he felt silly stopping to pick up a simple piece of string when his enemy
saw him picking it up.

A Silly Piece of String

When Hauchecorne first stops to pick up the piece of string, we know that he is stopping because he is
of a thrifty mind. It is painful for him to stoop down because he is getting old, but he still stops and picks
up the string. He had stopped because he was 'economical as are all true Normans' and 'reflected that
everything was worth picking up which could be of any use.' At this moment we cannot fathom anything
that could be wrong with him stopping to pick up a piece of string.

Then he notices his enemy (due to 'a quarrel about a halter'), Malandain, was staring at him. He
suddenly felt silly for stopping to pick up something as worthless as a piece of string. So he carefully
disguises the fact that he has only stopped for a piece of string, carefully putting the string in his pocket
so that no one can see. He 'then pretended to be still looking for something on the ground' in order to
make Malandain think that he was stooping to find something else. He gets up and goes about his day
normally. Not thinking any more about the issue. But then he is accused of stealing the wallet. He is
quite confused why anyone would think he stole the wallet, but then he hears that Malandain saw
Hauchcorne sneakily picking something up from the ground and putting it in his pocket.

Already, we feel the irony of the situations. Hauchecorne was only being sneaky about it because he felt
silly for stopping for something as simple as a piece of string. It wasn't something fancy like a wallet,
instead it was something silly. But who is going to believe that he would look guilty picking up a piece of
string, when it could be a wallet he would be looking guilty about?

This irony continues when further proof is brought forward. He was then seen continuing to look about
the ground as though trying to find the money that may have fallen from the wallet. We, as readers,
know that he did that to further hide his embarrassment at picking up a silly piece of string but to the
other characters that makes him look guilty.

Francis Bacon, the first major English essayist, published three versions of his Essays or Counsels, Civil
and Moral (1597, 1612, and 1625). Francis Bacon (1561-1626) was an English philosopher, statesman,
scientist and essayist. He is best known for leading the scientific revolution with his new 'observation
and experimentation' theory which is the way science has been conducted ever since. He is a famous
essayist and is known as the father of the English essay. His essays are full of common sense and
epigrammatic wit.

Frances Bacon's aim as an essayist was to share the wisdom of his life. His style of essay writing

is not dogmatic nor didactic but rather personable and friendly. For example, when speaking of
 16

envy he doesn't begin with a declaration of envy being harmful and destructive of happiness.

His style allows him to explore such subjects with an observational eye that relates incidents to

meaning and only eventually reveals his judgment and wisdom on the subject. His essays were

well received because of his warm wisdom.

Sir Francis Bacon was a true Renaissance man in that he was accomplished in many areas, one

of which was essayist. Some scholars believe it was he who invented the essay as a literary form.

Bacon’s Essays (counsels: Civil and Moral) exhibit a practical value in life. Bacon’s essays are counsels
and are designed for the practical benefits of man and not for his emotional or imaginative
development. This utilitarian attitude is most evident in his 59 essays.

His essays cover a huge range of subjects and the writing style is quite varied. Some are

philosophical, some are witty, some are deep, some are humorous. Bacon often takes both sides

of an argument in his essays, seeming to enjoy the role of “devil’s advocate” arguing against

himself. Writers and speakers (including even Shakespeare!) have quoted from his essays.

The variety of his essays by examining their topics, some of which include: Truth, Death, Anger,

Envy, Revenge, Travel, Marriage and Single Life, Suspicion, Riches, Ambition, Goodness and

Goodness of Nature, Plantations, The Colors of Good and Evil, etc

Of Youth and Age . Sum up: In Of Youth and Age Bacon tries to compare the negative and positive
attributes of both young and old age: I will put it in simple way, -Young men are better to invent, old
men better to judge -Young men are better in doing, old men in calculating risks -Young men are better
for new projects, old men for settled business. He also described young men as men with vision while
the old men are dreamers and according to him vision is better than dream.

Bacon's essay 'Of Youth and Age' has actually been written to familiarize the people with the worth of
the people belonging to two extremely crucial stages of life i.e young and old. Involvement of the people
belonging to these two age groups in any worldly activity may result in a wonderful success. Moreover,
Bacon has also given a great comparison in between young and aged people which seems to be quite
interesting for the reader.

Critical Analysis:

In this essay Bacon tries to compare the traits young and old age. In the starting of the essay
Bacon mentions that it is possible for a young man to have the maturity of that of an old man,
but says that it is a very rare case. He compares youth to the first ideas or thoughts and says that
 17

they are never as wise as the seconds. But then again, the new inventions or discoveries of the
youth seem to be more refreshing than those of the aged ones as their imagination are better.
Even though the youth are full of desires and ambitions they are not matured enough to act on
those desires until they are of a certain age. As an example he mentions Septimius Severus who
has lived his youth making errors and in madness, yet was one of the most intelligent and gifted
emperor. But it is best to be calm and composed in youth rather than full of heat as mentioned
above. He says that both young as well as aged have qualities that are unique such as Young men
are better to invent, old men better to judge, Young men are better in doing, old men in
calculating risks, Young men are better for new projects, old men for settled business.
Young men, he says, are full of excitement and new ideas, never stay quiet, are up to create a
change and are innovative in nature. Even if their attempts fail they do not stumble, they keep
going until they get the result they are looking for. They are like an unsteady horse he says,
which doesn’t stop or turn. Whereas aged men are quite opposite, they think and consult too
much, and are too steady to be adventurous and at the end are happy with the minimum rate of
success that they achieve.
It is profitable to employ the men of both kinds, as the rightness of one will rectify the defects of
the other. Where the aged one teaches and the younger learns and while the fame is enjoyed by
the youth, the aged can have the privilege to authorize. He says that the young have visions
whereas the aged have dreams which are not as sound compared to the former. He says that
there are some who think beyond their age but it diminishes along with their age, who have
better grace in youth than in age.
LINE BY LINE EXPLANATION FROM BACON'S ESSAY "OF FRIENDSHIP"

CONTEXT______This essay was written at the special request of his friend Toby Matthew
in commemoration of an intimacy which had been tried by adversity and prosperity on both sides, and
endured to the end without cloud or interpretation either.

TEXT____IT HAD been hard for him that spake it to have put more truth and untruth together in few
words, than in that speech, Whatsoever is delighted in solitude, is either a wild beast or a god.

EXPLANTION_____Bacon opens his essay with a grand statement modelled after the views of Aristotle.
Finding pleasure in solicitude is contrary to human character and mind. He expresses his belief in rather
strong words. Anyone, who shuns fellow human beings and retreats to isolation, is degraded to the level
of a wild beast. The other possibility is that he is god.

*****

For it is most true, that a natural and secret hatred, and aversation towards society, in any man, hath
somewhat of the savage beast; but it is most untrue, that it should have any character at all, of the
divine nature; except it proceed, not out of a pleasure in solitude, but out of a love and desire to
sequester a man’s self, for a higher conversation: such as is found to have been falsely and feignedly in
some of the heathen; as Epimenides the Candian, Numa the Roman, Empedocles the Sicilian, and
 18

Apollonius of Tyana; and truly and really, in divers of the ancient hermits and holy fathers of the
church.

Bacon, however, is not totally dismissive of people who assiduously shy away from the crowd, and head
for the wilderness. Bacon realizes that remaining silent and cut off from others helps the mind to engage
in deep contemplative thinking. Through such deep insightful dissection of mind, a person rediscovers
himself. The truth and wisdom that dawn on the meditator’s mind through such prolonged isolation, can
be profoundly rewarding for the hermit. The consequence can be both questionable or desirable. In case
of Epimenides the Candian, Numa the Roman, Epimenides the Candian, Numa the Roman, Empedocles
the Sicilian, and Apollonius of Tyana, the theories they propounded were somewhat non-confirmist for
the commoners, but were of great philosophical value. Spiritual men who retreat from public eye in and
around places of worship have been instrumental in delivering sermons of immense spiritual benefit to
mankind. So, voluntary abstention from society is not always a bad idea, after all.

*****

But little do men perceive what solitude is, and how far it extendeth. For a crowd is not company; and
faces are but a gallery of pictures; and talk but a tinkling cymbal, where there is no love.

One must learn to differentiate between a crowd and kinship; between society and friendship. One can
be lonely inside a multitude too. Faces of people may turn out to be fleeting pictures, if the persons are
not engaged with. A conversation devoid of passion or feelings may be akin to the sounds of a tinkling
cymbal – a barren monologue which hardly causes a ripple.

*****

The Latin adage meeteth with it a little: Magna civitas, magna solitudo; because in a great town
friends are scattered; so that there is not that fellowship, for the most part, which is in less
neighborhoods. But we may go further, and affirm most truly, that it is a mere and miserable solitude
to want true friends; without which the world is but a wilderness; and even in this sense also of
solitude, whosoever in the frame of his nature and affections, is unfit for friendship, he taketh it of the
beast, and not from humanity.

The Latin adage says, ‘Magna civitas, magna solitudo’. It means there is great solitude in a large city. This
is so because people live in areas separated from one another by long distances. It makes it impractical
to traverse such long distances to meet friends and relations. The large size of the city is, therefore, an
impediment on the way of people cultivating friendship with one another. In a small city or town, people
tend to live at a shorter distance from each other. So they befriend each other and live like a well-knit
community.

*****
 19

A principal fruit of friendship is the ease and discharge of the fullness and swellings of the heart, which
passions of all kinds do cause and induce.

A friendship must have feelings and passions as its main strands. It should be a bond between the hearts
where one shares the emotions of his friend in full measure.

*****

We know diseases of stoppings, and suffocations, are the most dangerous in thebody; and it is not
much otherwise in the mind; you may take sarza to open the liver, steel to open the spleen, flowers of
sulphur for the lungs, castoreum for the brain; but no receipt openeth the heart, but a true friend; to
whom you may impart griefs, joys, fears, hopes, suspicions, counsels, and whatsoever lieth upon the
heart to oppress it, in a kind of civil shrift or confession.

We all know how debilitating and fatal heart ailments can be. Pleasant and intimate conversation with a
friend brings back vigour to the heart. It elevates the mood, banishes depression and helps the heart
patient to recover. There is no panacea for heart diseases which can match the curative value of the
presence of good friends by the sick person’s bedside. Through lively chat and friendly banters, they
unburden the heart of the sick person and make him feel good again. However, there are medicines or
devices to correct a malfunction of internal organs like sarza for the liver, steel for the spleen, flowers of
sulphur for the lungs, castoreum for the brain etc.

*****

It is a strange thing to observe, how high a rate great kings and monarchs do set upon this fruit of
friendship, whereof we speak: so great, as they purchase it, many times, at the hazard of their own
safety and greatness.

Bacon then gives the examples of the monarchs and kings, and the elite who go to unusual lengths to
befriend good and worthy people. The rich and the powerful with the reins of government in their hands
seek out the crème of the society to give the pleasures of friendship. To bring in the good people, the
kings and monarchs give them generous rewards through wealth and bestowal of honour. Such efforts
to cultivate friendship can be fraught at times as the hand-picked friends may turn hostile causing harm
to their benefactors.

*****
 20

For princes, in regard of the distance of their fortune from that of their subjects and servants, cannot
gather this fruit, except (to make themselves capable thereof) they raise some persons to be, as it
were, companions and almost equals to themselves, which many times sorteth to inconvenience.

A gulf difference always exists between the ruling elite and the subjects. The distance is so large that it
cannot be bridged through normal means. At times, the princes develop liking for some individuals. To
bring them nearer, the rulers raise their status and give them administrative powers. The intention is to
win their friendship. However, such generosity and eagerness to elevate individuals to keep them in
good humour may sometimes bring unanticipated harm. This becomes the possibility when the person
chosen is intrinsically wicked in his intent.

*****

The modern languages give unto such persons the name of favorites, or privadoes; as if it were matter
of grace, or conversation.

The individuals entering the coterie of the sovereign are termed as ‘favourites’ or ‘privadoes’ in modern
languages. These individuals merely add grace and give company like a friend.

*****

But the Roman name attaineth the true use and cause thereof, naming them participes curarum; for it
is that which tieth the knot.

But the true sense of the name is apparent in what the Romans called these individuals – ‘participes
curarum’ meaning ‘sharer of cares’. They are the ones who share the anxiety and worries of the
monarch and not just give company. These hand-picked favoured few are called ‘participes curarum’. It
means ‘sharer of cares’, or those who share the anxiety and worries of the monarch. They are the close
confidantes who offer their counsel to the rulers. It is this sharing of responsibilities/worries that builds
the bond of friendship.

*****

And we see plainly that this hath been done, not by weak and passionate princes only, but by the
wisest and most politic that ever reigned; who have oftentimes joined to themselves some of their
servants; whom both themselves have called friends, and allowed other likewise to call them in the
same manner; using the word which is received between private men.
 21

Such practice of co-opting some favoured individuals from among the subjects was followed not only by
weak or emotional rulers, but also by very capable and hard-nosed ones having formidable strength and
political acumen. The kings address these members of the coterie very graciously as ‘friends’, and they
ask other members of the royalty and bureaucracy to address them so.

*****

Sylla, when he commanded Rome, raised Pompey (after surnamed the Great) to that height, that
Pompey vaunted himself for Sylla’s overmatch. For when he had carried the consulship for a friend of
his, against the pursuit of Sylla, and that Sylla did a little resent thereat, and began to speak great,
Pompey turned upon him again, and in effect bade him be quiet; for that more men adored the sun
rising, than the sun setting.

Pompey was designated as ‘Pompey, the Great’ by Sylla, the ruler of Rome. Sylla raised his friend
Pompey to such great heights by naming him “Pompey the Great”, that Pompey praised and boasted
about being superior to Sylla. So much so that on one occasion when Sylla resented Pompey’s decision,
Pompey publicly reminded Sylla that more men adored the sun rising, than the sun setting hinting that
he had more clout and power than Sylla.

*****

With Julius Caesar, Decimus Brutus had obtained that interest as he set him down in his testament, for
heir in remainder, after his nephew. And this was the man that had power with him, to draw him forth
to his death. For when Caesar would have discharged the senate, in regard of some ill presages, and
specially a dream of Calpurnia; this man lifted him gently by the arm out of his chair, telling him he
hoped he would not dismiss the senate, till his wife had dreamt a better dream. And it seemeth his
favor was so great, as Antonius, in a letter which is recited verbatim in one of Cicero’s Philippics,
calleth him venefica, witch; as if he had enchanted Caesar.

Brutus had, slowly made his way to Ceaser’s heart. He was Ceaser’s closest confidant and advisor. As a
reward of the enduring companionship provided by Brutus, Ceaser in his will had made Brutus his heir
after his nephew. Brutus had cast a spell over Ceaser, an influence the latter never suspected as wicked.
This was to become Ceaser’s nemesis later. Ceaser had all but dismissed the senate because some ill
omen portended a calamity. His wife’s deadly dream about an impending danger strengthened Ceaser’s
desire to do away with the senate. Brutus stepped in at the last moment to prevail upon Ceaser to hold
back his decision of discharging the senate until Culpurina (Ceaser’s wife) dreamt something better. So
great was Brutus’s sway on Ceaser that in one of Antonius’ letter, mentioned by Cicero in his speech,
Antonius has disparagingly called Brutus ‘venefica’– a witch, who had ‘enchanted’ Ceaser for evil
designs.
 22

*****

Augustus raised Agrippa (though of mean birth) to that height, as when he consulted with Maecenas,
about the marriage of his daughter Julia, Maecenas took the liberty to tell him, that he must either
marry his daughter to Agrippa, or take away his life; there was no third way, he had made him so
great.

Augustus elevated Agrippa high up in the royal hierarchy despite the latter’s mean birth (not from a
noble family). Agrippa’s clout in the royal court had soared ominously. He was enjoying enviable
privilege and power. When Agustus consulted the royal counselor Maecenas about the marriage of his
daughter Julia, the counselor proffered an awkward advice. He suggested to Augustus to give his
daughter in marriage to Agrippa. There was no way anyone else could win her hand with Agrappa
around. If this was not agreeable to the emperor, he would have to eliminate Agrippa. There was no
third option.

*****

With Tiberius Caesar, Sejanus had ascended to that height, as they two were termed, and reckoned, as
a pair of friends. Tiberius in a letter to him saith, Haec pro amicitia nostra non occultavi; and the
whole senate dedicated an altar to Friendship, as to a goddess, in respect of the great dearness of
friendship, between them two.

The friendship between Tiberius and Sejanus is another example of the perils of water-tight friendship.
Sejanus charmed Tiberius and became his most intimate companion. As a result, Sejanus began to enjoy
unprecedented privileges and stature. People perceived them as an inseparable pair. In a letter to
Sejanus Tiberus had declared boldly that he had not hidden from anyone the details of their enduring
friendship. The senate sensed the mood and dedicated an altar to their friendship as if their
companionship was as sublime as a goddess.

*****

The like, or more, was between Septimius Severus and Plautianus. For he forced his eldest son to
marry the daughter of Plautianus; and would often maintain Plautianus, in doing affronts to his son;
and did write also in a letter to the senate, by these words: I love the man so well, as I wish he may
over-live me.
 23

A similar or even closer friendship had developed between Septimus Severus and Plautianus. Septimus
had forced his son into marriage with the daughter of Plautianus. The bonding between the two was so
strong that he found no difficulty to countenance Platianus’ hurtful barbs aimed at his son. The latitude
given to Platinus defied reason. Septimus’s eulogizing of his friend had reached ridiculous levels. In one
of his letters to the senate, he had raved over his love for Plautianus saying he wished his friend to
outlive him in this world

*****

Now if these princes had been as a Trajan, or a Marcus Aurelius, a man might have thought that this
had proceeded of an abundant goodness of nature; but being men so wise, of such strength and
severity of mind, and so extreme lovers of themselves, as all these were, it proveth most plainly that
they found their own felicity (though as great as ever happened to mortal men) but as an half piece,
except they mought have a friend, to make it entire; and yet, which is more, they were princes that
had wives, sons, nephews; and yet all these could not supply the comfort of friendship.

All the characters described above were not novices. They were not soft-hearted and noble-minded like
Trajan, or Marcus Aurelius. In fact, these eminent members of Rome’s royalty were hard-nosed
pragmatists. They took no major decision relating to governance without enough care, caution and
confabulation.

Yet, why did all of them fawn over their friends in such bizarre manner? This is explained by the fact that
these powerful persons craved for friendship in their quest for worldly happiness.

Bacon reiterates his contention by saying that all these eminent men had access to all pleasures of life,
had families, wealth and power. They failed to draw a line in their relation with their chums. Later, the
same adored friends brought them defeat, disaster and even death.

Historical Reference

Here it needs to mention the historical background of some famous historical characters which Bacon
has borrowed from historical sources.

Francis Bacon proceeds to give other examples where friendships have turned sour due to ambition,
greed, mutual suspicion and love for power. Julius Caesar and Decimus Brutus were great friends.
Caesar’s meteoric rise to power, influence and popularity made Brutus uneasy. He feared that Caesar,
if not checked, could neutralize the power of the Senate and become a dictator endangering Rome. To
curb the over-ambitious Cesar, Brutus plotted against him. In this act, he had the support of a few
 24

Senators and Gaius Cassius Longius. Finally, Brutus had Caesar stabbed to death from the back in 44
BC. That great danger was on the way for Cesar was seen in a dream by his wife Calpurnia. She had
warned her husband about the danger from the Senate. Brutus had profound influence over Caesar.
He had successfully prevailed upon Caesar not to undermine the Senate until his wife saw a happier
dream. Antonious, a confidante of Calpurnia, loathed Brutus. He had described him as a vile person
who had swayed Cesar to his side. Despite all these warnings, Cesar had trusted Brutus. He walked to
the death trap laid inside the Senate chamber by Brutus and other conspirators. Bacon cites the
example of the friendship between Augustus and Agrippa. The latter, apparently, was not of noble
birth. Augustus befriended him and went to great lengths to elevate his status. When Augustus
consulted the royal counselor Maecenas, the latter gave him two choices. Either he gave his daughter
Julia in marriage to Agrippa or get him killed. So powerful Agrippa had become. He posed a real
danger to Augustus. Thus, we see how people belonging to the real strata of society do not remain
loyal to their benefactors despite all the favours bestowed on them. Bacon gives another example of
intimate friendship degrading to hostility and revenge. He mentions the bond between Tiberius Caesar
and Sejanus. Tiberius Caesar was very indulgent with Sejanus. Sejanus gradually accumulated power
by taking advantage of his proximity to Tiberius. Sejanus also killed or neutralized potential political
opponents, including the emperor’s son Drusus Julius Caesar When Tiberius withdrew to Capri in 26
BC, Sejanus assumed full control of the entire government as de facto ruler of the empire. Sejanus
suddenly fell from power in 31BC, the year he became Consul. Rumours flew thick and fast that he was
conspiring against Tiberius. Sejanus was arrested and executed, along with his followers. Thus a very
enduring friendship ended in disaster due to mistrust. It has to be contrasted with the fact that
Tiberius had, at one stage, asked the Senate to dedicate an altar to his friendship with Sejanus. Lastly,
Bacon cites the case of the friendship between Septimius Severus and Plautianus. To cement their
friendship, Severus conferred many honours on Plautianus which included a consular insigina, a seat in
the Senate. He also made him a Consul. During his consulship, Plautianus’ image was minted on coins.
He assisted Severus in doing the royal duties. In the process, he became very rich. His clout rose
exponentially. Severus declared him to be his second in command. In 202BC, Plautianus gave his
daughter Publia Fulvia Plautilla in marriage to Caracalla, the son of Severus. The influence of
Plautianus soared soon after. As a result, the Roman Empress Julia Domna and Caracalla both began
to feel insecure. The marriage between Caracalla and Publia Fulvia Plautilla was beset with problems
between the two. In fact, Caracalla hated both his wife and his father-in-law. He threatened to kill
both of them after becoming the emperor. When Plautianus discovered this, he began to think of ways
to hatch a conspiracy to dethrone Severus’ family. To Plautianus’ ill luck, his treacherous plot was
discovered. The imperial family of Servus summoned him to the palace and had him executed. Further
acts of retribution followed his son after his death. Thus curtains came down on a friendship which
had flowered so much only to wither away and turn to ashes.

*****

It is not to be forgotten, what Comineus observeth of his first master, Duke Charles the Hardy, namely,
that he would communicate his secrets with none; and least of all, those secrets which troubled him
most. Whereupon he goeth on, and saith that towards his latter time, that closeness did impair, and a
 25

little perish his understanding. Surely Comineus mought have made the same judgment also, if it had
pleased him, of his second master, Lewis the Eleventh, whose closeness was indeed his tormentor.

Comineus, a writer and diplomat who served under Duke Charles Hardy and later Louis XI of France has
said in his writings that his former master, Duke Charles Hardy, would never share any secrets with
anyone. He was particularly careful about not divulging any secret he considered critical to him and to
his rule. But, age caught up with him. Gradually, his mental faculty deteriorated. A similar judgement
can be made about the latter master, Louis XI, who was also a man of reclusive and suspicious nature.
He too spent his last years in complete isolation. Bacon sights these examples to emphasize the
importance of having a friend with whom one can share the joys and burdens of one’s heart.

*****

The parable of Pythagoras is dark, but true; Cor ne edito; Eat not the heart.

Pythagoras advanced this idea ‘Cor ne edito’. It means ‘Eat not the heart’.

*****

Certainly, if a man would give it a hard phrase, those that want friends, to open themselves unto, are
carnnibals of their own hearts. But one thing is most admirable (wherewith I will conclude this first
fruit of friendship), which is, that this communicating of a man’s self to his friend, works two contrary
effects; for it redoubleth joys, and cutteth griefs in halves. For there is no man, that imparteth his joys
to his friend, but he joyeth the more; and no man that imparteth his griefs to his friend, but he
grieveth the less. So that it is in truth, of operation upon a man’s mind, of like virtue as the alchemists
use to attribute to their stone, for man’s body; that it worketh all contrary effects, but still to the good
and benefit of nature. But yet without praying in aid of alchemists, there is a manifest image of this, in
the ordinary course of nature. For in bodies, union strengtheneth and cherisheth any natural action;
and on the other side, weakeneth and dulleth any violent impression: and even so it is of minds.

Pythogoras had some harsh way of describing the hazards of keen friendship. He felt that a person may
locate a worthy friend before whom he could unburden his worries. But, by doing this, he would be
inadvertently decapitating (cannibalizing) his own heart. Such surrender of one’s self before even the
closest friend might lead to undesirable consequences causing harm.

Bacon goes on to conclude that nurturing intimacy excessively might prove to be a double-edged sword.
In the plus side, it could enhance joy and reduce the grief encountered in day-to-day life. On the minus
side, such happiness may be illusory. It is a fact that there is no man who has shared all his grief with his
 26

friend and realistically reduced his grief. Similarly, there is no man who has shared all the joys with a
friend and experienced more joy. Like the alchemists miracle remedies which palliate pain despite
warning of adverse effects, friendship might soothe suffering despite the risk of possible harm. In the
same vein, a close look at Nature will show that a union of two elements results in better and more
pleasant results. Human friendship has undoubtedly got some curative and embalming effects
notwithstanding the risk of it turning foul.

*****

The second fruit of friendship, is healthful and sovereign for the understanding, as the first is for the
affections. For friendship maketh indeed a fair day in the affections, from storm and tempests; but it
maketh daylight in the understanding, out of darkness, and confusion of thoughts.

Strengthening of personal affection and bonding apart, the other benefit is therapeutic (healing). It
sharpens mental functions too. Friendship tempers down the ill effects of the storms of life, and brings
sunshine and cheer to one’s life. It enables one to think clearly.

*****

Neither is this to be understood only of faithful counsel, which a man receiveth from his friend; but
before you come to that, certain it is, that whosoever hath his mind fraught with many thoughts, his
wits and understanding do clarify and break up, in the communicating and discoursing with another;
he tosseth his thoughts more easily; he marshalleth them more orderly, he seeth how they look when
they are turned into words: finally, he waxeth wiser than himself; and that more by an hour’s
discourse, than by a day’s meditation.

This does not mean that you will always get good advise from friends, but what it means is that the
thoughts get jumbled up in the mind and there is not always the clarity in understanding them.
However, when you communicate these thoughts to a friend by putting them in words, you get the
clarity and understanding and become wiser simply by putting these thoughts in an orderly manner to
make the right judgement. This is more beneficial then doing an entire day’s meditation.

*****

It was well said by Themistocles, to the king of Persia, That speech was like cloth of Arras, opened and
put abroad; whereby the imagery doth appear in figure; whereas in thoughts they lie but as in packs.
Neither is this second fruit of friendship, in opening the understanding, restrained only to such friends
as are able to give a man counsel; (they indeed are best;) but even without that, a man learneth of
 27

himself, and bringeth his own thoughts to light, and whetteth his wits as against a stone, which itself
cuts not. In a word, a man were better relate himself to a statua, or picture, than to suffer his
thoughts to pass in smother.

Arras was a place famous for its hand-woven textiles. These tapastries were rich ad beautiful.
Themistocles once said that speech must be heard to be appreciated. This was akin to the tapestries
from Arras that could be admired only when opened up and hung for people to feast their eyes on.
Similarly, thoughts, when not opened up for propagation, remain locked in the mind of the thinker. This
is like the rolled-up tapestry that lies in packs. People walk past them unaware of their great hidden
beauty. This second fruit of friendship – good judgment and better understanding — is not restricted to
opening up of your minds only to a few intelligent friends, although it is best when you do so. Even if the
friend might not be intelligent enough, it nevertheless is beneficial to expound the thoughts before him.
By doing this, one can understand them, and possibly throw more light on them. This could sharpen his
intelligence. It is like the way we sharpen a tool by rubbing it against a rough stone. Obviously, Bacon
compares the thinker with the tool and the not-so-intelligent listener as the rough stone. In short, it
means a man better say his thoughts to a statue than to bury them in the mind and suffer suffocation.

*****

Add now, to make this second fruit of friendship complete, that other point, which lieth more open,
and falleth within vulgar observation; which is faithful counsel from a friend. Heraclitus saith well in
one of his enigmas, Dry light is ever the best. And certain it is, that the light that a man receiveth by
counsel from another, is drier and purer, than that which cometh from his own understanding and
judgment; which is ever infused, and drenched, in his affections and customs.

Bacon proceeds to praise the advice that comes from well-meaning, un-biased, wise friends. Such advice
seldom leads to undesirable consequences. If a person is guided by his own instincts, intuition and
emotions, the judgment might be coloured, biased and one-sided. This might lead to difficulties. So, one
must not be guided by one’s own understanding of the situation, and seek advice from wise friends.
Heraclitus termed such independent advice from another person as ‘Dry light’. The drier it is, the more
useful it can be.

*****

So as there is as much difference between the counsel, that a friend giveth, and that a man giveth
himself, as there is between the counsel of a friend, and of a flatterer. For there is no such flatterer as
is a man’s self; and there is no such remedy against flattery of a man’s self, as the liberty of a friend.
Just as there is a big difference between the advice of a true friend and a man’s own judgement, so is
there a difference between a well meaning advice of a true friend and that of a flatterer. But the man
 28

himself is the biggest flatterer of self, and the best remedy for this flattery is the freedom of a friend to
give unbiased advice.

Just the way one’s own judgment has to be sidelined in favour of an independent-minded advisor’s
words, a sycophant’s counsel need to be treated with much less seriousness than one’s own decision in
any matter. Bacon reminds the reader that a person’s own reading of himself could be minimally critical
as it is human tendency not find fault with oneself. Because of such inherent weakness to feel good
about him ignoring the many flaws of character and brain, a person must guard against the tendency to
go by his own assessment and cast aside the wise counsel of other capable men.

*****

Counsel is of two sorts: the one concerning manners, the other concerning business. For the first, the
best preservative to keep the mind in health, is the faithful admonition of a friend. The calling of a
man’s self to a strict account, is a medicine, sometime too piercing and corrosive.

Advice from a well-meaning wise friend can be for two principal reasons. It might be about a person’s
manners and conduct and the second might be about his business. A friend’s criticism helps to keep the
mind free of many undesirable thoughts and influences. Keeping a check on one’s own self may
sometimes prove to be difficult.

*****

Reading good books of morality, is a little flat and dead. Observing our faults in others, is sometimes
improper for our case. But the best receipt (best, I say, to work, and best to take) is the admonition of
a friend. It is a strange thing to behold, what gross errors and extreme absurdities many (especially of
the greater sort) do commit, for want of a friend to tell them of them; to the great damage both of
their fame and fortune: for, as St. James saith, they are as men that look sometimes into a glass, and
presently forget their own shape and favor.

It is generally seen that people do not take much interest in reading good books on morality and good
conduct. Learning by observing others’ mistakes may not be possible for some. But the best thing
remedy that works and that one should take is the castigation of our good friends. It is strange to see
how people, especially those who are powerful and wealthy, make blunders and damage their fame and
fortune due to lack of well-meaning, balanced and neutral advice from good friends. The more powerful
 29

the person is, the higher will be his propensity to commit such mistakes. St. James had cautioned his
followers about such self deception when one becomes blind to one’s own failings and weaknesses.

*****

As for business, a man may think, if he win, that two eyes see no more than one; or that a gamester
seeth always more than a looker-on; or that a man in anger, is as wise as he that hath said over the
four and twenty letters; or that a musket may be shot off as well upon the arm, as upon a rest; and
such other fond and high imaginations, to think himself all in all.

People often lose sight of the hard realities and their own infirmities after a few rounds of success. They
argue that two eyes see no better than one eye, implying that they are able to reach the correct decision
themselves and do not need other’s advice. In the same vein, they can say a gambler takes a better call
than others watching the game. He can also claim that a musket can be fired from the arm as efficiently
as from a rest. These thoughts are born out of boastfulness and ignorance. In the long run, such mindset
can be highly damaging.

*****

But when all is done, the help of good counsel, is that which setteth business straight. And if any man
think that he will take counsel, but it shall be by pieces; asking counsel in one business, of one man,
and in another business, of another man; it is well (that is to say, better, perhaps, than if he asked
none at all); but he runneth two dangers: one, that he shall not be faithfully counselled; for it is a rare
thing, except it be from a perfect and entire friend, to have counsel given, but such as shall be bowed
and crooked to some ends, which he hath, that giveth it. But when all is done, it is the good advice
form a good counsel that sets the business straight again. One may think of taking advice in bits and
pieces from different counsels. Although this is better than taking no advice at all, it is still not
recommended as it has its own risks. Especially teo dangers; one, the advice may not be faithful, for
faithful advice is a rare thing which only true friends give. So the advice may be manipulated in order
to suit the person giving the advice.

All good and competent advisors weigh the risks involved in a business correctly. They proffer their
advice to the businessman with no fear or hesitation. A businessman can choose to seek advice from
one friend over one issue, and from another friend over another issue. This is better than asking no
advice at all, and choosing to go by one’s own intuition. But by choosing more than one advisor, a
businessman may run into some risk. The advisor, realizing that there are other advisors like him, might
be a little perfunctory in giving his advice. The other risk may be the possibility of getting biased and ill-
 30

intentioned advice. Unless the advisor is extremely good, loyal, principled, and wise, the advice,
disguised as genuine, may turn out to be crooked.

*****

The other, that he shall have counsel given, hurtful and unsafe (though with good meaning), and
mixed partly of mischief and partly of remedy; even as if you would call a physician, that is thought
good for the cure of the disease you complain of, but is unacquainted with your body; and therefore
may put you in way for a present cure, but overthroweth your health in some other kind; and so cure
the disease, and kill the patient.

Bacon now talks of another danger from advice from others. The counselor may have genuine intention
to help the person in trouble, but may not have been able to study the matter properly. In such a case,
he could give a drastic and upsetting advice with all the good intentions. Sadly, the result for the
recipient may be harmful and even ruinous. This situation is similar to the one that results when an
incompetent doctor, unaware of the patient’s medical history, prescribes the wrong medicines to the
patient. The patient’s problems are aggravated leading to his death.

*****

But a friend that is wholly acquainted with a man’s estate, will beware, by furthering any present
business, how he dasheth upon other inconvenience. And therefore rest not upon scattered counsels;
they will rather distract and mislead, than settle and direct.

So, Bacon concludes, a person must confide in a single counselor, who knows the ins and outs of his
business. This is because he would be well-placed to give correct advice using his good understanding of
the business. Seeking advice from multiple sources might be misleading rather than rewarding.

*****

After these two noble fruits of friendship (peace in the affections, and support of the judgment),
followeth the last fruit; which is like the pomegranate, full of many kernels; I mean aid, and bearing a
part, in all actions and occasions.

So far, we have learnt about two main benefits resulting from friendship. One relates to emotions, the
other to understanding and judgement. In his concluding statement, Bacon talks about the third benefit
which he likens to the pomegranate fruit that has so many kernels inside it. Friendship means helping
and taking part in all actions and occasions of a friend.
 31

*****

Here the best way to represent to life the manifold use of friendship, is to cast and see how many
things there are, which a man cannot do himself; and then it will appear, that it was a sparing speech
of the ancients, to say, that a friend is another himself; for that a friend is far more than himself. Men
have their time, and die many times, in desire of some things which they principally take to heart; the
bestowing of a child, the finishing of a work, or the like.

The best way to explain the many uses of friendship is to see how many things there are in one’s life
that one cannot do or confront alone. In ancient times, it was customary to call a friend as a replica of
one’s self. In reality, a friend is more than himself. Men in their lifetime have many things to accomplish,
many desires to fulfil which are close to their heart, like devoting to a child, or any other goals.

*****

If a man has a true friend, he may rest almost secure that the care of those things will continue after
him. So that a man hath, as it were, two lives in his desires. A man hath a body, and that body is
confined to a place; but where friendship is, all offices of life are as it were granted to him, and his
deputy. For he may exercise them by his friend.

When a man is blessed with a genuine, loyal and un-selfish friend, the latter will take care of his
responsibilities after his death. He may care for his family, run his business, pay off his debts or do all
those things left un-finished after the death of the man. Thus, a man’s life span gets prolonged. Then,
comes the benefit accruing from delegation of authority. A person can’t be present in multiple places at
any given point of time. In such a case, he may delegate the work in other places which his friend can
visit and get things done. There are many things in life a person can’t do alone- be it in farming, trading,
educating children, fighting off enemies etc. A good friend, like a trusted deputy, comes to the aid of his
friend and smoothens his life.

*****

How many things are there which a man cannot, with any face or comeliness, say or do himself? A
man can scarce allege his own merits with modesty, much less extol them; a man cannot sometimes
brook to supplicate or beg; and a number of the like. But all these things are graceful, in a friend’s
mouth, which are blushing in a man’s own. So again, a man’s person hath many proper relations,
which he cannot put off.
 32

When trying to present his own merits before others, a person tends to become needlessly boastful,
inviting derision from others. Alternatively, he may be too shy to present his own qualities with the
praise they deserve. Similarly, while asking for a favour from others, he may feel very awkward. All these
functions are best discharged by a loyal and capable friend. Thus, many functions in the society that are
mandatory can be got done through a friend.

*****

A man cannot speak to his son but as a father; to his wife but as a husband; to his enemy but upon
terms: whereas a friend may speak as the case requires, and not as it sorteth with the person. But to
enumerate these things were endless; I have given the rule, where a man cannot fitly play his own
part; if he have not a friend, he may quit the stage.

A friend may be a good mediator or a go-between. When a message is to be communicated to an

adolescent son or a peeved wife, or a stern enemy, a friend can do the job with aplomb and with great
ease. Thus, the benefits of friendship are endless. A friendless, cut-off person is unfit to live in the
society.