Companionable and Uncompanionable Thinking: A Response to “Styles of Companionship”

Abstract

hat does it mean for an early modern literary critic to think with another thinker, in particular with a thinker who is modern and explicitly philosophical? Well, imagine two contrasting scenes. Begin by imagining a meeting of Renaissance scholars, where you, the speaker, are talking about a play we all know—say, A Midsummer Night’s Dream. To mention Bottom is, even before you make your point, to make many of us smile and glance at one another happily. We, your audience, are reminded of what we hold in common: our shared knowledge of this delightful character and, to some extent, our shared knowledge of what critics have said about him. By saying the word “Bottom,” you appear to be about to tell a story that we all know—in this context, a family story. But now imagine, in contrast, that at this same meeting of Renaissance scholars you begin your presentation by launching into an account of an idea of Theodor W. Adorno’s or Roland Barthes’s or Jacques Rancière’s. You may encounter a quite different response. At your first mention of the theorist’s name, you may find yourself afloat on a sea of largely flat stares; you may encounter a frown or two. You may