For this close analysis we will begin by looking at the bottom paragraph on page 226 which ends on the first half of page 229. This paragraph discusses the death of M.’s good friend, Robert de Saint Loup. The section follows the narrator’s mentioning of the only real characters of the book who belong to the real family name Lariviere. These characters (and soldiers) are described as sublime, a word defined as “such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe”. A bridge is formed between these character’s sublimity and that of Saint-Loup, a quality of his which is the focus of the concerned paragraph.

We begin the paragraph with the revealing fact that M. has been “rendered incapable of travelling”, halting his departure from Paris, due to hearing the news of Saint-Loup’s death. We are shown the extent of the narrators sorrow when he describes to us that he had “remained shut up in [his] room, thinking of him” for several days. What follows in this paragraph could very well be the thoughts which he formed in his time of mourning; a narration formed for the death of his friend which was meant to be explained not only to us, but to himself as well, as an aid to his acceptance of Saint-Loup’s death.

This narration begins with M. highlighting the qualities which made Saint-Loup extraordinary. Readers learn that Saint-Loup died while covering the retreat of his men; a selfless death which aligns alongside Saint-Loup’s admirability. Saint-Loup is separated from others in the mind of the narrator as he explains Saint-Loup’s differences in opinions. M. continues to describe that “never had any man felt less hatred for a nation then he”, and that Saint-Loup had “thought that William II had tried rather to prevent the war than to bring it about”; an opinion that contradicted many who held some sort of blame against Germany in the time of WWI. M. reflects on the last words of his friend, which happened to be the opening words of a Schumann song, in which M. reacts with embarrassment to it’s ironic germanistic notions, belonging to the culture of those who killed him. Of course Saint-Loup hadn’t been an enemy of his state, rather this consideration for his enemies culture came about from an open-mindedness.

M. goes as far as citing “supreme good breeding” as the source of Saint-Loup’s positive traits, one which “eliminates from his conduct all trace of apology or invective” (a word defined as the abusive or venomous language used to express blame or censure or bitter deep-seated ill will). The readers and the narrator alike gain a sense of purity which becomes associated with Saint-Loup in this paragraph; a character whom M. refers to as “Symbolic” in his behavior to “efface himself before others”. This idea is only reinforced by M.’s first memory of his friend in which his first impression was made “in an almost white suit”. M. remembers the movement of his friend in an almost majestic way, comparing it to the movement of waves, forming an almost angelic, perhaps christ-like image of him.

M. has clearly been impacted by the death of Saint-Loup, “the special being”. Their friendship had extended beyond a physicality, and had been fulfilled “beyond the limits of what [he] should have ever thought possible”. However, the importance of M.’s relationship with Saint-Loup had only been realized after his death, much like the genius of a writer is only realized after the author passes away. But why had Saint-Loup’s death become so important? Perhaps because he had turned into yet another Ideal. M. himself explains how Saint-Loup’s importance came to be in the following passage;

“The fact that I had seen him really so little but against varied backgrounds…Only had the effect of giving me, of his life, pictures more striking and more sharply defined and for his death a grief more lucid than we are likely to have in the case of people whom we have loved more.”

And what of those “whom we have loved more”?

“[They are] with whom our association has been so nearly continuous that the image we retain of them is no more than a sort of vague average between an infinity of imperceptibly different images”,  which “Satiate” our affection for them.

In this description we see that M.’s friendship with Saint-Loup had become an object of M.’s desire. The relationship between these two stood with unsatiated affection due to M. only seeing Saint-Loup in brief moments. Because of this our narrator is left with “the illusion that there was possible between [them] a still greater affection of which circumstances alone have defrauded [them]”.

M. ends by drawing a parallel between Saint-Loup and another “living form”; Albertine. Both of these two no longer exist “except in the state of memory”; specifically the narrator’s memory. M. shares with us a further sense of Irony in the fact that these two individuals had ultimately lived short lives despite being the ones who said to M. “You who are ill…”, and who had taken care of him. In conclusion, M. forms an association between the deceased, in their “first” and “final” images, with an impressionistic mental image; that of the sun setting over the sea.