The Nicomachean Ethics — trans. F. H. Peters (1881)

This seems to be recognized in constitutions too : no honour is paid to him who contributes nothing to the common stock of good ; the common stock is distributed among those who benefit the community, and of this common stock honour is a part. For he who makes money out of the community must not expect to be honoured by the community also ; and no one is content to receive a smaller share in everything. To him, then, who spends money on public objects we pay due honour, and money to him whose services can be paid in money; for by giving to each what is in proportion to his merit, equality is effected and friendship preserved, as we said before.

The same principles, then, must regulate the intercourse of individuals who are unequal ; and he who is benefited by another in his purse or in his character, must give honour in return, making repayment in that which he can command. For friendship exacts what is possible rather than what is due : what is due is sometimes impossible, as, for instance, in the case of the honour due to the gods and to parents ; for no one could ever pay all his debt to them ; butp. 285 he who gives them such service as he can coramand is held to fulfil his obligation.

For this reason it would seem that a man may not disown his father, though a father may disown his son ; for he who owes must pay : but whatever a son may do he can never make a fiill return for what he has received, so that he is always in debt. But the creditor is at liberty to cast off the debtor ; a father, therefore, is at liberty to cast off his son. But, at the same time, it is not likely that any one would ever disown a son, unless he were a veiy great scoundrel ; for, natural affection apart, it is but human not to thrust away the support that a son would give. But to the son, if he be a scoundrel, assisting his father is a thing that he wishes to avoid, or at least is not eager to undertake ; for the generality of men wish to receive benefits, but avoid doing them as unprofitable. So much, then, for these questions.

BOOK IX.

FRIENDSHIP OR LOVE — Continued.
Of tM rule 1. In all dissimilar friendships * it is proportionate

oj proportion ^ _ \ ■'•■'• friend h^^"'^ exchange that maintains equality and preserves the friendship (as we have already said), just as in the association of citizens, where the shoemaker, in exchange for his shoes, receives some return proportionate to his desert, and so on with the weaver and the rest.

Now, in these latter cases, a common measure is supplied by money ; money is the standard to which everything is referred, and by which it is measured.

In sentimental friendships, on the other hand, the lover sometimes complains that while he loves excessively he gets no love in return, although, maybe, there is nothing lovable about him ; often the beloved complains that whereas the other used to promise everj^thing, he now performs nothing.

Complaints of this sort are wont to arise when, 3 pleasure being the motive of the friendship with one person and profit with the other, they do not both get what they want. For the friendship, being based on

* Where the two friends hare different motives.

1, 1-5.] FRIENDSHIP OR LOVE. 287

these motives, is dissolved whenever they fail to obtain that for the sake of which they made friends ; for it was not the other's self that each loved, but only something which he had, and which is not apt to endure; for which reason these friendships also ai'e not apt to endure. But friendship based on character, being pure, is likely to last, as we said.