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

The prodigal, on the other hand, errs in these 28 points also ; he is not pleased on the right occasions nor in the right way, nor pained : but this will be clearer as we go on.

We have already said that both prodigality and 29 illiberality are at once excess and deficiency, in two things, viz. giving and taking (expenditure being included in giving). Prodigality exceeds in giving and in not taking, but falls short in taking ; illiberality falls short in giving, but exceeds in taking — in small things, we must add.

Now, the two elements of prodigality are not 30 commonly united in the same person : f it is not easy for a man who never takes to be always giving ; for private persons soon exhaust their means of giving, and it is to private persons that the name is generally applied. J

A prodigal of this kind [i.e. in whom both the 31

* The saying referred to seems to be lost.

f i.e. in men of some age and fixed character ; they often coexist in very young men, he says, but cannot possibly coexist for long. X As he has already said in efEect, su;pra, § 23.

1, 2(3-35.] LIBERALITY. 105

elements are combined], we must observe, would seem to be not a little better tban an illiberal man. For he is easily cured by advancing years and by lack of means, and may come to the middle course. For he has the essential points of the liberal character ; he gives and abstains from taking, though he does neither well nor as he ought. If then he can be trained to this, or if in any other way this change in his nature can be effected, he will be liberal ; for then he will give to whom he ought, and will not take whence he ought not. And so he is generally thought to be not a bad character ; for to go too far in giving and in not taking does not show a vicious or ignoble nature so much as a foolish one.

32 A prodigal of this sort, then, seems to be much better than an illiberal man, both for the reasons already given, and also because the former does good to many, but the latter to no one, not even to himself.

33 But most prodigals, as has been said, -not only give wrongly, but take from wrong sources, and are in this

34 respect illiberal. They become grasping because they wish to spend, but cannot readily do so, as their supplies soon faiL So they are compelled to draw from other sources. At the same time, since they care nothing for what is noble, they will take quite recklessly from any source whatever; for they long to give, but care not a whit how the money goes or whence it comes.

35 And so their gifts are not liberal ; for they are not noble, nor are they given with a view to that which is noble, nor in the right manner. Sometimes they enrich those who ought to be poor, and will givep. 106 nothing to men of well-regulated character, while they give a great deal to those who flatter them, or furnish them with any other pleasure. And thus the greater part of them are profligates ; for, being ready to part with their money, they are apt to lavish it on riotous living, and as they do not shape their lives with a view to that which is noble, they easily fall away into the pursuit of pleasure.

The prodigal, then, if he fail to find guidance, 36 comes to this, but if he get training he may be brought to the moderate and right course.

But illiberality is incurable ; for old age and all 37 loss of power seems to make men illiberal.

It also runs in the blood more than prodigality; the generality of men are more apt to be fond of money than of giving.

Again, it is far-reaching, and has many forms ; for 38 there seem to be many ways in which one can be illiberal.

It consists of two parts — deficiency in giving, and excess of taking; but it is not always found in its entirety; sometimes the parts are separated, and one man exceeds in taking, while another falls short in giving. Those, for instance, who are called by such 39 names as "niggardly," "stingy," "miserly," aU fall short in giving, but do not covet other people's goods, or wish to take them.