[71]
I think, therefore, that kindness to the good
is a better investment than kindness to the favourites
of fortune.
We must, of course, put forth every effort to oblige
all sorts and conditions of men, if we can. But if it
comes to a conflict of duty on this point, we must, I
should say, follow the advice of Themistocles: when
someone asked his advice whether he should give
his daughter in marriage to a man who was poor but
honest or to one who was rich but less esteemed, he1
said: “For my part, I prefer a man without money
to money without a man.” But the moral sense of
[p. 247]
to-day is demoralized and depraved by our worship
of wealth. Of what concern to any one of us is the
size of another man's fortune? It is, perhaps, an
advantage to its possessor; but not always even that.
But suppose it is; he may, to be sure, have more
money to spend; but how is he any the better man
for that? Still, if he is a good man, as well as a rich
one, let not his riches be a hindrance to his being
aided, if only they are not the motive to it; but in
conferring favours our decision should depend entirely
upon a man's character, not on his wealth.
The supreme rule, then, in the matter of kindnesses to be rendered by personal service is never
to take up a case in opposition to the right nor
in defence of the wrong. For the foundation
of enduring reputation and fame is justice, and
without justice there can be nothing worthy of
praise.
1 Wealth no inducement nor a bar to personal service.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.