10.
Ought we then to make as many friends as possible? or, just as it seems a wise saying
about hospitality— “
Neither with troops of guests nor yet with none
”1— so also with friendship perhaps it will be fitting neither to be
without friends nor yet to make friends in excessive numbers.
[2]
This rule would certainly seem applicable to those friends whom we
choose for their utility2; for it
is troublesome to have to repay the services of a large number of people, and life is not
long enough for one to do it. Any more therefore than are sufficient for the requirements
of one's own life will be superfluous, and a hindrance to noble living, so one is better
without them. Of friends for pleasure also a few are enough, just as a small amount of
sweets is enough in one's diet.
[3]
But should one have as
many good friends as possible? or is there a limit of size for a circle of friends, as
there is for the population of a state? Ten people would not make a city, and with a
hundred thousand it is a city no longer; though perhaps the proper size is not one
particular number, but any number between certain limits. So also the number of one's
friends must be limited, and should perhaps be the largest number with whom one can
constantly associate; since, as we saw,3 to live together is the chief mark of friendship,
[4]
but it is quite clear that it is not possible to live with and to share
oneself among a large number of people. Another essential is that one's friends must also
be the friends of one another, if they are all to pass the time in each other's company;
but for a large number of people all to be friends is a difficult matter.
[5]
Again, it is difficult to share intimately in the joys and sorrows of
many people; for one may very likely be called upon to rejoice with one and to mourn with
another at the same time.
Perhaps therefore it is a good rule not to seek to have as many friends as possible, but
only as many as are enough to form a circle of associates. Indeed it would appear to be
impossible to be very friendly with many people, for the same reason as it is impossible
to be in love with several people. Love means friendship in the superlative degree, and
that must be with one person only; so also warm friendship is only possible with a few.
[6]
This conclusion seems to be supported by experience. Friendships between comrades4 only include a few people, and
the famous examples of poetry5 are pairs of
friends. Persons of many friendships, who are hail-fellow-well-met with everybody, are
thought to be real friends of nobody (otherwise than as fellow-citizens are
friends) : I mean the sort of people we call obsequious. It is true that one may
be friendly with many fellow-citizens and not be obsequious, but a model of excellence;
but it is not possible to have many friends whom we love for their virtue and for
themselves. We may be glad to find even a few
friends of this sort.
Hide browse bar Your current position in the text is marked in blue. Click anywhere in the line to jump to another position:
chapter:
chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 1chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 2chapter 3chapter 3chapter 3chapter 3chapter 3chapter 4chapter 5chapter 6chapter 7chapter 8chapter 9chapter 10chapter 11chapter 12
This text is part of:
Search the Perseus Catalog for:
View text chunked by:
- bekker page : bekker line
- book : chapter : section
Table of Contents:
Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 19, translated by H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1934.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from
Amazon.com
show
Browse Bar
hide
Places (automatically extracted)
View a map of the most frequently mentioned places in this document.
Download Pleiades ancient places geospacial dataset for this text.
hide
Search
hideStable Identifiers
hide
Display Preferences

