Lecture 3 — Extravagance

But the spendthrift is a man who squanders. Hence, we do not call tyrants spendthrifts, for it is not easy to be excessive in gifts and expenditures with a vast sum of money in their possession. [678]

Since liberality is the mean concerned with the giving and taking of wealth, the liberal man will both give and expend whatever he ought, and in the way he ought, whether the sum be large or small. He will also do this gladly [679]

Likewise, he will accept both large and small amounts from the proper sources and under the proper conditions. Since virtue consists in the mean regarding both taking and giving, he will do both as he ought, since virtuous taking goes hand in hand with virtuous giving, while improper taking is contrary to virtuous giving. Accordingly, the operations that go hand in hand exist at the same time in the liberal man, but contrary operations obviously cannot. [680]

If it should happen that he spends inopportunely and unsuccessfully, he will be sad, but in a moderate and fitting manner, for it is characteristic of virtue to be pleased and saddened at the proper things and in the proper circumstances. [681]

But the liberal man is disposed to share his wealth with others. He is even willing to suffer loss by not valuing money highly. [682]

He is more grieved over failure to make an appropriate outlay than over an inopportune expenditure—a thing displeasing to Simonides. [683]

The spendthrift, however, sins in these matters too. Besides, he neither takes pleasure in the right things nor is saddened when he should be. This will be clarified by what follows. [684]

We have seen that extravagance and miserliness pertain to excess and defect and occur in two actions, namely, giving and taking. Extravagance, then, abounds in giving and falls short in taking. On the other hand, miserliness falls short in giving and abounds in taking, except in trifling things. [685]

678. But the spendthrift is a man who squanders. After the Philosopher has finished the study of the liberal man, he now begins the consideration of the spendthrift.

First, he treats the person who is altogether extravagant;

second, the person who is partly extravagant and partly liberal, at but, as we have noted (1121a30; [691]).

In regard to the first, he does two things.

First, he considers the spendthrift as such.

Second, he makes a comparison between the spendthrift and the miser, at we have seen (1121a10; [685]).

He clarifies the initial point by a twofold distinction.

First, he shows in what respect the spendthrift is excessive;

second, of what nature his act is, at since liberality is the mean (1120b27; [679]).

He first says that, although a man may be called liberal when he spends according to his means, he is called extravagant when he spends or gives beyond his means. From this, he concludes that tyrants, who have an inexhaustible supply of wealth (usurping as they do public goods for themselves), are not called extravagant. The reason is that it is not easy for tyrants to exceed the amount of their riches by donations and expenditures because of the great amount of their possessions.

679. Then, at since liberality (1120b27), he discloses what the act of the spendthrift is.

Because opposites are mutually revealing, he first resumes what was said about the act of the liberal man.

Second, he shows how the act of the spendthrift is constituted, at the spendthrift, however (1121a8; [684]).

On the first point, he proceeds in two ways.

First, he reviews how the liberal man should conduct himself in the matters principally pertaining to him, namely, in giving and in the pleasure of giving;

second, in matters secondarily pertaining to him, at likewise he will accept (1120b30; [680]).

He says first that, since liberality is a certain dealing with giving and taking of wealth, the liberal person disposes of his funds by making gifts and disbursements—and this in agreement with right reason—in the proper way, of the proper things, and according to other appropriate circumstances. By this the liberal man is distinguished from the spendthrift; by the fact that he gives both in large and small amounts, he is distinguished from the magnificent man, who is concerned only with great donations; by the fact that he gives with pleasure, he differs from the miser, who is saddened by the giving away of his wealth.

680. Next, at likewise he will accept (1120b30), Aristotle reviews the way the liberal man should act in matters that secondarily pertain to liberality.

First, he touches on the liberal man’s reaction to taking;

second, to sadness at if it should (1121a1; [681]).

He says first that the liberal person accepts from the proper sources and observes all proper conditions. Since the virtue of liberality abides by the golden mean in regard to both—namely, taking and giving—the liberal man will perform both as he ought: worthy acceptance going hand in hand with worthy giving. But acceptance that is not virtuous is contrary to virtuous giving because the two proceed from contrary causes. Virtuous giving proceeds from the fact that a man prefers the reasonable good over the desire for wealth. But dishonorable taking arises from placing the desire of wealth before the reasonable good. Things that go hand in hand exist at the same time in the same subject, but not things that are contrary. Hence, virtuous giving and taking that accompany one another are united in the liberal person, but dishonorable taking is not found in him together with virtuous taking, its contrary.

681. Then, at if it should (1121a1), he explains how the liberal man reacts to sadness arising from the loss of wealth.

He develops this point in three steps.

First, he shows in what manner the liberal person is saddened by disordered giving, affirming that, if some of his own money be lost by reason of foolish spending and unfortunate conditions, he becomes sad, just as any virtuous man is saddened by doing something contrary to virtue. In this sorrow, however, he observes the rule of reason with moderation and as he should. The reason is that it is characteristic of the virtuous person to be delighted and to be saddened by the right thing and in the right manner.

682. Next, at but the liberal man (1121a4), he shows how the generous person is saddened by the privation of wealth, saying that he is disposed to share his wealth, that is, is inclined to possess it in common, as it were, with others. He can permit someone to injure him in money matters without grief because he does not attach great importance to wealth.

683. Third, at he is more grieved (1121a5), he discloses in what manner the liberal man is grieved at inappropriate retention of money, explaining that he is more grieved or saddened over not using his wealth in gifts or expenditures than he is over spending something that he should not have spent. The reason is that he is more concerned with giving than with taking and keeping, although this would not please Simonides, a certain poet who said we ought to do the opposite.

684. Then, at the spendthrift, however (1121a8), he explains by the premises how the act of the spendthrift is constituted, saying that the spendthrift sins in all the preceding matters, not only in giving and accepting but also in taking pleasure and grieving, because he is neither delighted nor saddened by the right things and in the right way. This will be made clearer by what follows.

685. Next, at we have seen (1121a10), he compares extravagance to miserliness:

first, in regard to opposition;

second, to the gravity of the sin, at the things that (1121a16; [686]).

He affirms, as was noted before [654], that extravagance and miserliness are constituted by excess and defect in two things, namely, taking and giving. He says this because expenditures, which pertain to liberality, are included under giving. And it is precisely in expenditures that the spendthrift and the miser exceed and fall short in opposite things. The spendthrift is excessive in giving and in not taking. But the miser, on the contrary, is deficient in giving and excessive in taking, except perhaps in trifling things that he gives and does not care to take.