Lecture 13 — Friends Needed in Both Prosperity and Adversity

Are friends more necessary in good fortune or bad? They are sought in both situations, for the unfortunate need help and the fortunate need friends to live with and benefit, since they want to do good to others. [1925]

Friendship, then, is more necessary in adversity, because we need useful friends to help us. But it is more honorable in prosperity; hence, we seek virtuous friends, as it is preferable to benefit and live with men of this character. [1926]

Indeed, the very presence of friends is pleasant in both good and bad fortune, and sorrow is assuaged by the presence of sympathetic friends. [1927–28]

Therefore, someone may question whether friends actually assume the burden of grief as it were, or whether—this not being the case—the pain is diminished by their comforting presence and the consciousness of their sympathy. Whether sorrows are alleviated for these or some other reasons need not be discussed; at any rate, what we have described seems to take place. [1929]

But the presence of sympathetic friends seem to have a mixed effect. The very sight of them is a comfort, especially when we are in distress, and a help in assuaging sorrow, for a friend, if he is sympathetic, is a consolation by both his countenance and his words, as he knows our feelings and what grieves and comforts us. On the other hand, it is painful to be aware that misfortunes cause the friend sorrow, since everyone avoids causing pain to his friends. [1933]

Hence, persons of a manly bent naturally fear lest their friends be saddened on their account. And, unless a man is excessively insensitive to pain, he can hardly bear the sorrow that his sorrow causes his friends; nor is he willing to have others weep with him, for he is not given to lamenting. However, men of a womanish disposition are pleased to have fellow-mourners and love as friends those who sympathize with them. But, in all things, we ought to imitate the man of noble character. [1934]

However, in prosperity the presence of friends provides both pleasant conversation and the consciousness that our friends are pleased with our benefactions. [1936]

For this reason, a man ought to press his friends to share his good fortune (for a noble man should be generous) but be reluctant to ask them to share his misfortune (for he should impart to them as little as possible of his troubles). Hence the saying “no more than I need burdened be.” A man should ask his friends especially when they can furnish him great assistance with little inconvenience to themselves. [1937]

Conversely, a man even uninvited should go promptly to friends in distress. For it is the part of a friend to be of service especially to those who are in need and do not think it becoming to ask. This is more honorable and pleasing to both. On the other hand, a man should readily join with his friends in prosperity, for even here, friends are necessary. But he ought to approach them tardily to receive their kindness, for it is not becoming to show eagerness in accepting the help of friends. However, he should at all costs beware of a reputation for repudiating their advances—a thing that happens at times. Consequently, the presence of friends seems desirable in all circumstances. [1940]

1925. Are friends more necessary in good fortune. Now that the Philosopher has solved the doubt on the number of friends, he here proposes a doubt about the need for friends.

He discusses this point under three headings.

First, he presents the doubt.

Second, at friendship, then (1171a23; [1926]), he solves it.

Third, at indeed, the very presence (1171a27; [1927]), he proves an assumption.

He says first it can be questioned whether a man needs friends more in prosperity or in adversity, for obviously friends are necessary in both situations. In adversity, a man needs friends to help him overcome misfortunes. But in prosperity, men need friends to live with and to benefit, for they want to do good to others.

1926. Then, at friendship, then (1171a23), he offers the solution to the question. He concludes from the premises that friends are necessary for a man in those misfortunes where he needs the help that friends supply, as was just noted [1925]. Consequently, in this condition, a man needs useful friends to help him. But in prosperity, it is better and more honorable to have friends. So, in these circumstances, men seek virtuous friends, because it is more desirable to benefit and associate with persons of this character.

1927. At indeed, the very presence (1171a27), he proves an assumption that friends are needed in both circumstances.

First, he proposes his intention, saying that the very presence of friends is pleasant in both good and bad fortune.

1928. Next, at therefore, someone may (1171a30), he proves his proposition:

first, as it concerns adversity;

second, at however, in prosperity (1171b12; [1936]), as it concerns prosperity;

third, at for this reason (1171b15; [1937]), he deduces a corollary from the discussions.

He treats the first point in a threefold manner.

First, he explains his proposition, observing that people in sorrow feel consolation from the presence of sympathetic friends.

1929. Second, at therefore, someone (1171a30), he seeks the reason for this observation [1928]. He offers two reasons, hesitating to decide which is stronger.

The first is taken from the example of people who carry a heavy weight; one of these is relieved by another who joins in lifting that load with him. In a similar way, it seems that one person may more easily bear the burden of sorrow if another bears the same burden with him.

1930. But this similarity does not seem to apply to sorrow itself, for the other does not take on himself a part of the same numerical sorrow that someone feels such that his sorrow may be lightened. However, it can apply to the cause of the sorrow. For example, if a man grieves because of damage that he suffered while a friend undergoes part of the damage, the injury of the other—and consequently the sorrow—is diminished.

1931. The second reason is better and belongs to the sorrow itself. It is evident that every extraneous pleasure lightens sorrow. But the presence of a sympathetic friend brings gladness in two ways.

In one way, because the very presence of a friend is delightful.

In the other way because, perceiving that his friend sympathizes with him, he delights in his friendship; and thus his sorrow is lessened.

1932. Since it is outside his principal intention, he adds that we must dismiss for the present the question whether, because of these observations [1929–31] or some other reason, our griefs are assuaged by the presence of sympathetic friends. Nevertheless, what we have described certainly happens [1931].

1933. Third, at but the presence (1171a34), he shows that the presence of a sympathetic friend has an admixture of sorrow.

First, he explains his proposition.

Second, at hence, persons (1171b6; [1934]), he deduces a corollary from the discussions.

He remarks first that the presence of sympathetic friends seems to have an admixture of pleasure and pain. The very sight of a friend is comforting for the other general reason, and especially to an unfortunate person whose sorrow is assuaged by the friend, and to this extent, a man consoles his friend by both his countenance and his word if he is epidexios, that is, apt at offering sympathy. For, one friend knows the feeling of another and what comforts and distresses his friend, and thus he can apply a fitting remedy for sorrow. In this way, then, the presence of a sympathetic friend is pleasing. But on the other hand, it is distressing inasmuch as a man feels that his friend is saddened in his misfortunes. Indeed, every rightly disposed person avoids, as much as he can, being the cause of pain to his friend.

1934. Then, at hence, persons (1171b6), he concludes from the premises that people who have a manly soul naturally fear and take care lest their friends be saddened on account of themselves. It is of the nature of friendship that a person should wish to benefit a friend and not be the cause of some evil to him. Manly people do not allow their friends to be saddened for them in any way unless the help provided by their friends to overcome their sorrow should far outweigh the distress of the friends. For, they permit their suffering to be alleviated by a modicum of suffering on the part of their friends. In all cases, manly natures are unwilling to have others weep with them, for they themselves are not given to lamenting.

1935. However, there are some men of a womanish disposition who are pleased to have others sorrowing with them at the same time and love as friends those who mourn with them. But, among the different types of individuals, we ought to imitate in everything men of nobler or more manly character.

1936. Next, at however, in prosperity (1171b12), he explains the second part of his proposition, namely, that the presence of friends in prosperity is praiseworthy.

He remarks that the presence of friends in prosperity affords two pleasures:

first, conversation with friends, because it is pleasant to converse with one’s friends;

second, the fact that he now sees that his friends are pleased by his benefactions. For everyone seeks to be a cause of delight to his friends.

1937. At for this reason (1171b15), he deduces a corollary from the discussion, which contains some moral doctrines:

first, in reference to those who call their friends together;

second, at conversely (1171b20), in reference to those who of their own accord approach their friends.

He presents three moral principles touching on the first point.

First, Aristotle concludes from the premises that, since it is pleasing for a man to see his friends find pleasure in his own opulence, he ought promptly to invite his friends to share his prosperity. For a good man should benefit his friends.

1938. The second principle is that a man should tardily and reluctantly summon his friend to share his misfortunes. For he ought to transfer to his friend as little as possible of his troubles. As proof he offers the proverb of one who said, none other than I need burdened be, as if to say, “It is enough that I suffer misfortune; my friends need not bear them.”

1939. The third principle is that friends should be asked to participate in misfortunes when they can, with little trouble, furnish great assistance and the like to a person.

1940. Then, at conversely (1171b20), he offers three principles on the part of people going of their own accord to friends.

The first is that sometimes a man, even uninvited, ought to go readily to friends who are suffering misfortunes. For a friend appropriately confers benefits especially on those who are in need and are ashamed, or think it unbecoming to ask this of a friend. In this way, when assistance is given to a person not requesting it, the action is performed in a better or more honorable way for both the donor and the petitioner. The reason is that the giver seems to bestow more spontaneously and the beneficiary to act more virtuously in being reluctant to burden a friend. This is also more satisfying to both, since the recipient does not feel the embarrassment that a man suffers in making a request of a friend, and the giver is more pleased that unasked he does a good turn as of his own accord.

1941. The second principle is that a man should readily offer to join with his friends in prosperity, and this is necessary, for a person needs friends to cooperate with him.

1942. The third principle is that, if someone wishes to be kindly received by a well-to-do friend, he ought to approach the friend modestly, that is, reluctantly and not readily. For, it is not proper to show oneself eager to accept help from a friend. But a man ought to fear and beware of a reputation for unpleasantness, that is, lest he get the name of being displeasing to his friend because he is troublesome or makes himself a nuisance. This obviously happens sometimes, for when people occupy themselves too much in accepting favors, they become burdensome and displeasing to their friends. Or, according to another reading, a man should fear (that is, beware of) the reputation for pleasure in lingering such that his friend gets the impression that he likes to stay on with him for the sake of benefits.

1943. Finally, he concludes from the premises that the presence of friends is desirable in all circumstances.