But of the good are we to make as many as ever we
can, or is there any measure of the number of friends,
as there is of the number to constitute a Political
Community? I mean, you cannot make one out of
ten men, and if you increase the number to one hundred
thousand it is not any longer a Community. However,
the number is not perhaps some one definite number
but any between certain extreme limits.
[Sidenote: 1171_a_] Well, of friends likewise
there is a limited number, which perhaps may be laid
down to be the greatest number with whom it would
be possible to keep up intimacy; this being thought
to be one of the greatest marks of Friendship, and
it being quite obvious that it is not possible to
be intimate with many, in other words, to part one’s
self among many. And besides it must be remembered
that they also are to be friends to one another if
they are all to live together: but it is a matter
of difficulty to find this in many men at once.
It comes likewise to be difficult to bring home to
one’s self the joys and sorrows of many:
because in all probability one would have to sympathise
at the same time with the joys of this one and the
sorrows of that other.
Perhaps then it is well not to endeavour to have very
many friends but so many as are enough for intimacy:
because, in fact, it would seem not to be possible
to be very much a friend to many at the same time:
and, for the same reason, not to be in love with many
objects at the same time: love being a kind of
excessive Friendship which implies but one object:
and all strong emotions must be limited in the number
towards whom they are felt.
And if we look to facts this seems to be so:
for not many at a time become friends in the way of
companionship, all the famous Friendships of the kind
are between two persons: whereas they who
have many friends, and meet everybody on the footing
of intimacy, seem to be friends really to no one except
in the way of general society; I mean the characters
denominated as over-complaisant.
To be sure, in the way merely of society, a man may
be a friend to many without being necessarily over-complaisant,
but being truly good: but one cannot be a friend
to many because of their virtue, and for the persons’
own sake; in fact, it is a matter for contentment to
find even a few such.
Again: are friends most needed in prosperity
or in adversity? they are required, we know, in both
states, because the unfortunate need help and the
prosperous want people to live with and to do kindnesses
to: for they have a desire to act kindly to some
one.
To have friends is more necessary in adversity, and
therefore in this case useful ones are wanted; and
to have them in prosperity is more honourable, and
this is why the prosperous want good men for friends,
it being preferable to confer benefits on, and to
live with, these. For the very presence of friends
is pleasant even in adversity: since men when
grieved are comforted by the sympathy of their friends.
