BOOK I

1

Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit,
is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly
been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain difference
is found among ends; some are activities, others are products apart
from the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart
from the actions, it is the nature of the products to be better than
the activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences,
their ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that
of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics
wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity- as bridle-making
and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses fall under
the art of riding, and this and every military action under strategy,
in the same way other arts fall under yet others- in all of these
the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate
ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued.
It makes no difference whether the activities themselves are the ends
of the actions, or something else apart from the activities, as in
the case of the sciences just mentioned.

2

If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for
its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this),
and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else
(for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our
desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and
the chief good. Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence
on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be
more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline
at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or
capacities it is the object. It would seem to belong to the most authoritative
art and that which is most truly the master art. And politics appears
to be of this nature; for it is this that ordains which of the sciences
should be studied in a state, and which each class of citizens should
learn and up to what point they should learn them; and we see even
the most highly esteemed of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy,
economics, rhetoric; now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences,
and since, again, it legislates as to what we are to do and what we
are to abstain from, the end of this science must include those of
the others, so that this end must be the good for man. For even if
the end is the same for a single man and for a state, that of the
state seems at all events something greater and more complete whether
to attain or to preserve; though it is worth while to attain the end
merely for one man, it is finer and more godlike to attain it for
a nation or for city-states. These, then, are the ends at which our
inquiry aims, since it is political science, in one sense of that
term.

3

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the
subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike
in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts.
Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit
of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought
to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give
rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people;
for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and
others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking
of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly
and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the
most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions
that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type
of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to
look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature
of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable
reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific
proofs.

Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a
good judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a
good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round
education is a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper
hearer of lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in
the actions that occur in life, but its discussions start from these
and are about these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions,
his study will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at
is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference whether he
is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend
on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as
passion directs. For to such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge
brings no profit; but to those who desire and act in accordance with
a rational principle knowledge about such matters will be of great
benefit.

These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected,
and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface.

4

Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all
knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we
say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods
achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for
both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say
that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with
being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and
the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former
think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or
honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the
same man identifies it with different things, with health when he
is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance,
they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their
comprehension. Now some thought that apart from these many goods there
is another which is self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all
these as well. To examine all the opinions that have been held were
perhaps somewhat fruitless; enough to examine those that are most
prevalent or that seem to be arguable.

Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference between
arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato, too,
was right in raising this question and asking, as he used to do, ‘are
we on the way from or to the first principles?’ There is a difference,
as there is in a race-course between the course from the judges to
the turning-point and the way back. For, while we must begin with
what is known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses- some
to us, some without qualification. Presumably, then, we must begin
with things known to us. Hence any one who is to listen intelligently
to lectures about what is noble and just, and generally, about the
subjects of political science must have been brought up in good habits.
For the fact is the starting-point, and if this is sufficiently plain
to him, he will not at the start need the reason as well; and the
man who has been well brought up has or can easily get startingpoints.
And as for him who neither has nor can get them, let him hear the
words of Hesiod:

Far best is he who knows all things himself;
Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right;
But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart
Another’s wisdom, is a useless wight.
5

Let us, however, resume our discussion from the point at which we
digressed. To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men
of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify
the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they
love the life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent
types of life- that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the
contemplative life. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish
in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get
some ground for their view from the fact that many of those in high
places share the tastes of Sardanapallus. A consideration of the prominent
types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active
disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking,
the end of the political life. But it seems too superficial to be
what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who
bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we
divine to be something proper to a man and not easily taken from him.
Further, men seem to pursue honour in order that they may be assured
of their goodness; at least it is by men of practical wisdom that
they seek to be honoured, and among those who know them, and on the
ground of their virtue; clearly, then, according to them, at any rate,
virtue is better. And perhaps one might even suppose this to be, rather
than honour, the end of the political life. But even this appears
somewhat incomplete; for possession of virtue seems actually compatible
with being asleep, or with lifelong inactivity, and, further, with
the greatest sufferings and misfortunes; but a man who was living
so no one would call happy, unless he were maintaining a thesis at
all costs. But enough of this; for the subject has been sufficiently
treated even in the current discussions. Third comes the contemplative
life, which we shall consider later.

The life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion, and wealth
is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful
and for the sake of something else. And so one might rather take the
aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves.
But it is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments
have been thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject,
then.

6

We had perhaps better consider the universal good and discuss thoroughly
what is meant by it, although such an inquiry is made an uphill one
by the fact that the Forms have been introduced by friends of our
own. Yet it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our
duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches
us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom;
for, while both are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above
our friends.

The men who introduced this doctrine did not posit Ideas of classes
within which they recognized priority and posteriority (which is the
reason why they did not maintain the existence of an Idea embracing
all numbers); but the term ‘good’ is used both in the category of
substance and in that of quality and in that of relation, and that
which is per se, i.e. substance, is prior in nature to the relative
(for the latter is like an off shoot and accident of being); so that
there could not be a common Idea set over all these goods. Further,
since ‘good’ has as many senses as ‘being’ (for it is predicated both
in the category of substance, as of God and of reason, and in quality,
i.e. of the virtues, and in quantity, i.e. of that which is moderate,
and in relation, i.e. of the useful, and in time, i.e. of the right
opportunity, and in place, i.e. of the right locality and the like),
clearly it cannot be something universally present in all cases and
single; for then it could not have been predicated in all the categories
but in one only. Further, since of the things answering to one Idea
there is one science, there would have been one science of all the
goods; but as it is there are many sciences even of the things that
fall under one category, e.g. of opportunity, for opportunity in war
is studied by strategics and in disease by medicine, and the moderate
in food is studied by medicine and in exercise by the science of gymnastics.
And one might ask the question, what in the world they mean by ‘a
thing itself’, is (as is the case) in ‘man himself’ and in a particular
man the account of man is one and the same. For in so far as they
are man, they will in no respect differ; and if this is so, neither
will ‘good itself’ and particular goods, in so far as they are good.
But again it will not be good any the more for being eternal, since
that which lasts long is no whiter than that which perishes in a day.
The Pythagoreans seem to give a more plausible account of the good,
when they place the one in the column of goods; and it is they that
Speusippus seems to have followed.

But let us discuss these matters elsewhere; an objection to what we
have said, however, may be discerned in the fact that the Platonists
have not been speaking about all goods, and that the goods that are
pursued and loved for themselves are called good by reference to a
single Form, while those which tend to produce or to preserve these
somehow or to prevent their contraries are called so by reference
to these, and in a secondary sense. Clearly, then, goods must be spoken
of in two ways, and some must be good in themselves, the others by
reason of these. Let us separate, then, things good in themselves
from things useful, and consider whether the former are called good
by reference to a single Idea. What sort of goods would one call good
in themselves? Is it those that are pursued even when isolated from
others, such as intelligence, sight, and certain pleasures and honours?
Certainly, if we pursue these also for the sake of something else,
yet one would place them among things good in themselves. Or is nothing
other than the Idea of good good in itself? In that case the Form
will be empty. But if the things we have named are also things good
in themselves, the account of the good will have to appear as something
identical in them all, as that of whiteness is identical in snow and
in white lead. But of honour, wisdom, and pleasure, just in respect
of their goodness, the accounts are distinct and diverse. The good,
therefore, is not some common element answering to one Idea.

But what then do we mean by the good? It is surely not like the things
that only chance to have the same name. Are goods one, then, by being
derived from one good or by all contributing to one good, or are they
rather one by analogy? Certainly as sight is in the body, so is reason
in the soul, and so on in other cases. But perhaps these subjects
had better be dismissed for the present; for perfect precision about
them would be more appropriate to another branch of philosophy. And
similarly with regard to the Idea; even if there is some one good
which is universally predicable of goods or is capable of separate
and independent existence, clearly it could not be achieved or attained
by man; but we are now seeking something attainable. Perhaps, however,
some one might think it worth while to recognize this with a view
to the goods that are attainable and achievable; for having this as
a sort of pattern we shall know better the goods that are good for
us, and if we know them shall attain them. This argument has some
plausibility, but seems to clash with the procedure of the sciences;
for all of these, though they aim at some good and seek to supply
the deficiency of it, leave on one side the knowledge of the good.
Yet that all the exponents of the arts should be ignorant of, and
should not even seek, so great an aid is not probable. It is hard,
too, to see how a weaver or a carpenter will be benefited in regard
to his own craft by knowing this ‘good itself’, or how the man who
has viewed the Idea itself will be a better doctor or general thereby.
For a doctor seems not even to study health in this way, but the health
of man, or perhaps rather the health of a particular man; it is individuals that he is healing.  But enough of these topics.

7

Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it can
be. It seems different in different actions and arts; it is different
in medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise. What then
is the good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything else is
done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture
a house, in any other sphere something else, and in every action and
pursuit the end; for it is for the sake of this that all men do whatever
else they do. Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this
will be the good achievable by action, and if there are more than
one, these will be the goods achievable by action.

So the argument has by a different course reached the same point;
but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently
more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes,
and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly
not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something
final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what
we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of
these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself
worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit
for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable
for the sake of something else more final than the things that are
desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing,
and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always
desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this
we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else,
but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for
themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose
each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the
other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general,
for anything other than itself.

From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to
follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by
self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man
by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents,
children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens,
since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this;
for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and
friends’ friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine
this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we
now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking
in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think
it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good
thing among others- if it were so counted it would clearly be made
more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that
which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater
is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and
self-sufficient, and is the end of action.

Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems
a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This
might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of
man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and,
in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good
and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem
to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and
the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he
born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each
of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man
similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this
be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what
is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition
and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also
seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There
remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle;
of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient
to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought.
And, as ‘life of the rational element’ also has two meanings, we must
state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean; for this
seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function
of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational
principle, and if we say ‘so-and-so-and ‘a good so-and-so’ have a
function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player,
and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of
goodness being idded to the name of the function (for the function
of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player
is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function
of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or
actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function
of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if
any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with
the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns
out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there
are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.

But we must add ‘in a complete life.’ For one swallow does not make
a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does
not make a man blessed and happy.

Let this serve as an outline of the good; for we must presumably first
sketch it roughly, and then later fill in the details. But it would
seem that any one is capable of carrying on and articulating what
has once been well outlined, and that time is a good discoverer or
partner in such a work; to which facts the advances of the arts are
due; for any one can add what is lacking. And we must also remember
what has been said before, and not look for precision in all things
alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with
the subject-matter, and so much as is appropriate to the inquiry.
For a carpenter and a geometer investigate the right angle in different
ways; the former does so in so far as the right angle is useful for
his work, while the latter inquires what it is or what sort of thing
it is; for he is a spectator of the truth. We must act in the same
way, then, in all other matters as well, that our main task may not
be subordinated to minor questions. Nor must we demand the cause in
all matters alike; it is enough in some cases that the fact be well
established, as in the case of the first principles; the fact is the
primary thing or first principle. Now of first principles we see some
by induction, some by perception, some by a certain habituation, and
others too in other ways. But each set of principles we must try to
investigate in the natural way, and we must take pains to state them
definitely, since they have a great influence on what follows. For
the beginning is thought to be more than half of the whole, and many
of the questions we ask are cleared up by it.

8

We must consider it, however, in the light not only of our conclusion
and our premisses, but also of what is commonly said about it; for
with a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the
facts soon clash. Now goods have been divided into three classes,
and some are described as external, others as relating to soul or
to body; we call those that relate to soul most properly and truly
goods, and psychical actions and activities we class as relating to
soul. Therefore our account must be sound, at least according to this
view, which is an old one and agreed on by philosophers. It is correct
also in that we identify the end with certain actions and activities;
for thus it falls among goods of the soul and not among external goods.
Another belief which harmonizes with our account is that the happy
man lives well and does well; for we have practically defined happiness
as a sort of good life and good action. The characteristics that are
looked for in happiness seem also, all of them, to belong to what
we have defined happiness as being. For some identify happiness with
virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic
wisdom, others with these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure
or not without pleasure; while others include also external prosperity.
Now some of these views have been held by many men and men of old,
others by a few eminent persons; and it is not probable that either
of these should be entirely mistaken, but rather that they should
be right in at least some one respect or even in most respects.

With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our
account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But
it makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief
good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For
the state of mind may exist without producing any good result, as
in a man who is asleep or in some other way quite inactive, but the
activity cannot; for one who has the activity will of necessity be
acting, and acting well. And as in the Olympic Games it is not the
most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete
(for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win,
and rightly win, the noble and good things in life.

Their life is also in itself pleasant. For pleasure is a state of
soul, and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant;
e.g. not only is a horse pleasant to the lover of horses, and a spectacle
to the lover of sights, but also in the same way just acts are pleasant
to the lover of justice and in general virtuous acts to the lover
of virtue. Now for most men their pleasures are in conflict with one
another because these are not by nature pleasant, but the lovers of
what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant;
and virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such
men as well as in their own nature. Their life, therefore, has no
further need of pleasure as a sort of adventitious charm, but has
its pleasure in itself. For, besides what we have said, the man who
does not rejoice in noble actions is not even good; since no one would
call a man just who did not enjoy acting justly, nor any man liberal
who did not enjoy liberal actions; and similarly in all other cases.
If this is so, virtuous actions must be in themselves pleasant. But
they are also good and noble, and have each of these attributes in
the highest degree, since the good man judges well about these attributes;
his judgement is such as we have described. Happiness then is the
best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world, and these attributes
are not severed as in the inscription at Delos-

Most noble is that which is justest, and best is health;

But pleasantest is it to win what we love.

For all these properties belong to the best activities; and these,
or one- the best- of these, we identify with happiness.

Yet evidently, as we said, it needs the external goods as well; for
it is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper
equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches and political
power as instruments; and there are some things the lack of which
takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty;
for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary
and childless is not very likely to be happy, and perhaps a man would
be still less likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends
or had lost good children or friends by death. As we said, then, happiness
seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason
some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify
it with virtue.

9

For this reason also the question is asked, whether happiness is to
be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training,
or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance. Now
if there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness
should be god-given, and most surely god-given of all human things
inasmuch as it is the best. But this question would perhaps be more
appropriate to another inquiry; happiness seems, however, even if
it is not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process
of learning or training, to be among the most godlike things; for
that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing
in the world, and something godlike and blessed.

It will also on this view be very generally shared; for all who are
not maimed as regards their potentiality for virtue may win it by
a certain kind of study and care. But if it is better to be happy
thus than by chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so,
since everything that depends on the action of nature is by nature
as good as it can be, and similarly everything that depends on art
or any rational cause, and especially if it depends on the best of
all causes. To entrust to chance what is greatest and most noble would
be a very defective arrangement.

The answer to the question we are asking is plain also from the definition
of happiness; for it has been said to be a virtuous activity of soul,
of a certain kind. Of the remaining goods, some must necessarily pre-exist
as conditions of happiness, and others are naturally co-operative
and useful as instruments. And this will be found to agree with what
we said at the outset; for we stated the end of political science
to be the best end, and political science spends most of its pains
on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and
capable of noble acts.

It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other
of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such
activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet
capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy
are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them. For
there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a
complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of
chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in
old age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has
experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy.

10

Must no one at all, then, be called happy while he lives; must we,
as Solon says, see the end? Even if we are to lay down this doctrine,
is it also the case that a man is happy when he is dead? Or is not
this quite absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an
activity? But if we do not call the dead man happy, and if Solon does
not mean this, but that one can then safely call a man blessed as
being at last beyond evils and misfortunes, this also affords matter
for discussion; for both evil and good are thought to exist for a
dead man, as much as for one who is alive but not aware of them; e.g.
honours and dishonours and the good or bad fortunes of children and
in general of descendants. And this also presents a problem; for though
a man has lived happily up to old age and has had a death worthy of
his life, many reverses may befall his descendants- some of them may
be good and attain the life they deserve, while with others the opposite
may be the case; and clearly too the degrees of relationship between
them and their ancestors may vary indefinitely. It would be odd, then,
if the dead man were to share in these changes and become at one time
happy, at another wretched; while it would also be odd if the fortunes
of the descendants did not for some time have some effect on the happiness
of their ancestors.

But we must return to our first difficulty; for perhaps by a consideration
of it our present problem might be solved. Now if we must see the
end and only then call a man happy, not as being happy but as having
been so before, surely this is a paradox, that when he is happy the
attribute that belongs to him is not to be truly predicated of him
because we do not wish to call living men happy, on account of the
changes that may befall them, and because we have assumed happiness
to be something permanent and by no means easily changed, while a
single man may suffer many turns of fortune’s wheel. For clearly if
we were to keep pace with his fortunes, we should often call the same
man happy and again wretched, making the happy man out to be chameleon
and insecurely based. Or is this keeping pace with his fortunes quite
wrong? Success or failure in life does not depend on these, but human
life, as we said, needs these as mere additions, while virtuous activities
or their opposites are what constitute happiness or the reverse.

The question we have now discussed confirms our definition. For no
function of man has so much permanence as virtuous activities (these
are thought to be more durable even than knowledge of the sciences),
and of these themselves the most valuable are more durable because
those who are happy spend their life most readily and most continuously
in these; for this seems to be the reason why we do not forget them.
The attribute in question, then, will belong to the happy man, and
he will be happy throughout his life; for always, or by preference
to everything else, he will be engaged in virtuous action and contemplation,
and he will bear the chances of life most nobly and altogether decorously,
if he is ‘truly good’ and ‘foursquare beyond reproach’.

Now many events happen by chance, and events differing in importance;
small pieces of good fortune or of its opposite clearly do not weigh
down the scales of life one way or the other, but a multitude of great
events if they turn out well will make life happier (for not only
are they themselves such as to add beauty to life, but the way a man
deals with them may be noble and good), while if they turn out ill
they crush and maim happiness; for they both bring pain with them
and hinder many activities. Yet even in these nobility shines through,
when a man bears with resignation many great misfortunes, not through
insensibility to pain but through nobility and greatness of soul.

If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy
man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful
and mean. For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears
all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances,
as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command
and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are
given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case,
the happy man can never become miserable; though he will not reach
blessedness, if he meet with fortunes like those of Priam.

Nor, again, is he many-coloured and changeable; for neither will he
be moved from his happy state easily or by any ordinary misadventures,
but only by many great ones, nor, if he has had many great misadventures,
will he recover his happiness in a short time, but if at all, only
in a long and complete one in which he has attained many splendid
successes.

When then should we not say that he is happy who is active in accordance
with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods,
not for some chance period but throughout a complete life? Or must
we add ‘and who is destined to live thus and die as befits his life’?
Certainly the future is obscure to us, while happiness, we claim,
is an end and something in every way final. If so, we shall call happy
those among living men in whom these conditions are, and are to be,
fulfilled- but happy men. So much for these questions.

11

That the fortunes of descendants and of all a man’s friends should
not affect his happiness at all seems a very unfriendly doctrine,
and one opposed to the opinions men hold; but since the events that
happen are numerous and admit of all sorts of difference, and some
come more near to us and others less so, it seems a long- nay, an
infinite- task to discuss each in detail; a general outline will perhaps
suffice. If, then, as some of a man’s own misadventures have a certain
weight and influence on life while others are, as it were, lighter,
so too there are differences among the misadventures of our friends
taken as a whole, and it makes a difference whether the various suffering
befall the living or the dead (much more even than whether lawless
and terrible deeds are presupposed in a tragedy or done on the stage),
this difference also must be taken into account; or rather, perhaps,
the fact that doubt is felt whether the dead share in any good or
evil. For it seems, from these considerations, that even if anything
whether good or evil penetrates to them, it must be something weak
and negligible, either in itself or for them, or if not, at least
it must be such in degree and kind as not to make happy those who
are not happy nor to take away their blessedness from those who are.
The good or bad fortunes of friends, then, seem to have some effects
on the dead, but effects of such a kind and degree as neither to make
the happy unhappy nor to produce any other change of the kind.

12

These questions having been definitely answered, let us consider whether
happiness is among the things that are praised or rather among the
things that are prized; for clearly it is not to be placed among potentialities.
Everything that is praised seems to be praised because it is of a
certain kind and is related somehow to something else; for we praise
the just or brave man and in general both the good man and virtue
itself because of the actions and functions involved, and we praise
the strong man, the good runner, and so on, because he is of a certain
kind and is related in a certain way to something good and important.
This is clear also from the praises of the gods; for it seems absurd
that the gods should be referred to our standard, but this is done
because praise involves a reference, to something else. But if if
praise is for things such as we have described, clearly what applies
to the best things is not praise, but something greater and better,
as is indeed obvious; for what we do to the gods and the most godlike
of men is to call them blessed and happy. And so too with good things;
no one praises happiness as he does justice, but rather calls it blessed,
as being something more divine and better.

Eudoxus also seems to have been right in his method of advocating
the supremacy of pleasure; he thought that the fact that, though a
good, it is not praised indicated it to be better than the things
that are praised, and that this is what God and the good are; for
by reference to these all other things are judged. Praise is appropriate
to virtue, for as a result of virtue men tend to do noble deeds, but
encomia are bestowed on acts, whether of the body or of the soul.
But perhaps nicety in these matters is more proper to those who have
made a study of encomia; to us it is clear from what has been said
that happiness is among the things that are prized and perfect. It
seems to be so also from the fact that it is a first principle; for
it is for the sake of this that we all do all that we do, and the
first principle and cause of goods is, we claim, something prized
and divine.

13 Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect
virtue, we must consider the nature of virtue; for perhaps we shall
thus see better the nature of happiness. The true student of politics,
too, is thought to have studied virtue above all things; for he wishes
to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws. As an example
of this we have the lawgivers of the Cretans and the Spartans, and
any others of the kind that there may have been. And if this inquiry
belongs to political science, clearly the pursuit of it will be in
accordance with our original plan. But clearly the virtue we must
study is human virtue; for the good we were seeking was human good
and the happiness human happiness. By human virtue we mean not that
of the body but that of the soul; and happiness also we call an activity
of soul. But if this is so, clearly the student of politics must know
somehow the facts about soul, as the man who is to heal the eyes or
the body as a whole must know about the eyes or the body; and all
the more since politics is more prized and better than medicine; but
even among doctors the best educated spend much labour on acquiring
knowledge of the body. The student of politics, then, must study the
soul, and must study it with these objects in view, and do so just
to the extent which is sufficient for the questions we are discussing;
for further precision is perhaps something more laborious than our
purposes require.

Some things are said about it, adequately enough, even in the discussions
outside our school, and we must use these; e.g. that one element in
the soul is irrational and one has a rational principle. Whether these
are separated as the parts of the body or of anything divisible are,
or are distinct by definition but by nature inseparable, like convex
and concave in the circumference of a circle, does not affect the
present question.