prosperity or adversity.

But I must at the very beginning lay down this principle-
_friendship can only exist between good men_. I do not, however,
press this too closely, like the philosophers who push their
definitions to a superfluous accuracy. They have truth on their
side, perhaps, but it is of no practical advantage. Those, I mean,
who say that no one but the "wise" is "good." Granted, by all
means. But the "wisdom" they mean is one to which no mortal
ever yet attained. We must concern ourselves with the facts of
everyday life as we find it-not imaginary and ideal perfections.
Even Gaius Fannius, Manius Curius, and Tiberius Coruncanius,
whom our ancestors decided to be "wise," I could never declare to
be so according to their standard. Let them, then, keep this word
"wisdom" to themselves. Everybody is irritated by it; no one
understands what it means. Let them but grant that the men I
mentioned were "good." No, they won't do that either. No one but
the "wise" can be allowed that title, say they. Well, then, let us
dismiss them and manage as best we may with our own poor
mother wit, as the phrase is.

We mean then by the "good" _those whose actions and lives leave
no question as to their honour, purity, equity, and liberality; who
are free from greed, lust, and violence; and who have the courage
of their convictions_. The men I have just named may serve as
examples. Such men as these being generally accounted "good,"
let us agree to call them so, on the ground that to the best of
human ability they follow nature as the most perfect guide to a
good life.