The Complete Aristotle (eng.)

call those men
prodigals who are incontinent and spend money on self-indulgence.
Hence also they are thought the poorest characters; for they
combine more vices than one. Therefore the application of the word
to them is not its proper use; for a ‘prodigal’ means a man who has
a single evil quality, that of wasting his substance; since a
prodigal is one who is being ruined by his own fault, and the
wasting of substance is thought to be a sort of ruining of oneself,
life being held to depend on possession of substance.
    This, then, is the sense in which we take the word
‘prodigality’. Now the things that have a use may be used either
well or badly; and riches is a useful thing; and everything is used
best by the man who has the virtue concerned with it; riches,
therefore, will be used best by the man who has the virtue
concerned with wealth; and this is the liberal man. Now spending
and giving seem to be the using of wealth; taking and keeping
rather the possession of it. Hence it is more the mark of the
liberal man to give to the right people than to take from the right
sources and not to take from the wrong. For it is more
characteristic of virtue to do good than to have good done to one,
and more characteristic to do what is noble than not to do what is
base; and it is not hard to see that giving implies doing good and
doing what is noble, and taking implies having good done to one or
not acting basely. And gratitude is felt towards him who gives, not
towards him who does not take, and praise also is bestowed more on
him. It is easier, also, not to take than to give; for men are
apter to give away their own too little than to take what is
another’s. Givers, too, are called liberal; but those who do not
take are not praised for liberality but rather for justice; while
those who take are hardly praised at all. And the liberal are
almost the most loved of all virtuous characters, since they are
useful; and this depends on their giving.
    Now virtuous actions are noble and done for the sake of the
noble. Therefore the liberal man, like other virtuous men, will
give for the sake of the noble, and rightly; for he will give to
the right people, the right amounts, and at the right time, with
all the other qualifications that accompany right giving; and that
too with pleasure or without pain; for that which is virtuous is
pleasant or free from pain-least of all will it be painful. But he
who gives to the wrong people or not for the sake of the noble but
for some other cause, will be called not liberal but by some other
name. Nor is he liberal who gives with pain; for he would prefer
the wealth to the noble act, and this is not characteristic of a
liberal man. But no more will the liberal man take from wrong
sources; for such taking is not characteristic of the man who sets
no store by wealth. Nor will he be a ready asker; for it is not
characteristic of a man who confers benefits to accept them
lightly. But he will take from the right sources, e.g. from his own
possessions, not as something noble but as a necessity, that he may
have something to give. Nor will he neglect his own property, since
he wishes by means of this to help others. And he will refrain from
giving to anybody and everybody, that he may have something to give
to the right people, at the right time, and where it is noble to do
so. It is highly characteristic of a liberal man also to go to
excess in giving, so that he leaves too little for himself; for it
is the nature of a liberal man not to look to himself. The term
‘liberality’ is used relatively to a man’s substance; for
liberality resides not in the multitude of the gifts but in the
state of character of the giver, and this is relative to the
giver’s substance. There is therefore nothing to prevent the man
who gives less from being the more liberal man, if he has less to
give those are thought to be more liberal who have not made their
wealth but inherited it; for in the first place they have no
experience of want, and secondly all men are fonder of their own
productions, as are parents and poets. It is not easy for the
liberal man to be rich, since he is not apt either at taking or at
keeping, but at giving away, and does not value wealth for its own
sake but as a means to giving. Hence comes the charge that is
brought against fortune, that those who deserve riches most get it
least. But it is not unreasonable that it should turn out so; for
he cannot have wealth, any more than