INTRODUCTION 
 
					In this essay Plutarch has arranged his material somewhat more methodically than is his usual practice.
					In chaps. 1-7 he shows that Brotherly Love is in
					accordance with nature; in 9-19 he tells us how we
					should conduct ourselves toward a brother: (a) while
					our parents are alive, (b) when they are dead, (c) when
					the brother is our inferior, (d) when our superior;
					and also the reasons for quarrels and the treatment
					thereof. He closes with some pleasant tales of
					affection for brothers’ children.
				 
 
					That Plutarch wrote this work after De Adulatore
						et Amico , De Amicorum Multitudine , and the Life of
							Cato Minor was demonstrated by C. Brokate ( De
								aliquot Plui. libellis , diss. Güttingen, 1913, pp. 17-24,
					58; and see the excellent tables on pp. 47, 61).
					Plutarch appears to have retained a certain amount
					of more or less irrelevant material on friendship from
					his recent work on these treatises, and also to have
					drawn upon some portions of Theophrastus’s treatise
 	 On Friendship . 
				 
 
					The essay is No. 98 in the Lamprias catalogue.

The ancient representations of the Dioscuri are
					called by the Spartans beam-figures 
 : they
					consist of two parallel wooden beams joined by two
					other transverse beams placed across them; and
					this common and indivisible character of the offering
					appears entirely suitable to the brotherly love of
					these gods. In like manner do I also dedicate this
					treatise On Brotherly Love to you, Nigrinus and
 	Quietus, a joint gift for you both who well deserve
					it. For as to the exhortations this essay contains,
					since you are already putting them into practice, you
					will seem to be giving your testimony in their favour
					rather than to be encouraged to perform them; and
					the pleasure you will take in acts which are right will
					make the perseverance of your judgement more firm,
					inasmuch as your acts will win approval before spectators, so to speak, who are honourable and devoted
					to virtue.
				 
 
					Now Aristarchus, the father of Theodectes, by way
					of jeering at the crowd of sophists, used to say that in
					the old days there were barely seven Sophists,
 	 but
					
					 
					
					that in his own day an equally large number of
					non-sophists could not easily be found. And according to my observation, brotherly love is as rare in
					our day as brotherly hatred was among the men of
					old; when instances of such hatred appeared, they
					were so amazing that the times made them known to
					all as warning examples in tragedies and other
					stage-performances; but all men of to-day, when they
					encounter brothers who are good to each other,
					wonder at them no less than at those famous sons of
					Molione, who, according to common belief, were
					born with their bodies grown together; and to use
					in common a fathers wealth and friends and
					slaves is considered as incredible and portentous as
					for one soul to make use of the hands and feet and
					eyes of two bodies.

And yet the illustration of such common use by
					brothers Nature has placed at no great distance from
					us; on the contrary, in the body itself she has contrived to make most of the necessary parts double
					and brothers and twins : hands, feet, eyes, ears,
					nostrils; and she has thus taught us that she has
					divided them in this fashion for mutual preservation
					and assistance, not for variance and strife. And
					when she separated the very hands into a number of
					unequal fingers, she supplied men with the most
					accurate and skilful of instruments, so that Anaxagoras of old assigned the reason for man’s wisdom
					and intelligence to his having hands. The contrary
					of this, however, seems to be true : it is not because
					man acquired hands that he is wisest of animals;
					
					 
					
					it is because by nature he was endowed with reason
					and skill that he acquired instruments of a nature
					adapted to these powers. And this fact is obvious to
					everyone: Nature from one seed and one source has
					created two brothers, or three, or more, not for
					difference and opposition to each other, but that by
					being separate they might the more readily co-operate
					with one another. For indeed creatures that had
					three bodies and an hundred hands, if any such were
					ever really born, being joined together in all their
					members, could do nothing independently and apart
					from one another, as may brothers, who can either
					remain at home or reside abroad, as well as undertake
					public office and husbandry through each other’s help
					if they but preserve that principle of goodwill and
					concord which Nature has given them. But if they
					do not, they will differ not at all, I think, from feet
					which trip up one another and fingers which are unnaturally entwined and twisted by each other. But
					rather, just as in the same body the combination of
					moist and dry, cold and hot, sharing one nature and
					diet, by their consent and agreement engender the
					best and most pleasant temperament and bodily
					harmony-without which, they say, there is not any
					joy or profit either in wealth or
					 
 In that kingly rule which makes men
						 
						 Like to gods - 
 
					but if overreaching and factious strife be engendered
					in them, they corrupt and destroy the animal most
					shamefully; so through the concord of brothers both
					
					 
					
					family and household are sound and flourish, and
					friends and intimates, like an harmonious choir,
					neither do nor say, nor think, anything discordant;
 	 Even the base wins honour in a feud : 
					a slandering servant, or a flatterer who slips in from
					outside, or a malignant citizen. For as diseases in
					bodies which cannot accept their proper diet engender
					cravings for many strange and harmful foods, so
					slander and suspicion entertained against kinsmen
					ushers in evil and pernicious associations which flow
					in from outside to fill the vacant room.

It is true that the Arcadian prophet of necessity manufactured for himself, according to Herodotus, a wooden foot, deprived as he was of his own;
					but the man who quarrels with his brother, and takes
					as his comrade a stranger from the market-place or
					the wrestling-floor, appears to be doing nothing but
					cutting off voluntarily a limb of his own flesh and
					blood, and taking to himself and joining to his body
					an extraneous member. Indeed it is our very need,
					which welcomes and seeks friendship and comradeship, that teaches us to honour and cherish and keep
					our kin, since we are unable and unfitted by Nature
					to live friendless, unsocial, hermits’ lives. Wherefore
					Menander rightly says,
					
					 
					
					 
 Not from drink or from daily revelling
						 
 Do we seek one to whom we may entrust
						 
 Our life, father. Do we not think we’ve found
						 
 Great good in but the shadow of a friend? 
 
					For most friendships are in reality shadows and
					imitations and images of that first friendship which
					Nature implanted in children toward parents and in
					brothers toward brothers; and as for the man who
					does not reverence or honour this friendship, can
					he give any pledge of goodwill to strangers? Or
					what sort of man is he who addresses his comrade as
					 brother in salutations and letters, but does not
					care even to walk with his own brother when they
					are going the same way? For as it is the act of a
					madman to adorn the effigy of a brother and at the
					same time to beat and mutilate the brother’s body,
					even so to reverence and honour the name brother 
					in others, but to hate and shun the person himself,
					is the act of one who is not sane and has never yet
					got it into his head that Nature is the most holy
					and great of sacred things.

I remember, for instance, that in Rome I undertook to arbitrate between two brothers, of whom one
					had the reputation of being a philosopher. But he
					was, as it appears, not only as a brother but also as
					a philosopher, masquerading under a false name and
					appellation; for when I asked him to conduct himself
					as brother to brother and as philosopher to layman, What you say, said he, as to his being a
						layman, is correct, but I account it no momentous
						or important matter to have sprung from the same
						loins. 
 As for you, said I, it is obvious that you
							
							 
							
							consider it no important or momentous matter to have
							sprung from any loins at all. But certainly all other
					philosophers, even if they do not think so, at least do
					affirm with constant iteration that both Nature and
					the Law, which upholds Nature, have assigned to
					parents, after gods, first and greatest honour ; and
					there is nothing which men do that is more acceptable to gods than with goodwill and zeal to repay
					to those who bore them and brought them up the
					favours long ago lent to them when they were
						young. 
 	 Nor is there, again, a greater exhibition
					of an impious nature than neglect of parents or
					offences against them. Therefore, while we are forbidden to do wrong to all others, yet to our mother
					and father, if we do not always afford, both in deed
					and in word, matter for their pleasure, even if offence
					be not present, men consider it unholy and unlawful.
					Hence what deed or favour or disposition, which
					children may show toward their parents, can give
					more pleasure than steadfast goodwill and friendship
					toward a brother?

And surely this fact is quite easy to perceive
					from the contrary. For when we observe that parents
					are grieved by sons who maltreat a servant honoured
					by mother and father, and neglect plants or farm-lands
					in which their parents took delight, and that remissness in caring for some house-dog or horse hurts
					elderly persons who feel a jealous affection for them;
					and when, again, we observe that parents are vexed
					when their children disparage and hiss at concerts
					and spectacles and athletes all of which they themselves used to admire; when we observe these things,
					is it reasonable to suppose that parents are indifferent
					
					 
					
					when sons quarrel, hate and malign each other, and
					array themselves ever against each other s interests
					and activities, and are finally ruined by each other?
					No one can say that the parents are indifferent.
					Hence when, on the other hand, brothers love and
					feel affection for each other, and, in so far as
					Nature has made them separate in their bodies,
					so far do they become united in their emotions
					and actions, and share with each other their studies
					and recreations and games, then they have made
					their brotherly love a sweet and blessed sustainer
						of old age 
 for their parents. For no father is
					so fond of oratory or of honour or of riches as he is
					of his children; therefore fathers do not find such
					pleasure in seeing their sons gaining a reputation
					as orators, acquiring wealth, or holding office as in
					seeing that they love one another. So they report
					of Apollonis of Cyzicus, mother of King Eumenes 
					and three other sons, Attalus and Philetaerus and
					Athenaeus, that she always congratulated herself
					and gave thanks to the gods, not because of wealth
					or empire, but because she saw her three sons members of the body-guard of the eldest, who passed
					his days without fear surrounded by brothers with
					swords and spears in their hands. So again, on the
					contrary, when Artaxerxes perceived that his son
					Ochus had plotted against his brothers, he despaired
					and died.
					 For cruel are the wars of brothers, 
 	as Euripides says, and they are cruellest of all to
					
					 
					
					the parents themselves. For he that hates his own
					brother and is angry with him cannot refrain from
					blaming the father that begat and the mother that
					bore such a brother.

So Peisistratus, marrying for a second time when
					his sons were full grown, said that because he considered them to be honourable and good he wished
					to become the father of more children like them.
					Excellent and just sons will not only love each
					other the more because of their parents, but will also
					love their parents the more because of each other;
					so will they always both think and say that, though
					they owe their parents gratitude for many favours, it
					is most of all for their brothers that they owe it, 
					since these are truly the most precious and delightful
					of all the possessions they have received from them.
					Well indeed has Homer also depicted Telemachus
					as reckoning his brotherless condition a misfortune:
					 
 The son of Cronus thus has doomed our race
						 
 To have one son alone. 
 
					But Hesiod does not well in advising an only son 
					to inherit his father’s estate - and that too when he
					was himself a pupil of the Muses, who, in fact,
					received this name just because they were always
						together ( homou ousas ) in concord and sisterly
					affection. 
				 
 
					Now, as regards parents, brotherly love is of such
					sort that to love ones brother is forthwith a proof
					of love for both mother and father; and again, as
					
					 
					
					regards children, for them there is no lesson and
					example comparable to brotherly love on their father’s
					part. And, on the other hand, the contrary is a bad
					example for children who inherit, as from a father’s
					testament, his hatred of brothers. For a man who
					has grown old in law-suits and quarrels and contentions with his brothers, and then exhorts his children
					to concord,
 	 Healer of others, full of sores himself, 
 
					weakens the force of his words by his own actions.
					If, at any rate, Eteocles of Thebes had said with
					reference to his brother, 
					 
 To where the sun and stars rise would I go,
						 
 And plunge beneath the earth-if this I could-
						 
 To hold Dominion, greatest of the gods, 
 
					and then had proceeded to exhort his own children 
					 
 Revere Equality, which ever binds
						 
 Friend to friend, state to state, allies unto
						 
 Allies: Nature made equal rights secure, 
 
					who would not have despised him? And what sort
					of man would Atreus have been, if, after serving his
					brother that dinner, he had then proceeded to
					preach to his own children:
					 And yet the use of friends, fast joined with ties
						Of blood, alone brings help when troubles flow?

Therefore it is fitting to cleanse away completely
					hatred of brothers, which is both an evil sustainer of
					parents in their old age and a worse nurturer of
					children in their youth. And it is also a cause of
					slander and accusations against such brothers; for
					their fellow-citizens think that, after having been
					so closely bound together by their common education, their common life together, and their kinship,
					brothers could not have become deadly enemies unless each were aware of many wicked deeds committed by the other. There must be, they infer,
					great reasons for the breaking-up of a great goodwill
					and affection. For this reason it is not easy to effect
					a reconciliation of brothers; for just as things
					which have been joined together, even if the glue
					becomes loose, may be fastened together again and
					become united, yet if a body which has grown
					together is broken or split, it is difficult to find
					means of welding or joining it; so friendships knitted
					together through long familiarity, even though the
					friends part company, can be easily resumed again,
					but when brothers have once broken the bonds
					of Nature, they cannot readily come together, and
					even if they do, their reconciliation bears with it a
					filthy hidden sore of suspicion. Or rather, every enmity between man and man which steals into the
					heart in company with the most painful emotions
					- contentiousness, anger, envy, remembrance of
					wrongs - causes pain and perturbation of mind; but
					when the enmity is toward a brother, with whom it is
					necessary to share sacrifices and the family’s sacred
					rites, to occupy the same sepulchre, and in life, perhaps, the same or a neighbouring habitation - such an
					enmity keeps the painful situation ever before our
					
					
					 
					
					eyes, and reminds us every day of the madness and
					folly which has made the sweetest countenance of the
					nearest kinsman become most frowning and angry to
					look upon, and that voice which has been beloved and
					familiar from boyhood most dreadful to hear. And
					though they see many other examples of brothers
					using the same house and table and undistributed
					estates and slaves, yet they alone maintain different
					sets of friends and guests, considering as hostile
					everything dear to their brothers - and that too
					though all the world may readily reflect that while
					friends and boon-companions may be taken as
						booty, and relatives by marriage and familiars
					may be obtained 
 	 when the old ones, like arms or
					implements, have been lost, yet the acquisition of another brother is impossible, as is that of a new hand
					when one has been removed or that of a new eye
					when one has been knocked out; rightly, then, did
					the Persian woman declare, when she chose to save
					her brother in place of her children, that she could
					get other children, but not another brother, since
					her parents were dead.

What then, someone will say, must one
					who has a bad brother do? 
 We must remember
					this first of all: badness can lay hold on every kind of
					friendship; and, according to Sophocles, 
					 Search out most human traits: you’ll find them base. 
					For it is impossible to discover that our relations with
					
					 
					
					relatives or comrades or lovers are unmixed with
					baseness, free from passion, or pure from evil. So the
					Spartan, when he married a little wife,
 	 
 	said that of
					evils one should choose the least; but brothers one
					would prudently advise to put up with the evils with
					which they are most familiar rather than to make
					trial of unfamiliar ones; for the former procedure
					as being necessary brings no reproach, but the latter
					is blameworthy because voluntary. No boon-companion or comrade-in-arms or guest
 	 Is yoked in honour’s bonds not forged by man, 
 
					but he is who is of the same blood and upbringing,
					and born of the same father and mother. For such a
					kinsman it is altogether fitting to concede and allow
					some faults, saying to him when he errs,
					 
						&ldquo;&rdquo;I cannot leave you in your wretchedness 
 
					and trouble and folly, lest I might, unwittingly,punish
					harshly and bitterly, because I hate it, some ailment
					instilled into you from the seed of father or mother. 
					For, as Theophrastus said, we must not grow to love
					those not of our blood and then judge them, but judge
					them first and love them later; but where Nature
					does not commit the initiative to judgement in conceiving goodwill toward another nor wait for the
					proverbial bushel of salt, but has begotten with the
					child at its birth the principle of love, in that case
					
					 
					
					there should be no harsh nor strict censors of his
					faults. But as it is, what would you say of those who
					sometimes readily put up with the wrongdoings of
					strangers and men of no kin to themselves, men
					picked up at some drinking-bout or play-ground
					or wrestling-floor, and take pleasure in their company, yet are peevish and inexorable toward their
					own brothers? Why some even breed and grow fond
					of savage dogs and horses, and many people do so with
					lynxes and cats, monkeys and lions, yet cannot endure
					their brothers’ rages or stupidities or ambitions; still
					others make over their houses and property to concubines and harlots, yet fight it out in a duel with
					their brothers over a site for a building or a corner of
					property; and finally, giving the name of hatred of
						evil 
 to their hatred of their brothers, they stalk
					about pompously, accusing and reviling the wickedness in their brothers; yet in others they take no
					offence at this same quality, but frequently resort to
					them and are often in their company.

Let this, then, serve as a preamble to my whole
					discourse. But as the starting-point of my admonitions, let us take, not the division of the father’s
					goods, as other writers do, but the misguided quarrels
					and jealousy of the children while the parents are yet
					alive. The ephors, when Agesilaüs used to send
					an ox as a mark of distinguished service to each
					member of the gerousia 
 as he was appointed, fined
					him, alleging as their reason that by such demagogic
					means of gaining popular favour he was trying to
					acquire as his own personal followers men who belonged to the state; but one would advise a son to
					care for his parents, not with the design of acquiring
					their goodwill for himself alone or turning it away
					
					 
					
					from others to himself. It is in this way that many
					play the demagogue against their brothers, having a
					specious but unjust pretext for this rapacity; for
					they deprive them of the greatest and fairest of inheritances, their parents’ goodwill, by servilely and
					unscrupulously cutting across their brothers’ path,
					opportunely making their attacks when the parents
					are occupied and unsuspecting, and, in particular,
					showing themselves dutiful and obedient and prudent
					in those matters in which they perceive their brothers
					to be in error, or seeming to be so. But the right
					way, on the contrary, when a son sees that his father
					is angry with his brother, is to take his share of it and
					bear the brunt of it together with his brother, by such
					assistance making the anger lighter, and then by
					rendering services and favours to help somehow or
					other to restore his brother to his father’s grace.
					If there is error of omission, he can allege in the
					brother’s favour the absence of opportunity, or that
					he was engaged on some other work, or his very
					nature, as being more useful and more intelligent
					in other directions. The saying of Agamemnon 
					also is admirable:
					 
 
 Not to slackness does he yield or foolishness,
						 
 But looks to me, 
 
					and to me he has committed this duty. And
 	fathers are very willing to accept even the substitution of other terms and to believe their sons when
					they call their brothers’ carelessness simplicity, 
					their stupidity straightforwardness, and their
					contentiousness inability to endure contempt ;
					
					 
					
					the result is that he who aets as mediator succeeds
					in lessening the anger against his brother, and at
					the same time he increases his father’s goodwill
					toward himself.

Only after the erring brother has been defended
					in this manner should the other turn to him and rebuke him somewhat sharply, pointing out with all
					frankness his errors of commission and of omission.
					For one should neither give free rein to brothers,
					nor, again, should one trample on them when they
					are at fault (for the latter is the act of one who
					gloats over the sinner, the former that of one who
					aids and abets him), but should apply his admonition as one who cares for his brother and grieves
					with him. Otherwise he who has been the most
					zealous advocate before his parents becomes before
					the brother himself the most vehement of accusers.
					But if a brother is guiltless when he is accused,
					though it is right to be subservient to parents in
					everything else and to endure all their wrath and
					displeasure, yet pleas and justifications offered to
					parents on behalf of a brother who is being undeservedly criticized or punished are honourable and
					not reprehensible; nor must one be afraid that the
					words of Sophocles will be addressed to him:
					 
 Most shameless son, who with his father dare
						 
 To litigate, 
 
					when one is speaking with all frankness on behalf of
					a brother who seems to be receiving unfair treatment.
					For to the parents themselves, when they are proved
					wrong, such a litigation makes defeat sweeter
					than victory.

After the father is dead, however, even more
					
					
					 
					
					than before it is right for the brother to cling fast
					to his brother’s goodwill, immediately sharing his
					affection for the dead in tears and grief, rejecting
					the insinuations of servants and the calumnies of
					comrades who range themselves on the other side,
					and believing all the tales about the brotherly love
					of the Dioscuri and in particular the one which relates that Polydeuces killed with a blow of his
					fist a man who whispered to him something against
					his brother. 
					And when they seek to divide their father’s goods,
					they should not first declare war on each other, as the
					majority do, and then, shouting
 	 Hearken, Alala, daughter of War, 
 
					go out to meet each other ready armed, but they
					must by all means be on their guard against that day
					of the division, knowing that for some brothers it is
					the beginning of implacable enmity and strife, but
					for others the beginning of friendship and concord.
					Let them preferably assemble alone by themselves;
					otherwise, let there be present some common friend
					as a witness equally friendly to both, and then by
						the lots of Justice, as Plato says, let them, as they
					give and take what is suitable to each and preferred
					by each, be of the opinion that it is the care and administration of the estate that is being distributed,
					but that its use and ownership is left unassigned and
					undistributed for them all in common. But those who
					have outbidden their brothers by their shrewd calculations
					
					 
					
					and then drag away from each other nurses
					and slave-boys, who have been brought up with
					their brothers and are their familiar companions,
					when they go away have got the better of their
					brothers by the value of a slave, but have lost the
					greatest and most valuable part of their inheritance,
					a brother’s friendship and confidence.
				 
 
					And some we know who, even with no thought of
					gain, but merely from the love of contention, deal
					with their father’s goods with no more decency than
					they would with spoils taken from an enemy. Of
					this number were Charicles and Antiochus the Opuntians, who would not part until they had split in two
					a silver cup and torn apart a cloak, as though
					driven on by some imprecation from a tragedy to
 	 Divide with whetted sword their heritage. 
 
					Some even relate to outsiders boastfully how by
					knavery and craftiness and jugglery of accounts they
					have got the better of their brothers in the apportionment, when they ought rather to rejoice and to pride
					themselves on having surpassed their brothers in fairness and generosity and compliance. It is worth our
					while to illustrate this point by citing the case of
					Athenodorus, and indeed all my countrymen still
					speak of him. For he had an elder brother named
					Xenon, who, as administrator of Athenodorus’s estate,
					squandered a large part of his substance; at last
					Xenon raped a woman, was condemned in court, and
					lost the entire estate, made confiscate to the imperial
					treasury. But Athenodorus, although he was then
					still a beardless lad, yet when his portion of the
					
					 
					
					money was restored to him, he did not neglect his
					brother, but put down all the money before them
					both and apportioned it; and even though he was
					being treated very unfairly in the division, he did not
					express indignation or change his mind, but calmly
					and cheerfully endured his brother’s folly, which had
					become notorious throughout Greece.

When Solon, speaking of principles of government, said that equality does not create sedition, he
					was thought to be playing up too much to the crowd
					by introducing an arithmetical proportion, a democratic principle, instead of the sound geometrical
					proportion. As for a man who gives advice to
					brothers in the matter of a family estate after the
					manner of Plato’s advice to the citizens of his state,
					to abolish, if possible, the notion of mine and
					 not mine, but if he cannot do this, to cherish
					equality and cling to it, and thus lays a fair and
					abiding foundation of concord and peace, let him
					also make use of eminent precedents, such as that
					reply of Pittacus to the king of Lydia who inquired
					if Pittacus had money: Twice as much, said he,
					 as I would wish, now that my brother is dead. 
					But since it is not only the getting of money and the
					losing of it that makes less grow hostile to more, 
 	 
					but in general, as Plato says, in inequality movement
					is produced and in equality rest and repose; thus all
					
					 
					
					manner of inequality is dangerous as likely to foster
					brothers’ quarrels, and though it is impossible for
					them to be equal and on the same footing in all respects (for on the one hand our natures at the very
					beginning make an unequal apportionment, and then
					later on our varying fortunes beget envies and
					jealousies, the most shameful diseases and baneful
					plagues, ruinous not only for private houses, but for
					whole states as well); against these inequalities we
					must be on our guard and must cure them, if they
					arise. One would therefore advise a brother, in the
					first place, to make his brothers partners in those
					respects in which he is considered to be superior,
					adorning them with a portion of his repute and adopting them into his friendships, and if he is a cleverer
					speaker than they, to make his eloquence available
					for their use as though it were no less theirs than his;
					in the next place, to make manifest to them neither
					haughtiness nor disdain, but rather, by deferring to
					them and conforming his character to theirs, to make
					his superiority secure from envy and to equalize, so
					far as this is attainable, the disparity of his fortune
					by his moderation of spirit. Lucullus, for instance,
					refused to hold office before his brother, older though
					he was, but forwent his own proper time for candidature and awaited his brother’s. And Polydeuces 
					refused to become even a god by himself, but chose
					rather to become a demigod with his brother and to
					share his mortal portion upon the condition of yielding
					to Castor part of his own immortality.
				 
 
					 But you, fortunate man, one might say, are so
						
						 
						
						situated that, without in the least diminishing your
						present blessings, you can make another an equal
						sharer in them and give him a portion of your
						adornment so that he may enjoy the radiance, as it
						were, of your reputation or excellence or prosperity. 
					Just so did Plato make his brothers famous by
					introducing them into the fairest of his writings,
					Glaucon and Adeimantus into the Republic , Antiphon the youngest into the Parmenides .

And
					further, just as there exist inequalities in the natures
					and the fortunes of brothers, so it is impossible that
					the one brother should excel at all points and in all
					ways. They say that the elements come into being
					from one substance, yet possess the most opposite
					faculties; but of two brothers sprung from one
					mother and father, no one ever saw the one, like
					the wise man of the Stoics, at once handsome,
					gracious, liberal, eminent, rich, eloquent, learned,
					philanthropic, and the other ugly, graceless, illiberal,
					dishonoured, needy, a poor speaker, unlearned, misanthropic. Yet somehow or other there inheres, in
					even the more disreputable and humble creatures,
					some portion of grace or faculty or natural aptitude
					for some good thing:
					 
 As among urchin’s foot and rough rest-harrow 
						 
						 There grow the blossoms of soft snow-drops. 
 
 
					Therefore he who appears to have the better in other
					respects, if he does not try to curtail or conceal these
					
					 
					
					points of vantage in his brother or thrust him, as
					though in athletic competitions, from the first places
					always, but yields in his turn and reveals that his
					brother is better and more useful in many respects,
					by thus continually removing all ground for envy, fuel
					for fire, as it were, will quench the envy, or rather
					will not allow it to spring up or begin at all. And
					he who continually makes his brother a helper and
					adviser in matters in which he himself is supposed to
					be superior, as in law-suits, being himself a barrister;
					in the conduct of office, himself a politician; in
					practical affairs, himself being fond of such-in brief,
					he that permits his brother to be left out of no task
					that is worthy of notice and would bring honour, but
					makes him a sharer in all honourable enterprises and
					employs him when present, waits for him when absent,
					and, in general, by showing that his brother is no less
					a man of affairs than himself, but merely more inclined to shrink from fame and power-he deprives
					himself of nothing, but adds a great deal to his
					brother.

Such is the advice, then, which one would give
					to the superior brother. The inferior brother, on the
					other hand, must reflect that his brother is not the
					only one who is richer or more learned or more famous
					than himself, but that he is frequently inferior to
					many others-ten thousand times ten thousand,
					 As many as enjoy the fruit of spacious earth ; 
					whether, then, he envies every man as he walks about,
					or whether, among the vast number of fortunate
					beings, the only one that distresses him is his nearest
					and dearest, he has left no room for any other man
					
					 
					
					to surpass him in wretchedness. Just as Metellus, 
					therefore, thought that Romans should be grateful to
					the gods because so great a man as Scipio was not
					born in any other city, so each one of us should pray
					that, if possible, he himself may succeed beyond all
					other men, yet if this cannot be, that his brother may
					have that superiority and influence so coveted by
					himself. But some are by nature so unfortunate in
					matters of right conduct that they exult in famous
					friends and are proud if they are on terms of hospitality
					with commanders and men of wealth, but consider
					that their brothers’ brilliance obscures their own;
					and that while they are elated by the narration of
					their fathers’ successes and their great-grandfathers’
					high commands, matters from which they received
					no benefit and in which they had no share, yet they
					are depressed and dejected when their brothers
					inherit fortunes, are elected to office, or contract
					marriages with famous families. And yet they
					should by all means envy no one; if this is impossible, they should turn their malignancy outwards and drain it off on those not of their blood,
					just as men do who divert sedition from the city by
					means of foreign wars:
					 
 Many Trojans have I and famous allies,
						 
						 And many Achaeans have you - 
 
					by nature suitable objects for envy and jealousy.

But a brother should not, like the pan of a
					balance, incline the opposite way and be himself
					lowered when his brother is raised on high; but just
					
					 
					
					as lesser numbers multiply greater and are multiplied
					by them, so should he give increase to his brother and
					at the same time be increased along with him by their
					common blessings. For it is not true of the fingers,
					either, that the one which writes and plays musical
					instruments is superior to the one which cannot, by
					either nature or attainment, do so, but in some
					manner or other they all contrive to move together
					and assist each other, having been made unequal, as
					though of set purpose, and all deriving their power
					to grasp from the position of the others opposite the
					thumb, the largest and strongest of them.
				 
 
 	In this spirit Craterus, the brother of King Antigonus, and Perlatis, the brother of Cassander, assigned themselves to the management of their
					brothers’ military and domestic affairs; but men like
					Antiochus and Seleucus, and again Grypus and
					Cyzicenus, who had not learned to play parts secondary to their brothers, but yearned for the purple and
					the crown, infected themselves and each other with
					many horrors, and infected all Asia also.
				 
 
					But since envy and jealousy of those who surpass
					them in repute and honour are implanted by nature
					chiefly in men of ambitious character, to guard
					against these vices it is highly expedient that brothers
					should not seek to acquire honours or power in the
					same field, but in quite different fields. Wild beasts,
					to be sure, which depend for their food upon the
					same things, war against each other, and athletes
					who direct their efforts toward one and the same
					contest are rivals; whereas boxers are friendly to
					pancratiasts and long-distance runners are well disposed toward wrestlers, and they mutually assist and
					
					 
					
					cheer for each other. This, in fact, is the reason why,
					of the two sons of Tyndareüs, Polydeuces won his
					victories in boxing and Castor in running. And
					Homer did well to represent Teucer as renowned in
					archery, while his brother was foremost among the
					heavy-armed:
 	 And he covered Teucer with gleaming shield. 
 
					So, of those engaged in the service of the state,
					generals do not at all envy popular leaders; nor,
					among those occupied with the art of speaking, do
					barristers envy teachers of rhetoric; nor, among
					physicians, do dieticians envy surgeons; but they
					even call each other into consultation and commend
					one another. For brothers to seek eminence and
					repute from the same art or faculty is precisely the
					same as for both to fall in love with one woman
					and each seek to outstrip the other in her esteem.
					Those, indeed, who travel different roads afford each
					other no help, but those who follow different
					modes of life both strive to avoid envy and are of
					greater service to each other, as were Demosthenes
					and Chares, and again Aeschines and Eubulus,
					Hypereides and Leosthenes, of whom the former in
					each pair harangued the people and drew up laws,
					the latter commanded armies and translated words
					into action. Therefore those who cannot, by their
					very nature, share without envy their brothers’ reputation and influence, should divert as far as possible
					from those of their brothers their own desires and
					
					 
					
					ambitions, so that by their successes they may give
					pleasure to each other instead of pain.

But, over and above these considerations, we
					should be on our guard against the pernicious talk of
					relatives, of members of our household, and sometimes even of a wife who joins the rest in challenging
					our ambition by saying: Your brother carries all
						before him and is admired and courted, but you are
						not visited by anybody and enjoy no distinction at
						all. 
 Not so, a sensible man would reply. I have
							a brother who is highly esteemed, and most of his
							influence is mine to share. Socrates, for instance,
					remarked that he would rather have Darius than
					a daric as a friend, and for a brother who has good
					sense it is no less an advantage than the possession of
					wealth, high office, or eloquence, to have a brother
					who has attained to fame by virtue of office or
					wealth or eloquence.
				 
 
					But although these means are the best for smoothing away such inequalities, yet there are the other
					differences which naturally arise among brothers who
					lack the proper training, differences due to disparity
					in their ages. For, generally speaking, elder brothers,
					when they claim the right always to dominate and
					to have precedence over the younger and to have the
					advantage in every matter where reputation and influence are involved, are oppressive and disagreeable;
					and younger brothers, in turn, being restive under the
					curb and becoming fractious, make it their practice
					to despise and belittle the elder. The result is that
					while the younger, feeling that they are being treated
					despitefully and are discriminated against, resent and
					try to avoid their elders’ admonitions, the elder, ever
					clinging fast to their superiority, fear their brothers’
					
					
					 
					
					augmentation as though it meant elimination for
					themselves. Just as, then, we think it right that
					those who receive a favour should look upon it as of
					greater, and those who bestow it as of lesser value,
					so, in regard to a difference in ages, if we advise the
					elder to regard it as no great matter and the younger
					to think it no slight thing, we should rid the one
					of arrogance and neglect, and the other of disdain
					and contempt. And since it is fitting that the older
					should be solicitous about the younger and should
					lead and admonish him, and that the younger should
					honour and emulate and follow the older, let the
					solicitude of the former be rather that of a comrade than of a father, and of one who would persuade rather than command, and would rejoice in
					a brother’s successes and applaud them rather than
					criticize him if he errs and restrain him-a spirit
					showing not only a greater desire to help, but also
					more kindness of heart. And in the emulation of
					the younger let imitation, not rivalry, be present;
					for imitation is the act of one who admires, but
					rivalry of one who envies. It is for this reason that
					men love those who wish to become like themselves,
					but repress and crush those who wish to become their
					equals. And among the many honours which it is
					fitting that the young render to their elders, obedience
					is most highly esteemed, and, together with respectfulness, brings about a staunch goodwill and favour
					which will in turn lead to concessions. Thus it was
					with Cato : he so won over his elder brother Caepio by
					obedience and gentleness and silence from his earliest
					childhood that finally, by the time they both were
					men, he had so subdued him and filled him with so
					great a respect for himself that Caepio would neither
					
					
					 
					
					do nor say anything without Cato’s knowledge. For
					example, it is said that on one occasion, when Caepio
					had affixed his seal to a deposition and Cato carne up
					later and was unwilling to add his own seal, Caepio
					demanded that the document be returned and removed his seal before asking the reason why his
					brother had suspected the deposition instead of
					believing it to be true. In the case of Epicurus also
					his brothers’ respect for him was clearly great because
					of the goodwill and solicitude he had for them,
					inspired as they were with admiration both for his
					other attainments and especially for his philosophy.
					For even if they were mistaken in their opinion, yet
					since they were convinced and constantly declared
					from their earliest childhood that there was no one
					wiser than Epicurus, we may well admire both the
					man who inspired this devotion and also those who
					felt it. However, of the more recent philosophers,
					Apollonius the Peripatetic, by making Sotion, his
					younger brother, more famous than himself, refuted
					the man who asserted that fame could not be
					shared with another. And for myself, though I have
					received from Fortune many favours which call for
					gratitude, that my brother Timon’s affection for me
					has always transcended and still transcends all the
					rest, no one is unaware who has ever had any dealings
					whatever with me, and least of all you, my familiar
					friends.

Furthermore, there are other disturbances
					which brothers of nearly the same age must guard
					against; they are but small, to be sure, yet continuous and frequent, and create a vicious practice of
					offending and exasperating one another on all occasions,
					
					 
					
					which at last ends in incurable hatred and
					malevolence. For having once begun to differ in
					childish matters, about the care of animals and their
					fights, as, for instance, those of quails or cocks, they
					then continue to differ about the contests of boys in
					the palaestra, of dogs on the hunt, and of horses at
					the races, until they are no longer able to control or
					subdue their contentious and ambitious spirit in more
					important matters. So the most powerful of the
					Greeks in my time, disagreeing first about rival
					dancers, then about harp-players, and afterwards by
					continually holding up to invidious comparison the
					swimming-baths and porticoes and banquet-halls at
					Aedepsus, and then manoeuvring for places and positions, and going on to cut off aqueducts and divert
					their waters, they became so savage and reckless that
					they were deprived of everything by the despot, 
					and, becoming exiles and paupers and-I had almost
					said-something other than their former selves, they
					remained the same only in their hatred for one
					another. It is therefore of no slight importance to
					resist the spirit of contentiousness and jealousy
					among brothers when it first creeps in over trivial
					matters, practising the art of making mutual concessions, of learning to take defeat, and of taking
					pleasure in indulging brothers rather than in winning
					victories over them. For the men of old gave the
					name of Cadmean victory to no other than that
					of the brothers at Thebes, as being the most
					shameful and the worst of victories.
				 
 
					What then? Do not practical affairs bring many
					
					 
					
					occasions for controversy and dissension even to those
					who have the reputation of being of an equitable and
					gentle disposition? Yes, certainly. But there also
					we must see to it that the affairs fight the battle
					quite by themselves, without our inserting into
					the contest, like a hook, as it were, any emotion
					arising from contentiousness or anger; but, keeping
					our eyes fixed impartially upon the swaying of
					Justice, as though we were watching a pair of
					balances, we should with all speed turn over the
					matter in dispute to the decision of a jury or of
					arbitrators, and cleanse its filth away before, like a
					dye or stain, it sinks into the fabric and its colours
					become fast and hard to wash out. We should
					next pattern ourselves after the Pythagoreans, who,
					though related not at all by birth, yet sharing a
					common discipline, if ever they were led by anger
					into recrimination, never let the sun go down 
					before they joined right hands, embraced each
					other, and were reconciled. For just as it is nothing
					alarming if a fever attends a swelling in the groin,
					but if the fever persists when the swelling is gone,
					it is thought to be a malady and to have a deeper
					origin: so when the dissension of brothers ceases
					after the matter in dispute is settled, the dissension
					was caused by the matter; but if it remains, the
					matter was but a pretext and contained some
					malignant and festering reason.

It is worth our while to inquire into a dispute of
					brothers who were not Greeks, which arose, not about
					a little patch of land, nor over slaves or flocks, but
					about the empire of Persia. For when Darius died,
					some thought it right that Ariamenes should be king,
					being the eldest of his children; but others chose
					
					
					 
					
					Xerxes, as being the child of Atossa, the daughter
					of Cyrus, and born to Darius after he had come to the
					throne. Now Ariamenes carne down from the country
					of the Medes in no hostile manner, but quietly, as
					though to a court of justice; and Xerxes was present
					and performing the functions of a king. But when
					his brother came, putting aside the diadem and pressing down the crest of his tiara, which reigning kings
					wear erect, he went to meet Ariamenes and embraced him, and, sending gifts, he bade the bearers
					say, With these your brother Xerxes honours you
						now; but if he shall be proclaimed king by judgement
						and vote of the Persians, he grants to you the right of
						being second after himself. And Ariamenes said,
					 I accept the gifts, yet I believe the kingdom of the
						Persians to be mine by right. But I shall guard for
						my brothers their honour after my own, and for
						Xerxes as the first of my brothers. And when the
					day of judgement came, the Persians appointed as
					judge Artabanus, the brother of Darius; but Xerxes
					sought to evade their decision that the judgement
					should be made by Artabanus, since he put his faith in
					the people. But Atossa, his mother, chided him:
					 Why, my son, do you try to evade Artabanus, who is
						your uncle and the best of the Persians? Why do you
						so fear this contest in which even the second place is
						honourable-to be adjudged brother to the king of
						Persia? Xerxes was therefore persuaded and
					when the pleas were made, Artabanus declared that
					the kingdom belonged by right to Xerxes; and
					Ariamenes at once leapt up and did obeisance to his
					
					 
					
					brother and taking him by the hand set him upon the
					kingly throne. From that time forth Ariamenes was
					highest in honour with Xerxes and showed himself of
					such loyalty toward the king that he fell in the seafight at Salamis performing deeds of valour for his
					brother’s glory. Let this, then, be set forth as a
					pure and blameless model of goodwill and highmindedness.
				 
 
					But Antiochus might be condemned because of
					his lust for dominion, yet admired because his love
					for his brother was not altogether extinguished
					thereby For he went to war against Seleucus for
					the kingdom, though he was the younger brother and
					had the aid of his mother. But when the war was at
					its height, Seleucus joined battle with the Galatians
					and was defeated; he disappeared and was thought
					to be dead, since practically all his army had been
					cut to pieces by the barbarians. So when Antiochus
					learned this, he laid aside his purple and put on a
					dark robe, and, shutting the gates of the palace, went
					into mourning for his brother. But a little later,
					when he heard that his brother was safe and was again
					collecting another army, he came forth and sacrificed
					to the gods, and made proclamation to the cities over
					which he ruled that they should sacrifice and wear
					garlands of rejoicing.
				 
 
					The Athenians, though they absurdly invented
					the tale of the strife of the gods, yet inserted in it
					no slight correction of its absurdity, for they always
					omit the second day of Boedromion, thinking that
					on that day occurred Poseidon’s quarrel with Athena.
					
					 
					
					What, then, prevents us also from treating the day
					on which we have quarrelled with any of our family
					or relatives as one to be consigned to oblivion, and
					counting it one of the unlucky days, instead of forgetting because of one day the many good days in
					which we grew up and lived together? For either it
					is in vain and to no avail that Nature has given us
					gentleness and forbearance, the child of restraint, or
					we should make the utmost use of these virtues in our
					relations with our family and relatives. And our
					asking and receiving forgiveness for our own errors
					reveals goodwill and affection quite as much as granting it to others when they err. For this reason we
					should neither overlook the anger of others, nor be
					stubborn with them when they ask forgiveness, but,
					on the contrary, should try to forestall their anger,
					when we ourselves are time and again at fault, by
					begging forgiveness, and again, when we have been
					wronged, in our turn should forestall their request for
					forgiveness by granting it before being asked.
				 
 
					Eucleides, the Socratic, is famous in the schools
					because, when he heard an inconsiderate and brutal
					speech from his brother who said, May I be damned
						if I don’t get even with you, he replied, And so will
							I, if I don’t persuade you to stop your anger and love
							me as you used to do. 
				 
 
 	But in the case of King Eumenes it was not a
					mere word, but a deed, which revealed a gentleness
					that no one could surpass. For Perseus, the king of
					Macedonia, who was his enemy, procured men to kill
					him. These men set an ambush near Delphi, observing that he was coming on foot from the sea to the
					
					 
					
					temple of the god. They carne behind him and
					hurled great stones down upon his head and neck;
					these made him dizzy and he fell down and was
					thought to be dead. A report of his death spread
					far and wide, and some of his friends and servants
					Carne back to Pergamum, and were thought to bring
					their report as actual eye-witnesses of the calamity.
					Attalus, therefore, the eldest of the king’s brothers,
					an honourable man and more loyal to Eumenes than
					any of the others, not only took the crown and was
					proclaimed king, but also married his brother’s wife,
					Strato nice, and had intercourse with her. But when
					the news carne that Eumenes was alive, and he himself was approaching, Attalus laid aside the crown,
					took his spears, as had been his custom before, and
					went with the other guardsmen to meet the king.
					And Eumenes not only cordially clasped his hand, but
					also embraced the queen, showing her honour and
					friendliness; and living a considerable time after his
					return, without giving a hint of blame or suspicion, he
					died, leaving to Attalus both his kingdom and his
					wife. And what did Attalus? When Eumenes was
					dead, he was unwilling to acknowledge as his own 
					any of the children his wife had borne him, though
					they were many, but brought up and educated his
					brother’s son and in his own life-time placed the
					crown upon his head and saluted him as king.
				 
 
					But Cambyses, frightened by a dream into the
					
					 
					
					belief that his brother would be king of Asia, killed
					him without waiting for any evidence or proof. For
					this reason, when Cambyses died, the throne passed
					from the line of Cyrus and the kingship was gained
					by the family of Darius, a man who knew how to give,
					not only to brothers, but also to friends, participation
					in affairs of state and in power.

Then this further matter must be borne in
					mind and guarded against when differences arise
					among brothers: we must be careful especially at
					such times to associate familiarly with our brothers’
					friends, but avoid and shun all intimacy with their
					enemies, imitating in this point, at least., the practice
					of Cretans, who, though they often quarrelled with
					and warred against each other, made up their differences and united when outside enemies attacked;
					and this it was which they called syncretism. 
 For
					some there are, fluid as water, who, seeping through
					those who relax their hold and disagree, overturn affinities and friendships, hating indeed both
					sides, but attacking the one which yields more readily
					because of its weakness. For while it is true that
					when a man is in love his young and guileless friends
					share his love, it is also true that the most ill-disposed of enemies make a show of sharing the indignation and wrath of one who is angered and at variance
					with his brother. As, then, Aesop’s hen said to the
					cat who inquired, with pretended solicitude, of the
					sick bird How are you? 
 Very well, if you keep
						away ; so one would say to the sort of person who
					brings up the subject of the quarrel and makes inquiries and tries to dig up some secrets, But I shall
						
						 
						
						have no trouble with my brother if neither I nor
						he pay attention to slanderers. But as it is - I do
					not know the reason - although when we suffer from
					sore eyes, we think it proper to turn our gaze to
					colours and objects which do not beat against or
					offend the sight, yet when we are in the midst of
					fault-finding and bursts of anger and suspicion toward
					our brothers, we enjoy the company of those who
					cause the disturbance and we take on from them a
					false colouring, when it would be wise to run away
					from our enemies and ill-wishers and avoid their
					notice, and to associate and spend our days almost
					entirely with relatives and intimates and friends of
					our brothers, visiting their wives also and frankly
					telling them our reasons for complaint. And yet
					there is a saying that brothers walking together
					should not let a stone come between them, and some
					people are troubled if a dog runs between brothers,
					and are afraid of many such signs, not one of which
					ever ruptured the concord of brothers; yet they do
					not perceive what they are doing when they allow
					snarling and slanderous men to come between them
					and cause them to stumble.

And so the saying of Theophrastus, - its
					relevance is suggested by our very subject - is excellent: If the possessions of friends are common, 
						then by all means the friends of friends should be
						common ; and one should urge this advice upon
					brothers with special emphasis. For associations
					and intimacies which are maintained separately and
					apart lead brothers away from each other and turn
					them toward others, since an immediate consequence
					of affection for others is to take pleasure in others, to
					emulate others, and to follow the lead of others.
					
					 
					
					For friendships shape character and there is no
					more important indication of a difference in
					character than the selection of different friends.
					For this reason neither eating and drinking together nor playing and spending the day together
					can so firmly cement concord between brothers
					as the sharing of friendships and enmities, taking
					pleasure in the company of the same persons, and
					loathing and avoiding the same. For friendships
					held in common do not tolerate either slanders or
					conflicts, but if any occasion for wrath or blame arises,
					it is dissipated by the mediation of friends, who
					take it upon themselves and disperse it, if they are
					but intimate with both parties and incline in their
					goodwill to both alike. For as tin joins together
					broken bronze and solders it by being applied to both
					ends, since it is of a material sympathetic to both, so
					should the friend, well-suited as he is to both and
					being theirs in common, join still closer their mutual
					goodwill; but those who are uneven and will not
					blend, like false notes of a scale in music, create discord, not harmony. One may, then, be in doubt
					as to whether Hesiod was right or not in saying,
					Nor should one make a friend a brother’s peer.
					For that man who is a considerate and a common
					friend to both brothers, as we have described him,
					compounded as he is of the natures of both, will the
					more readily be a bond of brotherly love between
					them. But Hesiod, it is likely, was afraid of the
					common run of friends who are evil because of their
					jealous and selfish natures.
				 
 
					But even if we feel an equal affection for a friend,
					
					 
					
					we should always be careful to reserve for a brother
					the first place in public offices and administration, and
					in invitations and introductions to distinguished men,
					and, in general, whenever we deal with occasions
					which in the eyes of the public give distinction and
					tend to confer honour, rendering thus to Nature the
					appropriate dignity and prerogative. For undue
					precedence in such matters is not so grand a thing
					for the friend, as the slight is shameful and degrading for a brother.
				 
 
					But concerning this subject my opinions have been
					expressed more fully elsewhere.
 	 However, that
 	verse of Menander, which is quite true,
					 No one that loves will gladly bear neglect, 
					reminds and teaches us to be considerate of our
					brothers and not, through trust in Nature’s influence,
					to slight them. It is true that a horse is by nature
					fond of man and a dog fond of his master, but if they do
					not meet with the proper tending or care, they grow
					estranged and alienated; and though the body is
					very closely related to the soul, yet if it is neglected
					and overlooked by the soul, it becomes unwilling to
					co-operate and even harms and abandons the soul’s
					activities.

But while care for brothers themselves is an
					excellent thing, yet even more excellent is it to show
					oneself always well-disposed and obliging in all matters to brothers’ fathers-in-law and brothers-in-law, to
					salute and treat kindly such of their servants as are
					loyal to their masters, and to be grateful to physicians
					who have restored brothers to health and to such
					
					 
					
					faithful friends as have rendered zealous and efficient
					service to them in sharing the hardships of some
					journey abroad or military expedition. But a
					brother’s wife should be esteemed and reverenced as
					the most holy of all sacred things ; if her husband
					honours her, we should applaud him; if he neglects
					her, we should sympathize with her annoyance; when
					she grows angry, soothe her; if she commits some
					trifling fault, take part in urging her husband to a
					reconciliation; and if some private difference arise
					between yourself and your brother, bring your complaints to her and so do away with the reasons for
					complaint. But above all we should be troubled at a
					brother’s unmarried and childless state, and by exhortation and raillery take part in pressing him on
					every side into marriage and in getting him well
					fastened in the bonds of lawful matrimony. And
					when he gets children, we should make even more
					manifest our affection for him and the honour we pay
					to his wife; and to their children let us be as welldisposed as toward our own, but even more gentle
					and tender, so that when they err, as children will,
					they may not run away or, through fear of father
					or mother, enter into association with knaves or sluggards, but may have recourse and refuge which at once
					admonishes in a kindly way and intercedes for their
					offence. It was in this way that Plato reclaimed his
					nephew Speusippus from great self-indulgence and
					debauchery, not by either saying or doing to him
					anything that would cause him pain, but when the
					young man was avoiding his parents, who were always
					showing him to be in the wrong and upbraiding him,
					
					 
					
					Plato showed himself friendly and free from anger to
					Speusippus and so brought about in him great respect
					and admiration for Plato himself and for philosophy.
					Yet many of Plato’s friends used to rebuke him for
					not admonishing the youth, but Plato would say that
					he was indeed admonishing him: by his own, the
					philosopher’s, manner of life, showing him a way to
					distinguish the difference between what is shameful
					and what is honourable.
				 
 
					So Aleuas the Thessalian, who was an arrogant and
					insolent youth, was kept down and treated harshly
					by his father; but his uncle received him and attached
					him to himself, and when the Thessalians sent to the
					god at Delphi lots to determine who should be king,
					the uncle, without the father’s knowledge, slipped in
					a lot for Aleuas. When the Pythian priestess drew
					the lot of Aleuas, his father denied that he had put
					in one for him, and to everyone it appeared that
					there had been some error in the recording of names.
					So they sent again and questioned the god a second
					time; and the prophetic priestess, as though to
					confirm fully her former declaration, answered:
					 
 It is the red-haired man I mean,
						 
 The child whom Archedice bore. 
 
					And in this manner Aleuas was proclaimed king by
					the god through the help of his father’s brother, and
					himself surpassed by far his predecessors and advanced
					his race to great fame and power.
				 
 
					And indeed it is an uncle’s duty to rejoice and take
					pride in the fair deeds and honours and offices of a
					brother’s sons and to help to give them an incentive
					
					 
					
					to honourable achievement, and, when they succeed,
					to praise them without stint; for it is, perhaps, offensive
					to praise one’s own son, yet to praise a brother’s is a
					noble thing, not inspired by selfishness, but honourable and truly divine; for it seems to me that the
					very name admirably points the way to goodwill
					and affection for nephews. And one must also strive
					to emulate the deeds of those beings who are superior
					to man. So Heracles, though he begat sixty-eight
					sons, loved his nephew no less than any of them, and
					even to this day in many places Iolaüs has an altar
					in common with Heracles and men pray to them
					together, calling Iolaüs Heracles’ assistant. And
					when his brother Iphicles fell at the battle in Lacedaemon, Heracles was filled with great grief and
 	retired from the entire Peloponnesus. And Leucothea, also, when her sister died, brought up her
					child and helped to have him consecrated together
					with herself as a god; whence it is that the women
					of Rome in the festival of Leucothea, whom they call
					Matuta, take in their arms and honour, not their own,
					but their sisters’ children.