THE ancient statues of Castor and Pollux are called
				by the Spartans Docana; and they are two pieces of wood
				one over against the other joined with two other cross
				ends, and the community and undividedness of this consecrated representation seems to resemble the fraternal
				love of these two Gods. In like manner do I devote this
				discourse of Brotherly Love to you, Nigrinus and Quintus,
				as a gift in common betwixt you both, who well deserve
				it. For as to the things it advises to, you will, while you
				already practise them, seem rather to give your testimonies
				to them than to be exhorted by them. And the satisfaction you have from well-doing will give the more firm durance to your judgment, when you shall find yourselves approved by wise and judicious spectators. Aristarchus the
				father of Theodectes said indeed once, by way of flout
				of the Sophists, that formerly there were scarce seven
				Sophists to be found, but that in his time there could
				hardly be found so many who were not Sophists. But I
				see brotherly love is as scarce in our days as brotherly
				hatred was in ancient times, the instances of which have
				been publicly exposed in tragedies and public shows for
				their strangeness. But all in our times, when they have
				fortuned to have good brothers, do no less admire them
				than the famed Molionidae, that are supposed to have been
				born with their bodies joined with each other. And to
				enjoy in common their fathers’ wealth, friends, and slaves
				
				 
				
				is looked upon as incredible and prodigious, as if one soul
				should make use of the hands, feet, and eyes of two
				bodies.

And Nature hath given us very near examples of the
				use of brothers, by contriving most of the necessary parts
				of our bodies double, as it were, brothers and twins,—as hands, feet, eyes, ears, nostrils,—thereby telling us
				that all these were thus distinguished for mutual benefit
				and assistance, and not for variance and discord. And
				when she parted the very hands into many and unequal
				fingers, she made them thereby the most curious and artificial of all our members; insomuch that the ancient philosopher Anaxagoras assigned the hands for the reason of
				all human knowledge and discretion. But the contrary to
				this seems the truth. For it is not man’s having hands
				that makes him the wisest animal, but his being naturally
				reasonable and capable of art was the reason why such
				organs were conferred upon him. And this also is most
				manifest to every one, that the reason why Nature out of
				one seed and source formed two, three, and more breth
				ren was not for difference and opposition, but that their
				being apart might render them the more capable of assisting one another. For those that were treble-bodied and
				hundred-handed, if any such there were, while they had
				all their members joined to each other, could do nothing
				without them or apart, as brothers can who can live together and travel, undertake public employments and practise husbandry, by one another’s help, if they preserve
				but that principle of benevolence and concord that Nature
				hath bestowed upon them. But if they do not, they will
				not at all differ in my opinion from feet that trip up one
				another, and fingers that are unnaturally writhen and distorted by one another. Yea, rather, as things moist and
				dry, cold and hot, partake of one nature in the same body,
				and by their consent and agreement engender the best
				
				 
				
				and most pleasant temperament and harmony,—without
				which (they say) there is neither satisfaction nor benefit in
				either riches or kingship itself, which renders man equal to
				Gods,—but if excess and discord befall them, they miserably ruinate and confound the animal; so, where there is an
				unanimous accordance amongst brothers, the family thrives
				and flourishes, and friends and acquaintance, like a well
				furnished choir, in all their actions, words, and thoughts
				maintain a delightful harmony.
				
				 But jarring feuds advance the worst of men, 
 
 such as a vile ill-tongued slave at home, an insinuating
					parasite abroad, or some other envious person. For as
					diseases in bodies nauseating their ordinary diet incline
					the appetite to every improper and noxious thing; so
					calumny freely entertained against relations, and through
					prejudging credulity enhanced into suspicion, occasions an
					adopting the pernicious acquaintance of such as are ready
					enough to crowd into the room of their betters.

The Arcadian prophet in Herodotus was forced to
				supply the loss of one of his feet with an artificial one
				made of wood. But he who in a difference throws off his
				brother, and out of places of common resort takes a stranger for his comrade, seems to do no less than wilfully to
				mangle off a part of himself, attempting to repair the barbarous breach by the unnatural application of an extraneous
				member. For the ordinary inclinations and desires of men,
				being after some sort of society or other, sufficiently admonish them to set the highest value upon relations, to pay
				them all becoming respects, and to have a tender regard
				for their persons, nothing being more irksome to nature
				than to live in that destitution and solitude that denies
				them the happiness of a friend and the privilege of communication. Well therefore was that of Menander:
				
				 
 
 ’Tis not o’ th’ store of sprightly wine,
				 
 Nor plenty of delicious meats, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Though generous Nature should design
				 
 T’ oblige us with perpetual treats;
				 
 ’Tis not on these we for content depend,
				 
 So much as on the shadow of a friend. 
 
 
 
 For a great deal of friendship in the world is really no
					better and no more than the mere imitation and resemblance of that first affection that Nature wrought in parents towards their children, and in their children towards
					one another. And whoever has not a particular esteem
					and regard for this kind of friendship, I know no reason
					ally one has to credit his kindest pretensions. For what
					shall we make of that man who in his complaisance, either
					in company or in his letters, salutes his friend by the name
					of brother, and yet scorns the company of that very brother
					whose name was so serviceable to him in his compliment?
					For, as it is the part of a madman to adorn and set out
					the effigies of his brother, and in the mean time to abuse,
					beat, and maim his person; so, to value and honor the
					name in others but to hate and shun the brother himself is
					likewise an action of one that is not so well in his wits as he
					should be, and that never yet considered that Nature is a
					most sacred thing.

I remember, when I was at Rome, I undertook an
				umpirage between two brothers. The one pretended to the
				study of philosophy, but (as it appeared by the event) with
				as little reason as to the relation of a brother. For, when
				I advised him that now was the time for him to show his
				philosophy, in the prudent managery and government of
				himself, whilst he was to treat with so dear a relation as a
				brother, and such a one especially as wanted those advantages of knowledge and education that he had; Your
				counsel, replied my philosopher, may do well with some
				illiterate novice or other; but, for my part, I see no such
				great matter in that which you so gravely allege, our being
				the issue of the same parents. True, I answered, you declare evidently enough that you make no account of your
				
				 
				
				affinity. But, by your favor, Mr. Philosopher, all of your
				profession that I ever was acquainted with, whatever their
				private opinions were, affirm both in their prose and poetry
				that, next to the Gods and the laws, her conservators and
				guardians, Nature had assigned to parents the highest
				honor and veneration. And there is nothing that men can
				perform more grateful to the Gods, than freely and constantly to pay their utmost acknowledgments and thanks
				to their parents, and those from whom they received their
				nurture and education; as, on the other hand, there is no
				greater argument of a profane and impious spirit than a
				contemptuous and surly behavior towards them. We are
				therefore enjoined to take heed of doing any one wrong.
				But he that demeans not himself with that exactness before
				his parents that all his actions may afford them a pleasure
				and satisfaction, though he give them no other distaste,
				is sure to undergo a very hard censure. Now what can
				more effectually express the gratitude of children to their
				parents, or what actions or dispositions in their children
				can be more delightful and rejoicing, than firm love and
				amity amongst them?

And this may be understood by lesser instances. For,
				if parents will be displeased when an old servant that has
				been favored by them shall be reproached and flouted at
				by the children, or if the plants and the fields wherein
				they took pleasure be neglected, if the forgetting a dog or
				a beloved horse fret their humorsome age (that is very apt
				to be jealous of the love and obedience of their children),
				if, lastly, when they disaffect and despise those recreations
				that are pleasing to the eye and ear, or those juvenile exercises and games which they themselves formerly delighted
				in,—if at any of all these things the parents will be angry
				and offended,—how will they endure such discord as inflames their children with mutual malice and hatred, fills
				their mouths with opprobrious and execrating language,
				
				 
				
				and works them into such an inveteracy that the contrary
				and spiteful method of their actions declares a drift and
				design of ruining one another? If, I say, those smaller
				matters provoke their anger, how will all the rest be resented? Who can resolve me? But, on the other hand,
				where the love of brothers is such that they make up that
				distance Nature has placed them at (in respect of their
				different bodies) by united affections, insomuch that their
				studies and recreations, their earnest and their jest, keep
				true time and agree exactly together, such a pleasing consort amongst their children proves a nursing melody to the
				decayed parents to preserve, and maintain their quiet and
				peace in their old (though tender) age. For never was
				any father so intent upon oratory, ambitious of honor, or
				craving after riches, as fond of his children. Wherefore
				neither is it so great a satisfaction to hear them speak well,
				find them grow wealthy, or see them honored with the
				power of magistracy, as to be endeared to each other in
				mutual affection. Wherefore it is reported of Apollonis
				of Cyzicum, mother of King Eumenes and three other sons,
				Attalus, Philetaerus, and Athenaeus, that she always accounted herself happy and gave the Gods thanks, not so
				much for wealth or empire, as because she saw her three
				sons guarding the eldest, and him reigning securely among
				his armed brothers. And on the contrary, Artaxerxes, understanding that his son Ochus had laid a plot against his
				brothers, died with sorrow at the surprise. For the quarrels of brothers are pernicious, saith Euripides, but most of
				all to the parents themselves. For he that hates and
				plagues his brother can hardly forbear blaming the father
				who begot and the mother who bare him.

Wherefore Pisistratus, being about to marry again,
				his sons being grown up to a mature age, gave them their
				deserved character of praise, together with the reason of
				his designs for a second marriage,—that he might be the
				
				 
				
				happy father of more such children. Now those who are
				truly ingenious do not only love one another the more entirely for the sake of their common parents, but they love
				their very parents for the sake of one another; always
				owning themselves bound to their parents especially for the
				mutual happiness that they enjoy in each other, and looking upon their brethren as the dearest and the most valuable treasure they could have received from their parents.
				And thus Homer elegantly expresses Telemachus bewailing the want of a brother:
				
				 
 
 Stern Jove has in some angry mood
				 
 Condemned our race to solitude. 
 
 
 
 
 But I like not Hesiod’s judgment so well, who is all for a
					single son’s inheriting. Not so well (I say) from Hesiod, a
					pupil of the Muses, who being endeared sisters kept always
					together, and therefore from that inseparate union ( ὁμοῦ οὐσαι ) were called Muses. To parents therefore the love of
					brothers is a plain argument of their children’s love to
					themselves. And to the children of the brothers themselves it is the best of precedents, and that which affords
					the most effectual advice that can be thought of; as again,
					they will be forward enough in following the worst of their
					parents’ humors and inheriting their animosities. But for
					one who has led his relations a contentious life, and quarrelled himself up into wrinkles and gray hairs,—for such
					a one to begin a lecture of love to his children is just like
					him
					
					 
 
 Who boldly takes the fees,
					 
 To cure in others what’s his own disease. 
 
 
 
 
 In a word, his own actions weaken and confute all the
					arguments of his best counsel. Take Eteocles of Thebes
					reflecting upon his brother and flying out after this manner:
					
					 
 
 I’d mount the Heavens, I’d strive to meet the sun
					 
 In’s setting forth, I’d travel within him down 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Beneath the earth, I’d balk no enterprise,
				 
 To gain Jove’s mighty power and tyrannize. 
 	 
 
 
 
 Suppose, I say, out of this rage, he had presently fallen
					into the softer strain of good advice to his children, charging them thus:
					
					 
 
 Prize gentle amity that vies
					 
 With none for grandeur; concord prize
					 
 That joins together friends and states,
					 
 And keeps them long confederates.
					 
 Equality!—whatever else deceives
					 
 Our trust, ’tis this our very selves outlives; 
 
 
 
 who is there that would not have despised him? Or what
					would you have thought of Atreus, after he had treated his
					brother at a barbarous supper, to hear him afterwards thus
					instructing his children:
					
					 
 
 Such love as doth become related friends
					 
 Alone, when ills betide, its succor lends?

It is therefore very needful to throw off those ill dispositions, as being very grievous and troublesome to their
				parents, and more destructive to children in respect of the
				ill example. Besides, it occasions many strange censures
				and much obloquy amongst men. For they will not be apt
				to imagine that so near and intimate relations as brothers,
				that have eaten of the same bread and all along participated
				of the same common maintenance, and who have conversed
				so familiarly together, should break out into contention,
				except they were conscious to themselves of a great deal
				of naughtiness. For it must be some great matter that
				violates the bonds of natural affection; whence it is that
				such breaches are so hardly healed up again. For, as
				those things which are joined together by art, being parted,
				may by the same art be compacted again, but if there be a
				fracture in a natural body, there is much difficulty in setting and uniting the broken parts; so, if friendships that
				through a long tract of time have been firmly and closely
				
				 
				
				contracted come once to be violated, no endeavors will
				bring then together any more. And brothers, when they
				have once broke natural affection, are hardly made true
				friends again; or, if there be some kind of peace made
				betwixt then, it is like to prove but superficial only, and
				such as carries a filthy festering scar along with it. Now
				all enmity between man and man which is attended with
				these perturbations of quarrelsomeness, passion, envy,
				recording of an injury, must needs be troublesome and
				vexatious; but that which is harbored against a brother,
				with whom they communicate in sacrifices and other religious rites of their parents, with whom they have the same
				common charnel-house and the same or a near habitation,
				is much more to be lamented,—especially if we reflect
				upon the horrid madness of some brothers, in being so
				prejudiced against their own flesh and blood, that his face
				and person once so welcome and familiar, his voice all
				along from his childhood as well beloved as known, should
				on a sudden become so very detestable. How loudly does
				this reproach their ill-nature and savage dispositions, that,
				whilst they behold other brethren lovingly conversing in
				the same house and dieting together at the same table,
				managing the same estate and attended by the same servants, they alone divide friends, choose contrary acquaintance, resolving to abandon every thing that their brother
				may approve of? Now it is obvious to any to understand,
				that new friends and companions may be compassed and
				new kindred may come in when the old, like decayed
				weapons and worn-out utensils, are lost and gone. But
				there is no more regaining of a lost brother, than of a hand
				that is cut off or an eye that is beaten out. The Persian
				woman therefore spake truth, when she preferred the saving her brother’s life before her very children’s, alleging
				that she was in a possibility of having more children if
				she should be deprived of those she had, but, her parents
				
				 
				
				being dead, she could hope for no more brothers after
				him.

You will ask me then, What shall a man do with an
				untoward brother? I answer, every kind and degree of
				friendship is subject to abuse from the persons, and in that
				respect has its taint, according to that of Sophocles:
				
				 
 
 Who into human things makes scrutinies,
				 
 He may on most his censures exercise. 
 
 
 
 For, if you examine the love of relations, the love of associates, or the more sensual passion of fond lovers, you will
					find none of them all clear, pure, and free from all faults.
					Wherefore the Spartan, when he married a little wife, said
					that of evils he had to choose the least. But brothers
					would do well to bear with one another’s familiar failings,
					rather than to adventure upon the trial of strangers. For
					as the former is blameless because it is necessary, so the
					other is blameworthy because it is voluntary. For it is not
					to be expected that a sociable guest or a wild crony should
					be bound by the same
					
					 Chains of respect, forged by no human hand, 
 
 as one who was nourished from the same breast and carries
					the same blood in his veins. And therefore it would become a virtuous mind to make a favorable construction of
					his brother’s miscarriages, and to bespeak him with this
					candor:
					
					 
 
 I cannot leave you thus under a cloud
					 
 Of infelicities, 
 	 
 
 
 
 whether debauched with vice or eclipsed with ignorance,
					for fear my inadvertency to some failing that naturally
					descends upon you from one of our parents should make
					me too severe against you. For, as Theophrastus said. as
					to strangers, judgment must rule affection rather than affection prescribe to judgment; but where nature denies judgment this prerogative, and will not wait for the bushel of
					
					 
					
					salt (as the proverb has it) to be eaten, but has already
					infused and begun in us the principle of love, there we
					should not be too rigid and exact in the examining of
					faults. Now what would you think of men when they can
					easily dispense with and smile at the sociable vices of their
					acquaintance, and in the mean time be so implacably incensed with the irregularities of a brother? Or when fierce
					dogs, horses, wolves, cats, apes, lions, are so much their
					favorites that they feed and delight in them, and yet cannot stomach only their brother’s passion, ignorance, or ambition? Or of others who have made away their houses
					and lands to harlots, and quarrelled with their brothers
					only about the floor or corner of the house? Nay, further,
					such a prejudice have they to them, that they justify the
					hating them from the rule of hating every ill thing, maliciously accounting them as such; and they go up and down
					cursing and reproaching their brothers for their vices, while
					they are never offended or discontented therewith in others,
					but are willing enough daily to frequent and haunt their
					company.

And this may serve for the beginning of my discourse.
				I shall enter upon my instructions not as others do, with
				the distribution of the parents’ goods, but with advice rather
				to avoid envious strifes and emulation whilst the parents
				are living. Agesilaus was punished with a mulct by the
				Lacedaemonian council for sending every one of the ancient
				men an ox as a reward of his fortitude; the reason they
				gave for their distaste was, that by this means he won too
				much upon the people, and made the commonalty become
				wholly serviceable to his own private interest. Now I
				would persuade the son to show all possible honor and
				reverence to his parents, but not with that greedy design
				of engrossing all their love to himself,—of which too many
				have been guilty, working their brethren out of favor, on
				purpose to make way for their own interest,—a fault which
				
				 
				
				they are apt to palliate with specious, but unjust pretences.
				For they deprive and cheat their brethren out of the greatest and most valuable good they are capable of receiving
				from their parents, viz., their kindness and affection, whilst
				they slyly and disingenuously steal in upon them in their
				business, and surprise them in their errors, demeaning
				themselves with all imaginable observance to their parents,
				and especially with the greatest care and preciseness in
				those things wherein they see their brethren have been
				faulty or suspected to be so. But a kind brother, and one
				that truly deserves the name, will make his brother’s condition his own, freely take upon himself a share of his
				sufferings, particularly in the anger of his parents, and be
				ready to do any thing that may conduce to the restoring him
				into favor; but if he has neglected some opportunity or
				something which ought to have been done by him, to excuse it upon his nature, as being more ready and seriously
				disposed for other things. That of Agamemnon therefore
				was well spoken in the behalf of his brother:
				
				 
 
 Nor sloth, nor silly humor makes him stay;
				 
 I am the only cause. All his delay
				 
 Waits my attempts: 
 	 
 
 
 
 and he says that this charge was delivered him by his
					brother. Fathers willingly allow of the changing of names
					and have an inclination to believe their children when they
					make the best interpretation of their brother’s failings,—as
					when they call carelessness simple honesty, or stupidity goodness, or, if he be quarrelsome, term him a
					smart-spirited youth and one that will not endure to be
					trampled on. By this means it comes to pass, that he who
					makes his brother’s peace and ingratiates him with his
					offended father at the same time fairly advances his own
					interest, and grows deservedly the more in favor.

But when the storm is once over, it is necessary to
				
				 
				
				be serious with him, to reprehend him sharply for his
				crime, discovering to him with all freedom wherein he
				has been wanting in his duty. For as such guilty brothers
				are not to be allowed in their faults, neither are they to be
				insulted with raillery. For to do the latter were to rejoice
				and find advantage in their failings, and to do the former
				were to take part in them. Therefore ought they so to
				manage their severities that they may show a solicitude
				and concernedness for their brethren and much discomposure and trouble at their follies. Now he is the fittest
				person to school his brother smartly who has been a ready
				and earnest advocate in his behalf. But suppose the
				brother wrongfully charged, it is fitting he should be obsequious to his parents in all other things whatsoever, and
				to bear with their angry humors; but a defence made before them for a brother that suffers by slander and false
				accusation is unreprovable and very good. In all such
				there is no need to fear that check in Sophocles,
				
 	 Curst son! who with thy father durst contend; 
 
 
 for there is allowed a liberty of vindicating a traduced
					brother. And where the parents are convinced of their
					injury, in cases of this kind defeat is more pleasant to
					them than victory.

But when the father is dead, it is fitting brothers
				should close the nearer in affection; immediately in their
				sadness and sorrow communicating their mutual love, and,
				in the next place, rejecting the suspicious stories and suggestions of servants, discountenancing their sly methods
				and subtle applications, and amongst other stories, adverting to the fable of Jupiter’s sons, Castor and Pollux,
				whose love to one another was such that Pollux, when
				one was whispering to him somewhat against his brother,
				killed him with a blow of his fist. And when they
				come to dividing their parents’ goods, let them take
				
				 
				
				heed that they come not with prejudice and contentious
				resolutions, giving defiance and shouting the warcry,
				as so many do. But let them observe with caution
				that day above all others, as it may be to them the beginning either of mortal enmity or of friendship and concord.
				And then, either amongst themselves, or, if need be, in
				the presence of some common and indifferent friend, let
				them deal fairly and openly, allowing Justice (as Plato
				says) to draw the lot, giving and receiving what may consist with love and friendship. Thus they will appear to
				be sharers only in the care and disposal of these things,
				whilst the propriety and enjoyment is free and common to
				them all. But they that take an advantage in the controversy, and seize from one another nurses and children
				who have been fostered and brought up with them, prevailing by their eagerness, may perhaps go away with the
				gain of a single slave, but they have forfeited in the stead
				of it the best legacy their parents could have left them,
				the love and confidence of their brothers. I have known
				some brothers, without the instigation of lucre, and merely
				out of a savage disposition, fly upon the goods of their
				deceased parents with as much ravine and fierceness as
				they would upon the spoil of an enemy. Such were the
				actions of Charicles and Antiochus the Opuntians, who
				divided a silver cup and a garment in two pieces, as
				though by some tragical imprecation they had been set on
				
 	 To share the patrimony with a sword. 
 
 
 Others I have known proclaiming the success of their
					subtle methods of fierce and eager and sometimes sly and
					fallacious reasonings, by which means they have compassed
					larger proportion from their deluded brethren. Whereas
					their just actions and their kind and humble carriage had
					less reproached their pride, but raised the esteem of their
					persons. Wherefore that action of Athenodorus is very
					
					 
					
					memorable, and indeed generally remembered by our countrymen. His elder brother Xeno in the time of his guardianship had wasted a great part of his substance, and at
					last was condemned for a rape, and all that was left was
					confiscated. Athenodorus was then but a youth; but
					when his share of the estate was given to him, he had
					that regard to his brother, that he brought all his own proportion and freely exposed it to a new division with him.
					And though in the dividing it he suffered great abuse from
					him, he resented it not so much as to repent of what he
					had done, but endured with most remarkable meekness
					and unconcerned ease his brother’s outrage, that was
					become notorious throughout all Greece.

Solon discoursing about the commonwealth approved of equality, as being that which would occasion no
				tumult or faction. But this opinion appeared too popular;
				for by this arithmetical method he would have set up
				democracy in the room of a far happier government, consisting with a more suitable (viz., a geometrical) proportion.
				But he that advises brethren in the dividing of an estate
				should give them Plato’s counsel to the citizens, that they
				would lay aside self-interest, or, if they cannot be persuaded to that, to be satisfied with an equal division. And
				this is the way to lay a good and lasting foundation of love
				and peace betwixt them. Besides that, he may have the
				advantage of naming eminent instances. Such was that of
				Pittacus, who, being asked of the Lydian king whether he
				had any estate, replied that he had twice as much as he
				wanted, his brother being dead. But since that not only
				in the affluence or want of riches he that has a less share
				is liable to hostility with him that has more, but generally,
				as Plato says, in all inequality there is inquietude and disturbance, and in the contrary a during confidence; so a
				disparity among brethren tends dangerously to discord.
				But for them to be equal in all respects, I grant, is impossible.
				
				 
				
				 For what through the difference that nature made
				immediately betwixt them at the first, and what through
				the following contingencies of their lives, it comes to pass
				that they contract an envy and hatred against one another,
				and such abominable humors as render them the plagues
				not only of their private families but even of commonwealths. And this indeed is a disease which it were well
				to prevent, or to cure when it is engendered. I would
				persuade that brother therefore that excels his fellows in
				any accomplishments, in those very things to communicate
				and impart to them the utmost he can, that they may shine
				in his honor, and flourish with his interest. For instance,
				if he be a good orator, to endeavor to make that faculty
				theirs, accounting it never the less for being imparted. And
				care ought to be taken that all this kindness be not followed with a fastidious pride, but rather with such a
				becoming condescension and familiarity as may secure
				his worth from envy, and by his own equanimity and
				sweet disposition, as far as is possible, make up the
				inequality of their fortunes. Lucullus refused the honor
				of magistracy on purpose to give way to his younger
				brother, contentedly waiting for the expiration of his year.
				Pollux chose rather to be half a deity with his brother
				than a deity by himself, and therefore to debase himself
				into a share of mortality, that he might raise his brother as
				much above it. You then are a happy man, one would
				think, that can oblige your brother at a cheaper rate, illustrate him with the honor of your virtues, and make him
				great like yourself, without any damage or derogation.
				Thus Plato made his brothers famous by mentioning them
				in the choicest of his books,—Glauco and Adimantus in
				that concerning the Commonwealth, and Antipho his
				youngest brother in his Parmenides.

Besides, as there is difference in the natures and
				fortunes of brothers, so neither is it possible that the one
				
				 
				
				should excel the other in every particular thing. The
				elements exist out of one common matter, yet they are
				qualified with quite contrary faculties. No one ever saw
				two brothers by the same father and mother so strangely
				distinguished that, whereas the one was a Stoic and withal
				a wise man,—a comely, pleasant, liberal, eminent,
				wealthy, eloquent, studious, courteous man,—the other
				was quite contrary to all these. But, however, the vilest,
				the most despicable things have some proportion of good,
				or natural disposition to it.
				
				 
 
 Thus amongst hated thorns and prickly briers
				 
 The fragrant violet retires. 
 
 
 
 Now therefore, he who has the eminency in other things,
					if he yet do not hinder nor stifle the credit of what is
					laudable in his brother, like an ambitious antagonist that
					grasps at all the applause, but if he rather yield to him,
					and declare that in many things he excels him, by this
					means takes away all occasion of envy, which being like
					fire without fuel, must needs die without it. Or rather he
					prevents the very beginnings of envy, and suffers it not so
					much as to kindle betwixt them. But he who, where he
					knows himself far superior to his brother, calls for his
					help and advice, whether it be in the business of a rhetorician, a magistrate, or a friend,—in a word, he that neglects or leaves him out in no honorable employment or
					concern, but joins him with himself in all his noble and
					worthy actions, employs him when present, waits for him
					when absent, and makes the world take notice that he is
					as fit for business as himself, but of a more modest and
					yielding disposition,—all this while has done himself no
					wrong, and has bravely advanced his brother.

And this is the advice one would offer to the excelling brother. The other should consider that, as his
				brother excels him in wealth, learning, esteem, he must
				expect to come behind not him only but millions more,
				
				 Who live o’ th’ offsprings of the spacious earth. 
 
 
 But if he envies all that are so happy, or is the only one
					in the world that repines at his own brother’s felicity, his
					malicious temper speaks him one of the most wretched
					creatures in the world. Wherefore, as Metellus’s opinion
					was, that the Romans were bound to thank the Gods that
					Scipio, being such a brave man, was not born in another
					city; so he who aspires after great things, if he miss of
					his designs for himself, can do no less than entitle his
					brother to his best wishes. But some are so unlucky in
					estimating of virtuous and worthy actions that, whereas
					they are overjoyed to see their friends grow in esteem, and
					are not a little proud of entertaining persons of honor or
					great opulency, their brother’s worth and eminency is in
					the mean time looked upon with a jealous eye, as though
					it threatened to cloud and eclipse the splendor of their
					condition. How do they exalt themselves at the memory
					of some prosperous exploits of their father, or the wise
					conduct of their great-grandfather, by all which they are
					nothing advantaged? But again, how are they daunted
					and dispirited to see a brother preferred to inheritances,
					dignities, or honorable marriage? But we should not
					envy any one; but if this cannot be, we ought at least to
					turn our malice and rancor out of the family against worse
					objects, in imitation of those who ease the city of sedition
					by turning the same upon their enemies without. We may
					say, as Diomedes said to Glaucus:
					
					 
 
 Trojans I have and friends; you, what I hate,—
					 
 Grecians to envy and to emulate.

Brothers should not be like the scales of a balance,
				the one rising upon the other’s sinking; but rather like
				numbers in arithmetic, the lesser and greater mutually
				helping and improving each other. For that finger which
				is not active in writing or touching musical instruments is
				not inferior to those that can do both; but they all move and
				
				 
				
				act, one as well as another, and are assistant to each other,
				which makes the inequality among them seem designed
				by Nature, when the greatest cannot be without the help
				of the least that is placed in opposition to it. Thus Craterus and Perilaus, brothers to kings Antigonus and Cassander, betook themselves, the one to managing of military,
				the other of his domestic affairs. On the other hand,
				the men like Antiochus, Seleucus, Grypus, and Cyzicenus,
				disdaining any meaner things than purple and diadems,
				brought a great deal of trouble and mischief upon one
				another, and made Greece itself miserable with their quarrels. But in regard that men of ambitious inclinations
				will be apt to envy those who have got the start of them
				in honor, I judge it most convenient for brothers to take
				different methods in pursuit of it, rather than to vex and
				emulate one another in the same way. Those beasts fight
				and war one with another who feed in one pasture, and
				wrestlers are antagonists when they strive in the same
				game. But those that pretend to different games are the
				greatest friends, and ready to take one another’s parts with
				the utmost of their skill and power. So the two sons of
				Tyndarus, Castor and Pollux, carried the day,—Pollux at
				cuffs, and Castor at racing. Thus Homer brings in Teucer as expert in the bow, whom his brother Ajax, who was
				best in close fight,
				
 	 Protected over with a glittering shield. 
 
 
 And amongst those who are concerned in the Common
					wealth a general of an army does not much envy the
					leaders of the people, nor among those that profess rhetoric
					do the lawyers envy the sophisters, nor amongst the physicians do those who prescribe rules for diet envy the chirurgeon; but they mutually aid and assert the credit of one
					another. But for brothers to study to be eminent in the
					same art and faculty is all the same, amongst ill men, as
					
					 
					
					if rival lovers, courting one and the same mistress, should
					both strive to gain the greatest interest in her affections.
					Those indeed that travel different ways can probably do
					one another but little good; but those who carry on quite
					different designs, and take several methods in their conversations, avoid envy, and many times do one another a
					kindness. As Demosthenes and Chares, and again Aeschines and Eubulus, Hyperides and Leosthenes, the one
					treating the people with their discourses and writings, the
					others assisting them by action and conduct. Therefore,
					where the disposition of brothers is such that they cannot
					agree in prosecuting the same methods of becoming great,
					it is convenient that one of them should so command himself as to assume the most different inclinations and designs
					from his brother; that, if they both aim at honor, they
					may serve their ambition by different means, and that they
					may cheerfully congratulate each other on the success of
					their designs, and so enjoy at once their honor and them
					selves.

But, besides this, they must beware of the suggestions of kindred, servants, or even wives, that may work
				much in a vain-glorious mind. Your brother, say they, is
				the great man of action, whom the people honor and admire;
				but nobody comes near or regards you. Now a man that
				well understood himself would answer, I have indeed a
				brother that is a plausible man in the world, and the greatest part of his honor I have a right to. For Socrates said
				that he would rather have Darius for his friend than a
				Daric. But to a prudent and ingenious brother, it would
				be as great a satisfaction to see his brother an excellent
				orator, a person of great wealth or authority, as if he had
				been any or all these himself. And thus especially may
				that trouble and discontent, that arises from the great odds
				that are betwixt brethren, be mitigated. But there are
				other differences that happen amongst ill-constructed brothers
				
				 
				
				 in respect of their age. For, whilst the elder justly
				claim the privilege of pre-eminence and authority over the
				younger, they become troublesome and uneasy to them;
				and the younger, growing pert and refractory, begin to
				slight and contemn the elder. Hence it is that the younger,
				looking upon themselves as hated and curbed, decline and
				stomach their admonitions. The elder again, being fond
				of superiority, are jealous of their brothers’ advancement,
				as though it tended to lessen them. Therefore, as we judge
				of a kindness that it ought to be valued more by the party
				obliged than by him who bestows it, so, if the elder would
				be persuaded to set less by his seniority and the younger
				to esteem it more, there would be no supercilious slighting and contemptuous carriage betwixt them. But, seeing
				it is fitting the elder should take care of them, lead, and instruct them, and the younger respect, observe, and follow
				them; it is likewise convenient that the elder’s care should
				carry more of familiarity in it, and that he should act more
				by persuasion than command, being readier to express much
				satisfaction and to applaud his brother when he does well
				than to reprove and chastise him for his faults. Now the
				younger’s imitation should be free from such a thing as
				angry striving. For unprejudiced endeavors in following
				another speak the esteem of a friend and admirer, the
				other the envy of an antagonist. Whence it is that those
				who, out of love to virtue, desire to be like their brother
				are beloved; but those again who, out of a stomaching ambition, contend to be equal with them meet with answerable usage. But above all other respects due from the
				younger to the elder, that of observance is most commendable, and occasions the return of a strong affection and
				equal regard. Such was the obsequious behavior of Cato
				to his elder brother Caepio all along from their childhood,
				that, when they came to be men, he had so much overcome
				him with his humble and excellent disposition, and his
				
				 
				
				meek silence and attentive obedience had begot in him
				such a reverence towards him, that Caepio neither spake
				nor did any thing material without him. It is recorded
				that, when Caepio had sealed some writing of depositions,
				and his brother coming in was against it, he called for the
				writing and took off his seal, without so much as asking
				Cato why he did suspect the testimony. The reverence
				that Epicurus’s brothers showed him was likewise remarkable, and well merited by his good will and affectionate
				care for them. They were so especially influenced by him
				in the way of his philosophy, that. they began betimes to
				entertain a high opinion of his accomplishments, and to
				declare that there was never a wiser man heard of than
				Epicurus. If they erred, yet we may here observe the
				obliging behavior of Epicurus, and the return of their passionate respects to him. And amongst later philosophers,
				Apollonius the Peripatetic convinced him who said honor
				was incommunicable, by raising his younger brother Sotion
				to a higher degree of eminence than himself. Amongst
				all the good things I am bound to Fortune for, I have that
				of a kind and affectionate brother Timon, which cannot be
				unknown to any who have conversed with me, and especially those of my own family.

There are yet other disturbances that brothers near
				the same age ought to be warned of; they are but small
				indeed at present, but they are frequent and leave a lasting grudge, such as makes them ready upon all occasions
				to fret and exasperate one another, and conclude at last in
				implacable hatred and malice. For, having once begun to
				fall out in their sports, and to differ about little things, like
				the feeding and fighting of cocks and other fowl, the exercises of children, the hunting of dogs, the racing of horses,
				it comes to pass that they have no government of themselves in greater matters, nor the power to restrain a proud
				and contentious humor. So the great men among the
				
				 
				
				Grecians in our time, disagreeing first about players
				and musicians, afterward about the bath in Aedepsus,
				and again about rooms of entertainment, from contending and opposing one another about places, and from
				cutting and turning water-courses, they were grown so
				fierce and mad against one another, that they were dispossessed of all their goods by a tyrant, reduced to extreme poverty, and put to very hard shifts. In a word, so
				miserably were they altered from themselves, that there
				was nothing of the same but their inveterate hatred remaining in them. Wherefore there is no small care to be
				taken by brothers in subduing their passions and preventing quarrels about small matters, yielding rather for
				peace’s sake, and taking greater pleasure in indulging than
				crossing and conquering one another’s humors. For the
				ancients accounted the Cadmean victory to be no other
				than that between the brothers at Thebes, esteeming that
				the worst and basest of victories. But you will say, Are
				there not some things wherein men of mild and quiet dis
				positions may have occasion to dissent from others? There
				are, doubtless; but then they must take care that the main
				difference be betwixt the things themselves, and that their
				passions be not too much concerned. But they must
				rather have a regard to justice, and as soon as they have
				referred the controversy to arbitrament, immediately discharge their thoughts of it, for fear too much ruminating
				leave a deep impression of it in the mind, and render it
				hard to be forgotten. The Pythagoreans were imitable
				for this, that, though no nearer related than by mere common discipline and education, if at any time in a passion
				they broke out into opprobrious language, before the sun
				set they gave one another their hands, and with them a discharge from all injuries, and so with a mutual salutation
				concluded friends. For as a fever attending an inflamed
				sore threatens no great danger to the body, but, if the
				
				 
				
				sore being healed the fever stays, it appears then to be a
				distemper and to have some deeper cause; so, when among
				brothers upon the ending of a difference all discord ceases
				betwixt them, it is an argument that the cause lay in the
				matter of difference only, but, if the discord survive the
				decision of the controversy, it is plain that the pretended
				matter served only for a false scar, drawn over on purpose
				to hide the cause of an incurable wound.

It is worth the while at present to hear an account
				of a dispute between two foreign brothers, not concerning
				a little patch of land, nor a few servants or cattle, but no
				less than the kingdom of Persia. When Darius was dead,
				some were for Ariamenes’s succeeding to the crown as being eldest son; others were for Xerxes, who was born to
				Darius of Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus, in the time of his
				reign over Persia. Ariamenes therefore came from Media
				in no hostile posture, but very peaceably, to hear the matter determined. Xerxes being there used the majesty and
				power of a king. But when his brother was come, he laid
				down his crown and other royal ornaments, went and meeting greeted him. And sending him presents, he gave a
				charge to his servants to deliver them with these words:
				With these presents your brother Xerxes expresses the
				honor he has for you; and, if by the judgment and suffrage of the Persians I be declared king, I place you next
				to myself. Ariamenes replied: I accept your gifts, but
				presume the kingdom of Persia to be my right. Yet for
				all my younger brethren I shall have an honor, but for
				Xerxes in the first place. The day of determining who
				should reign being come, the Persians made Artabanus
				brother to Darius judge. Xerxes excepting against him,
				confiding most in the multitude, his mother Atossa reproved him, saying: Why, son, are you so shy of Artabanus,
				your uncle, and one of the best men amongst the Persians?
				And why should you dread the trial, where the worst you
				
				 
				
				can fear is to be next the throne, and to be called the king
				of Persia’s brother? Xerxes at length submitting, after
				some debate Artabanus adjudged the kingdom to Xerxes.
				Ariamenes presently started up, and went and showed obeisance to his brother, and taking him by the hand, placed
				him in the throne. And from that time, being placed himself by Xerxes next in the kingdom, he continued the same
				affection to him, insomuch that, for his brother’s honor engaging himself in the naval fight at Salamis, he was killed
				there. And this may serve for a clear and unquestionable
				instance of true kindness and greatness of mind. 
 Antiochus’s restless ambition after a crown was as
					much to be condemned; but still we may admire this in
					him, that it did not totally extinguish natural affection and
					destroy the love of a brother. He went to war with his
					brother Seleucus for the kingdom, himself being the
					younger brother, and having the assistance of his mother.
					In the durance of which war Seleucus joins battle with
					the Galatians and is defeated; being not heard of for a
					time, he is supposed to be slain and his whole army to
					be slaughtered by the enemy. Antiochus, understanding
					it, put off his purple, went into mourning, caused his
					palace to be shut up, and retired to lament the death of
					his brother. But, within a short time after, hearing that
					his brother was safe and raising new forces, he went and
					offered sacrifices for joy, and commanded his subjects to
					do the like and to crown themselves with garlands. But
					the Athenians, though they made a ridiculous story about
					a falling out amongst the Deities, compensated for the absurdity pretty well in striking out the second day of their
					month Boedromion, because upon that day Neptune and
					Minerva were at variance. And why should not we cancel
					out of our memories, as an unhappy day and no more to be
					spoken of, that wherein we have differed with any of our
					family or relations? But rather, far be it from us that the
					
					 
					
					feuds of that day should bury the memory of all that
					happier time wherein we were educated and conversed
					together. For, except nature has bestowed those virtues
					of meekness and patience upon us in vain and to no purpose, we have certainly the greatest reason to exercise them
					towards our intimate friends and kindred. Now the acknowledgments of the offender and the begging pardon
					for the crime express a kind and amicable nature no less
					than the remitting of it. Wherefore it is not for us to
					slight the anger of those whom we have incensed through
					our folly, neither should they be so implacable as to refuse
					an humble submission; but rather, where we have done
					the wrong, we should endeavor to prevent a distaste by the
					earliest and humblest acknowledgments and impetrations
					of pardon, and where we have received any, to be as ready
					and free in the forgiving of it. Euclides, Socrates’s auditor, was famous in the schools for his mild return to his
					raving brother, whom he heard bellow out threats against
					him after this manner: Let me perish, if I be not revenged
					on you. He answered: And let me perish, if I do not prevail with you to desist from this passion, and to let us be as
					good friends as ever we were. This Euclides spake; but
					what king Eumenes did was an act of meekness seldom to
					be paralleled, and never yet outdone. For Perseus king
					of Macedon, being his great enemy, had engaged some
					persons to attempt the killing him. In order to which
					barbarous act they lay in wait for him at Delphi, and,
					when they perceived him going from the sea toward
					the Oracle, came behind him and set. upon him with
					great stones, wounding him in the head and neck, till
					reeling with his hurt he fell down and was supposed
					dead. The rumor of this action dispersed every way, and
					some friends and servants of his coming to Pergamus,
					who were the amazed spectators of the supposed murder, brought the news. Whereupon Attalus, Eumenes’s
					
					 
					
					eldest brother, a well-tempered man and one that had
					showed the greatest affection and respect to his brother,
					was proclaimed king, and not only assumed the crown, but
					married his deceased brother’s queen, Stratonica. But intelligence coming a while after that Eumenes was alive
					and coming home, he presently laid aside the crown, and
					putting on his usual habiliments, went with the rest of the
					guard to meet and attend him. Eumenes received him
					with the most affectionate embrace, and saluted the queen
					with honorable respect and much endearment. And not
					long after, at his death, he was so free from passion or
					jealousy against his brother, that he bequeathed to him
					both his crown and his queen. The return of Attalus to
					his brother’s kindness was ingenuous and very remarkable.
					For after his brother’s death he took no care to advance
					his own children, though he had many, but provided especially for the education of Eumenes’s son, and when he
					came to age, placed the crown upon his head, and saluted
					him with the title of king. But Cambyses, being disturbed
					only with a dream that his brother was like to reign over
					Asia, without any enquiry after farther evidence or ground
					for his jealousy, caused him to be put to death. Whereupon the succession went out of Cyrus’s family into the
					line of Darius, a prince who understood how to share the
					management of his affairs and even his regal authority not
					merely with his brothers, but also with his friends.

Again, this rule is to be observed, that, whenever
				any difference happens betwixt brothers, during the time
				of strangeness especially they hold a correspondence with
				one another’s friends, but by all means avoid their enemies.
				The Cretans are herein very observable; who, being accustomed to frequent skirmishes and fights, nevertheless, as
				soon as they were attacked by a foreign enemy, were
				reconciled and went together. And that was it which
				they commonly called Syncretism. For there are some
				
				 
				
				who, like waters running among loose and chinky grounds,
				overthrow all familiarity and friendship; enemies to both
				parties, but especially bent upon the ruining of him whose
				weakness exposes him most to danger. For every sincere substantial friend joins in affection with one that
				approves himself such to him. And you shall observe, on
				the other hand, that the most inveterate and pernicious
				enemy contributes the poison of his ill-nature to heighten
				the passion of an angry brother. Therefore as the cat, in
				Aesop, out of pretended kindness asked the sick hen how
				she did, and she answered, The better if you were further
				off; after the same manner one would answer an incendiary that throws in words to breed discord, and to that
				end pries into things that are not to be spoken of, saying:
				I have no controversy with my brother nor he with me, if
				neither of us shall hearken to such sycophants as you are.
				I cannot understand why—seeing it is commonly held
				convenient for those who have tender eyes and a weak
				sight to shun those objects that are apt to make a strong
				reflection—the rule should not hold good in morals, and
				why those whom we would imagine sick of the trouble of
				fraternal quarrels and contentions should rather seem to
				take pleasure in them, and even seek the company of those
				who will only excite them the more and make all worse.
				How much more prudential a course would they take in
				avoiding the enemies of their offended brethren, and rather
				conversing with their relations and friends or even with
				their wives, and discovering their grievances to them
				frankly and with plainness of speech! But some are of
				that scrupulous opinion, that brothers walking together
				must not suffer a stone to lie in the way betwixt them, and
				are very much concerned if a dog happen to run betwixt
				them; and many such things, being looked upon as ominous, discompose and terrify them. Whereas none of
				them all any way tends to the breaking of friendship or
				
				 
				
				the causing of dissension; but they are not in the least
				aware that men of snarling dispositions, base detractors,
				and instigators of mischief, whom they improvidently admit into their society, are the things that do them the
				greatest hurt.

Therefore (this discourse suggesting one thing after
				another) Theophrastus said well: If there ought to be all
				things common amongst friends, why should not the best
				of those things, their friends themselves, be communicated?
				And this is advice that cannot be too soon tendered to
				brethren, for their separate acquaintance and conversation
				conduce to the estranging them from one another. For
				those who affect divers friends will be apt to delight in
				them so much as to emulate them, and will therefore be
				easily drawn and persuaded by them; for friendships have
				their distinctive marks and manners, and there is no
				greater argument of a different genius and disposition
				than the choice of different friends. Wherefore neither
				the common table nor the common recreations nor any
				other sort of intimacy comprehends so much of amity betwixt brothers, as to be united in their interest and to
				have the same common friends and enemies; for ordinary
				friendship suffers neither calumnies nor clashings, but if
				there be any anger or discontent, honest and impartial
				friends make an end of it. For as tin unites and solders
				up broken brass, being put to the ends and attempered to
				the nature of the broken pieces; so it is the part of a
				friend betwixt two brothers, to suit and accommodate
				himself to the humors of both, that he may confirm and
				secure their friendship. But those of different and uncomplying tempers are like improper notes in music, that serve
				only to spoil the consort, and offend the ear with a harsh
				noise. It is a question therefore whether Hesiod was in
				the right or not when he said:
				
 	 Let not thy friend become thy brother’s peer. 
 
 
 
 For one of an even behavior, that freely communicates
					himself between both, may by his interest in both contract
					a firm and happy tie and engagement of love between
					brothers. But Hesiod, it seems, spoke of those he suspected,—the greatest part and the worst sort of friends,—men of envious and selfish designs. He is wise who
					avoids such friends; and if in the mean time he divide his
					kindness equally between a true friend and a brother, let
					him do it with this reserve always, that the brother have
					the preference in magistracy and the management of public affairs, that he have the greater respect shown him in
					invitations and in contracting acquaintance with great
					persons, and in any thing that looks honorable and great
					in the eyes of the people, that the pre-eminence be given
					to Nature; for in these instances to prefer a friend does
					him not so much credit as that base and unworthy action
					of lessening and slighting a brother does the vilifying
					brother disgrace. But several have given their opinions
					in this thing. That of Menander is very well,
					
					 No one who loves will bear to be contemned. 
 
 This may remind brothers to preserve a tender regard to
					one another, and not to presume that Nature will overcome
					all their slights and disdain. A horse naturally loves a
					man, and a dog his master; but, if they are neglected in
					what is fitting and necessary for them, they will grow
					strange and unmanageable. The body, that is so intimately united to the soul, if the soul suspend a careful
					influence from it, will not be forward to assist it in its
					operations; it may rather spoil and cross them.

Now as the kind regards of brother to brother are
				highly commendable, so may they be expressed to the
				greater advantage, when he confines them not wholly to
				his person, but pays them, as occasion serves, rather by
				reflection to his kindred and such as retain to him; when
				he maintains a kind and complaisant humor amidst all
				
				 
				
				contingencies, when he obliges the servile part of the
				family with a courteous and affable carriage, when he is
				grateful to the physician and good friends for the safe
				recovery of his brother, and is ready to go upon any expedition or service for him. Again, it is highly commendable in him to have the highest esteem and honor for his
				brother’s wife, reputing and honoring her as the most
				sacred of all his brother’s sacred treasures, and thus to do
				honor to him; condoling with her when she is neglected,
				and appeasing her when she is angered; if she have a
				little offended, to intercede and sue for her peace; if there
				have been any private difference between himself and his
				brother, to make his complaint before her in order to a reconcilement. But especially let him be much troubled at his
				brother’s single state; or, if he be married, at his want of
				children. If not married, let him follow him with arguments and persuasions, to teaze him with rebukes and
				reproaches, and to do every thing that may incline him to
				enter into a conjugal state. When he has children, let
				him express his affection and respects to both parents
				with the greater ardency. Let him love the children
				equally with his own, but be more favorable and indulgent to them, that, if it chance that they commit some of
				their youthful faults, they may not run away and hide
				themselves among naughty acquaintances through fear of
				their parents’ anger, but may have in their uncle a recourse
				and refuge, where they will be admonished lovingly and
				will find an intercessor to make their excuse and get their
				pardon. So Plato reclaimed his nephew Speusippus, that
				was far gone in idleness and debauchery; the young man,
				impatient of his parents’ reprehensions, ran away from
				them, who were more impatient of his extravagancies.
				His uncle expressed nothing of disturbance at all this,
				but continued calm and free from passion; whereupon
				Speusippus was seized with an extraordinary shame, and
				
				 
				
				from that time became an admirer of both his uncle and
				his philosophy. Many of Plato’s friends blamed him that
				he had not instructed the youth; he made answer, that he
				instructed him by his life and conversation, from which he
				might learn, if he pleased, the difference betwixt ill and
				virtuous actions. The father of Aleuas the Thessalian,
				looking upon his son as of a fierce and injurious nature,
				kept him under with a great deal of severity, but his uncle
				received him with as great kindness. When therefore the
				Thessalians sent some lots to the oracle at Delphi, to
				enquire by them who should be their king, his uncle stole
				in one lot privately in the name of Aleuas; the priestess
				answered from the oracle, that Aleuas should be king.
				His father being surprised averred that there was never
				a lot thrown in for Aleuas that he knew of; at last all
				concluded that some mistake was committed in putting
				down the names, whereupon they sent again to enquire
				of the oracle. The priestess, confirming her first words,
				answered:
				
				 
 
 I mean the youth with reddish hair,
				 
 Whom dame Archedice did bear. 
 
 
 
 Thus Aleuas was by the oracle, through his uncle’s kind
					policy, declared king; by which means he surmounted all
					his ancestors, and advanced his family into a splendid condition. For it is prudence in a brother, when he beholds
					with joy the brave and worthy actions of his nephews growing great and honorable by their own deserts, to prompt
					and encourage them on by congratulation and applause.
					For to praise his own son may be absurd and offensive, but
					to commend the good actions of a brother’s son, is an excellent thing, and one which proceeds from no self-interest,
					nor any other principle but a true veneration for virtue.
					Now the very name of uncle ( θεῖος ) intimates that mutual
					beneficence and friendship that ought to be between him
					and his nephews. Besides this, we have a precedent from
					
					 
					
					those that are of a sublimer make and nature than ourselves. Hercules, who was the father of sixty-eight sons,
					had a brother’s son that was as dear to him as any of his
					own; and even to this time Hercules and his nephew Iolaus
					have in many places one common altar betwixt them, and
					share in the same adorations. He is called literally Hercules’s assistant. And when his brother Iphicles was slain
					in a battle at Lacedaemon, in his exceeding grief he left
					the whole of Peloponnesus. Also Leucothea, her sister
					being dead, took her infant, nursed him up, and consecrated
					him with herself among the deities; from whence the Roman
					matrons, upon the festivals of Leucothea whom they call
					also Matuta) have a custom of nursing their sisters’ children
					instead of their own, during the time of the festival.