on seeing the younger of the two he thus addresed him.

Soc. Tell me, Chaerecrates, you are not, I take it, one of those
strange people who believe that goods are better and more precious
than a brother;[1] and that too although the former are but senseless
chattels which need protection, the latter a sensitive and sensible
being who can afford it; and what is more, he is himself alone, whilst
as for them their name is legion. And here again is a marvellous
thing: that a man should count his brother a loss, because the goods
of his brother are not his; but he does not count his fellow-citizens
loss, and yet their possessions are not his; only it seems in their
case he has wits to see that to dwell securely with many and have
enough is better than to own the whole wealth of a community and to
live in dangerous isolation; but this same doctrine as applied to
brothers they ignore. Again, if a man have the means, he will purchase
domestic slaves, because he wants assistants in his work; he will
acquire friends, because he needs their support; but this brother of
his--who cares about brothers? It seems a friend may be discovered in
an ordinary citizen, but not in a blood relation who is also a
brother. And yet it is a great vantage-ground towards friendship to
have sprung from the same loins and to have been suckled at the same
breasts, since even among beasts a certain natural craving, and
sympathy springs up between creatures reared together.[2] Added to
which, a man who has brothers commands more respect from the rest of
the world than the man who has none, and who must fight his own
battles.[3]

[1] Cf. "Merchant of Venice," II. viii. 17: "Justice! the law! my
ducats, and my daughter!"