inanimate things, have need of being defended, whereas a brother is
himself a good defence, and, after all, that there is more money than
brothers? For is it not extravagant in such men to imagine that a
brother does them wrong because they enjoy not his estate? Why say they
not likewise, that all the world does them wrong, because they are not in
possession of what belongs to the rest of mankind? But they believe,
with great reason, that it is better to live in society and to be ensured
of a moderate estate than to have the sole possession of all that is
their neighbours', and to be exposed to the dangers that are inseparable
from solitude. Nevertheless, they are not of the same opinion as to the
company of their brothers. If they are rich they buy themselves slaves
to serve them, they procure themselves friends to stand by them; but for
their brothers they neglect them; as if a brother were not so fit to make
a friend of as another person. And yet it is of great efficacy towards
the begetting and establishing of friendships to have been born of the
same parents and brought up together, since even beasts, we see, retain
some inclination for those who have come from the same dams, and have
been bred up and nourished together. Besides, a man who has a brother is
the more regarded for it, and men are more cautious to offend him."
Chaerecrates answered him thus:--

"You are indeed in the right to say that a good brother is a great
happiness; and, unless there be a very strong cause of dissension, I
think that brothers ought a little to bear with one another, and not part
on a slight occasion; but when a brother fails in all things, and is
quite the reverse of what he ought to be, would you have a man do what is
impossible and continue in good amity with such a person?" Socrates
replied, "Does your brother give offence to all the world as well as to
you? Does nobody speak well of him?" "That," said Chaerecrates, "is one
of the chief causes of the hatred I bear him, for he is sly enough to