De fraterno amore

And so the saying of Theophrastus,[*](Frag. 75 ed. Wimmer; cf. Moralia, 65 a.) - its relevance is suggested by our very subject - is excellent: If the possessions of friends are common,[*](Cf. Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, viii. 9. 1 (1159 b 31); Kock, Com. Att. Frag., iii. p. 6, Menander, Frag. 9, from the Adelphoe.) 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.[*](More exactly, the disjunction, not conjunction of tetrachords.) One may, then, be in doubt as to whether Hesiod[*](Works and Days, 707; cf. the Commentarii in Hesiodum, 65 (Bernardakis, vol. vii. pp. 83 f.).) 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. [*](The reference is perhaps to chap. 5, supra; Volkmann and Brokate are clearly wrong in assigning it to Περὶ φιλίας, which Patzig (Quaest. Plut., p. 34, cf. the note on 475 d, supra) has shown did not exist.) However, that verse of Menander,[*](Kock, Com. Att. Frag., iii. p. 213, Frag. 757; cf. Moralia, 95 d.) 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[*](Contrast 479 d, supra.); 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[*](Cf. 490 d, supra.) 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[*](This manner of education corresponds to that advocated in Ep., vii. (e.g. 343 e ff.).) 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[*](Cf. Moralia, 71 e.) 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[*](With φρυκτούς the noun κυάμους is understood. The use of parched beans as lots seems to be known from this passage only.) 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:

1. It is the red-haired[*](Cf. Aristotle, Frag. 497 ed. Rose; that is, Pyrrhus, the red-haired man. ) man I mean,
2. 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[*](θεῖος = an uncle and divine. ) 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[*](Heracles’ nephew, who helped him in his encounter with the Nemean lion.) has an altar in common with Heracles and men pray to them together, calling Iolaüs Heracles’ assistant. And when his brother Iphicles[*](Twin-brother of Heracles, son of Alcmene and Amphitryon; cf. Moralia, 285 f.) fell at the battle in Lacedaemon, Heracles was filled with great grief and retired from the entire Peloponnesus. And Leucothea,[*](Leucothea is the name of the deified Ino, wife of Athamas, who threw herself into the sea and was changed into a goddess; cf. Life of Camillus, v. (131 b-c); Moralia, 267 d-e. On the Matralia, celebrated in honour of Mater Matuta, see most recently H. J. Rose, Class. Quart., xxviii. 156 f.) 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.