Book 2, Chapter 3

At another time the differences between two brothers named Chaerephon and Chaerecrates, both well known to him, had drawn his attention; and on seeing the younger of the two he thus addressed him.

Another time, a disagreement between two brothers, Chaerephon and Chaerecrates, had caught his attention. He knew both of them well. When he saw the younger brother, he said to 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

Soc. Tell me, Chaerecrates, you are not, I suppose, one of those strange people who think possessions are better and more valuable than a brother. ¹ Yet possessions are mindless things that need protection, while a brother can feel and think and can provide protection. What is more, a man has only one brother, while possessions are countless. Here is another remarkable thing. A man considers his brother a loss because his brother’s possessions are not his own. Yet he does not consider his fellow citizens a loss, although their possessions are not his either. In their case, he seems to have the sense to see that living safely among many people with enough is better than owning a whole community’s wealth and living alone in danger. But people ignore this same principle when it comes to brothers. Again, if a man has the means, he will buy household slaves because he wants help with his work. He will make friends because he needs their support. But his brother? Who cares about brothers? Apparently, a man can find a friend in an ordinary fellow citizen, but not in a blood relative who is also his brother. And yet, having the same parents and having been nursed at the same breasts is a great advantage for friendship. Even among animals, those raised together develop a natural affection and sympathy for one another. ² Besides, a man with brothers commands more respect from others than a man without brothers, who must fight his own battles. ³

Chaer. I daresay, Socrates, where the differences are not profound, reason would a man should bear with his brother, and not avoid him for some mere trifle's sake, for a brother of the right sort is, as you say, a blessing; but if he be the very antithesis of that, why should a man lay his hand to achieve the impossible?

Chaer. I suppose, Socrates, that when the differences are not serious, a man should put up with his brother. He should not avoid him over some small matter. As you say, the right kind of brother is a blessing. But if he is the exact opposite, why should a man try to do the impossible?

Soc. Well now, tell me, is there nobody whom Chaerephon can please any more than he can please yourself; or do some people find him agreeable enough?

Soc. Now tell me, is there no one who likes Chaerephon more than you do? Or do some people find him agreeable enough?

Chaer. Nay, there you hit it. That is just why I have a right to detest him. He can be pleasing enough to others, but to me, whenever he appears on the scene, he is not a blessing—no! but by every manner of means the reverse.

Chaer. No, you have it exactly right. That's just why I have every right to detest him. He can be pleasant enough to others, but whenever he appears, he is no blessing to me. No, he is quite the opposite in every way.

Soc. May it not happen that just as a horse is no gain to the inexpert rider who essays to handle him, so in like manner, if a man tries to deal with his brother after an ignorant fashion, this same brother will kick?

Soc. A horse is no help to an inexperienced rider who tries to handle it. Likewise, might a man's brother kick if the man tries to deal with him without knowing how?

Chaer. But is it likely now? How should I be ignorant of the art of dealing with my brother if I know the art of repaying kind words and good deeds in kind? But a man who tries all he can to annoy me by word and deed, I can neither bless nor benefit, and, what is more, I will not try.

Chaer. But is that likely? How could I not know how to deal with my brother if I know how to return kind words and deeds? But when a man does all he can to annoy me with his words and actions, I cannot speak well of him or do him good. What is more, I will not try.

Soc. Well now, that is a marvellous statement, Chaerecrates. Your dog, the serviceable guardian of your flocks, who will fawn and lick the hand of your shepherd, when you come near him can only growl and show his teeth. Well; you take no notice of the dog's ill-temper, you try to propitiate him by kindness; but your brother? If your brother were what he ought to be, he would be a great blessing to you—that you admit; and, as you further confess, you know the secret of kind acts and words, yet you will not set yourself to apply means to make him your best of friends.

Soc. Well now, that is an astonishing statement, Chaerecrates. Your dog is a useful guard for your flocks. He fawns over your shepherd and licks his hand, but when you come near, he only growls and bares his teeth. Yet you ignore the dog's bad temper and try to win him over with kindness. But what about your brother? You admit that, if he were what he ought to be, he would be a great blessing to you. You also admit that you know how to speak and act kindly. Yet you will not use those skills to make him your best friend.

Chaer. I am afraid, Socrates, that I have no wisdom or cunning to make Chaerephon bear himself towards me as he should.

Chaer. I’m afraid, Socrates, that I lack the wisdom or cleverness to make Chaerephon treat me as he should.

Soc. Yet there is no need to apply any recondite or novel machinery. Only bait your hook in the way best known to yourself, and you will capture him; whereupon he will become your devoted friend.

Soc. Yet there is no need for any obscure or new device. Just bait your hook in the way you know best, and you will catch him. Then he will become your devoted friend.

Chaer. If you are aware that I know some love-charm, Socrates, of which I am the happy but unconscious possessor, pray make haste and enlighten me.

Chaer. Socrates, if you know that I possess some love charm without realizing it, please hurry and tell me about it.

Soc. Answer me then. Suppose you wanted to get some acquaintance to invite you to dinner when he next keeps holy day, ⁴ what steps would you take?

Soc. Then answer me. Suppose you wanted an acquaintance to invite you to dinner on his next holy day. ⁴ What would you do?

Chaer. No doubt I should set him a good example by inviting him myself on a like occasion.

Chaer. Of course, I should set him a good example by inviting him myself on a similar occasion.

Soc. And if you wanted to induce some friend to look after your affairs during your absence abroad, how would you achieve your purpose?

Soc. And if you wanted to persuade a friend to look after your affairs while you were abroad, how would you do it?

Chaer. No doubt I should present a precedent in undertaking to look after his in like circumstances.

Chaer. No doubt I would set a precedent by offering to look after what is his in similar circumstances.

Soc. And if you wished to get some foreign friend to take you under his roof while visiting his country, what would you do?

Soc. And if you wanted a friend in another country to let you stay at his home while visiting, what would you do?

Chaer. No doubt I should begin by offering him the shelter of my own roof when he came to Athens, in order to enlist his zeal in furthering the objects of my visit; it is plain I should first show my readiness to do as much for him in a like case.

Chaer. Of course, I should start by offering him a place to stay when he comes to Athens. To make him eager to help me achieve the aims of my visit, I should clearly first show that I would be willing to do the same for him in similar circumstances.

Soc. Why, it seems you are an adept after all in all the philtres known to man, only you chose to conceal your knowledge all the while; or is it that you shrink from taking the first step because of the scandal you will cause by kindly advances to your brother? And yet it is commonly held to redound to a man's praise to have outstripped an enemy in mischief or a friend in kindness. Now if it seemed to me that Chaerephon were better fitted to lead the way towards this friendship, ⁵ I should have tried to persuade him to take the first step in winning your affection, but now I am persuaded the first move belongs to you, and to you the final victory.

Soc. Why, it seems you know all the love potions known to man after all. You have just chosen to hide your knowledge all this time. Or are you afraid to take the first step because people will talk if you show kindness to your brother? Yet people generally praise a man who outdoes an enemy in doing harm or a friend in showing kindness. Now, if I thought Chaerephon were better suited to lead the way toward friendship, ⁵ I would have tried to persuade him to take the first step in winning your affection. But I am convinced that the first move is yours to make, and the final victory yours to win.

Chaer. A startling announcement, Socrates, from your lips, and most unlike you, to bid me the younger take precedence of my elder brother. Why, it is contrary to the universal custom of mankind, who look to the elder to take the lead in everything, whether as a speaker or an actor.

Chaer. Socrates, I’m surprised to hear you say that. It’s unlike you to tell me, the younger brother, to take precedence over my elder brother. Why, that goes against the custom of all people. Everyone expects the elder brother to take the lead in everything, whether speaking or acting.

Soc. How so? Is it not the custom everywhere for the younger to step aside when he meets his elder in the street and to give him place? Is he not expected to get up and offer him his seat, to pay him the honour of a soft couch, ⁶ to yield him precedence in argument?

Soc. How so? Everywhere, isn’t it customary for a younger person to step aside when meeting an elder in the street? Isn’t the younger person expected to stand and offer the elder a seat? And to honor the elder with a soft couch, ⁶ and let the elder speak first in a debate?

My good fellow, do not stand shilly-shallying, ⁷ but put out your hand caressingly, and you will see the worthy soul will respond at once with alacrity. Do you not note your brother's character, proud and frank and sensitive to honour? He is not a mean and sorry rascal to be caught by a bribe—no better way indeed for such riff-raff. No! gentle natures need a finer treatment. You can best hope to work on them by affection.

My friend, do not keep hesitating, ⁷ but reach out to him affectionately. You will see that the good man will respond eagerly at once. Do you not see what your brother is like? He is proud, frank, and sensitive to honor. He is not a mean, wretched scoundrel who can be won over with a bribe. Indeed, there is no better way to win over such riffraff. No! Gentle natures need a more delicate approach. Affection is your best hope of reaching them.

Chaer. But suppose I do, and suppose that, for all my attempts, he shows no change for the better?

Chaer. But suppose I do, and he doesn't improve despite all my attempts?

Soc. At the worst you will have shown yourself to be a good, honest, brotherly man, and he will appear as a sorry creature on whom kindness is wasted. But nothing of the sort is going to happen, as I conjecture. My belief is that as soon as he hears your challenge, he will embrace the contest; pricked on by emulous pride, he will insist upon getting the better of you in kindness of word and deed.

Soc. At worst, you will have shown yourself to be a good, honest, brotherly man. He will look like a sorry person on whom kindness is wasted. But I do not think anything like that will happen. I believe that as soon as he hears your challenge, he will take it up. Driven by competitive pride, he will insist on outdoing you in kind words and deeds.

At present you two are in the condition of two hands formed by God to help each other, but which have let go their business and have turned to hindering one another all they can. You are a pair of feet fashioned on the Divine plan to work together, but which have neglected this in order to trammel each other's gait. Now is it not insensate stupidity ⁸ to use for injury what was meant for advantage? And yet in fashioning two brothers God intends them, methinks, to be of more benefit to one another than either two hands, or two feet, or two eyes, or any other of those pairs which belong to man from his birth. ⁹ Consider how powerless these hands of ours if called upon to combine their action at two points more than a single fathom's length apart; ¹⁰ and these feet could not stretch asunder ¹¹ even a bare fathom; and these eyes, for all the wide-reaching range we claim for them, are incapable of seeing simultaneously the back and front of an object at even closer quarters. But a pair of brothers, linked in bonds of amity, can work each for the other's good, though seas divide them. ¹²

Right now, you two are like two hands God made to help each other. But the hands have abandoned their work and do all they can to hinder each other. You are like two feet God designed to work together. But the feet have neglected their work to trip each other up. Isn’t it sheer stupidity ⁸ to use for harm what was meant to help? Yet I think God intends two brothers to benefit each other more than two hands or two feet can. Brothers can do more good for each other than two eyes or any other pair of body parts people are born with. ⁹ Consider how powerless our hands are if they must work together at two points more than a fathom apart. ¹⁰ Our feet cannot even stretch ¹¹ a full fathom apart. And our eyes, despite all the distance we claim they can see, cannot see the front and back of an object at the same time, even when it is closer than a fathom. But two brothers bound by friendship can each work for the other’s good, even if seas divide them. ¹²