Again, nobody could accuse a parasite of adultery
or assault or larceny or any other offence at all, since
a man of that character would be no parasite; he
wrongs himself. Therefore if he should commit
adultery, for instance, along with the offence he
acquires the name that goes withit. Just as a good
man who behaves badly thereby acquires the name
of bad instead of good, so, I take it, if the parasite
commits any offence, he loses his identity and becomes identified with his offence. But not only are
we ourselves aware of such offences on the part of
rhetoricians and philosophers committed without

 

number in our times, but we also possess records of
their misdeeds left behind in books. And there are
speeches in defence of Socrates, Aeschines, Hyperides,
Demosthenes, and very nearly the majority of orators
and sages, whereas there is no speech in defence of a
parasite, and nobody can cite a suit that has been
brought against a parasite.

 

Granted that the life of a parasite is better than
that of a rhetorician or a philosopher, is his death
worse? Quite to the contrary, it is happier by far.
We know that most, if not all, of the philosophers
died as wretchedly as they had lived; some died by
poison, as a result of judicial sentence, after they had
been convicted of the greatest crimes; some had
their bodies completely consumed by fire; some
wasted away through retention of urine; some died
in exile. Socrates;. Empedocles (sod. Peregrinns Proteus); Epicurus; Aristotle. But in the case of a parasite no one can
cite any such death—nothing but the happy, happy
death of a man who has eaten and drunk; and any
one of them who is thought to have died by violence:
died of indigestion.

 TYCHIADES 
You have satisfactorily championed the cause of
the parasite against the philosophers. Next try to
explain whether he is a good and useful acquisition to
his supporter; for to me it seems that the rich play
the part of benefactors and philanthropists in supporting them, and that this is dishonourable to the
man who receives support.
 SIMON 
How silly df you, Tychiades, not to be able to


 

realise that a rich man, even if he has the wealth of
Gyges, is poor if he eats alone; that if he takes the
gir without a parasite in his company he is considered
a pauper, and that just as a soldier without-arms, or
a mantle without a purple border, or a horse without trappings is held in less esteem, so a rich man
without a parasite appears low and cheap. Truly,
he is an ornament to the rich man, but the rich
man is never an ornament to the parasite.

 

Furthermore, it is no disgrace to him to be the rich man’s
parasite, as you imply, evidently assuming that
he is the inferior and the other a superior;
since surely it is profitable for the rich man to
support the parasite, seeing that, besides having him
as an ornament, he derives great security from his
service as bodyguard. In battle nobody would readily
attack the rich man while he saw the other standing
by, and in fact no one could die by poison who had a_
parasite; for who would dare to make an attempt on
a man when a parasite tastes his meat and drink first?
So the rich man not only is ornamented but is
actually saved from the greatest: perils by the
parasite, who faces every danger on account of his
affection, and will not suffer the rich man to eat
alone, but chooses even to die from eating with him.

 TYCHIADES 
It seems to me, Simon, that you have treated of
everything without being in any degree inadequate 
to your art. You are not deficient in preparation, as
you said you were; on the contrary, you are as
thoroughly trained as one could be by the greatest
masters. And now I want to know whether the very
name of Parasitic is not discreditable.
 SIMON 
Note my answer and see if you think it is satisfactory,
and try on your part to answer my question as you
think best. Come, now, what about the noun from
which it is derived? To what did the ancients
apply it?

 TYCHIADES 
 To food. SIMON 
And what about the simple verb, does it not
mean “to eat”?
 TYCHIADES 
Yes.
 SIMON 
Then we have admitted, have we not, that to be a
parasite is nothing but to eat with someone else?
 TYCHIADES 
Why, Simon, that is the very thing which seems
discreditable!