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.

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!