Why in the world is it, Simon, that while other men, both slave and free, each know some art by which they are of use to themselves and to someone else, you apparently have no work which would enable you to make any profit yourself or give away anything to anybody else?
What do you mean by that question, Tychiades ? I do not understand. Try to put it more clearly.
Is there any art that you happen to know? Music, for instance? °
No, indeed.
Well, medicine ?
Not that, either.
Geometry, then?
Not by any means.
Indeed, even more so, if possible. So don’t suppose you have touched me with that taunt, as if I did not know it. I admit that I am vicious, and worse than you think!
Quite so. Well, it may be that although you have not learned those arts because of their magnitude and difficulty, you have learned one of the vulgar arts like carpentry or shoemaking; you are not so well off in every way as not to need even such an art.
You are right, Tychiades ; but I am not acquainted with any of these either.
What other art, then?
What other? A fine one, I think. If you knew about it, I believe you would speak highly of it too. In practice, I claim to be successful at it already, but whether you will find me so in theory also I can't say.
What is it?
I do not feel that I have yet thoroughly mastered
the literature on that subject. So for the present
But I can’t wait.
The nature of the art will perhaps seem extraordinary when you hear it.
Tr aly, that is just why I am keen to know about it.
‘Some other day, Tychiades.
Oh, no! Tell me now—unless you are ashamed !
Parasitic.
Really, would anyone who was not insane call that an art, Simon?
I do; and if you think I am insane, think also that my insanity is the reason for my not knowing any other art and acquit me of your charges at once. They say, you know, that this malign spirit, cruel in all else to those whom she inhabits, at least secures them remission of their sins, like a schoolmaster or a tutor, by taking the blame for them upon herself. ~
Well then, Simon, Parasitic is an art ?
In the word δημιουργός there is an allusion to the definition of Rhetoric as Πειθοῦς δημιουργός.
That was a cruel thrust, Tychiades !
But do not you blush to call yourself a parasite ?
Not at all; I should be ashamed not to speak it out.
Then, by Zeus, when we wish to tell about you to someone who does not know you, when he wants to find out about you, of course we shall be correct in referring to you as “the parasite”?
Far more correct in referring to me so than in referring to Phidias as a sculptor, for I take quite as much joy in my art as Phidias did in his Zeus.
I say, here is a point; as I think of it, a gale of laughter has come over me!
What is it?
What if we should address you in due form at the
top of our letters as “Simon the Parasite”!
Dion of Syracuse, the friend of Plato.
Well, how it pleases you to be styled matters little or nothing to me; but you must consider the general absurdity of it.
What absurdity, I should like to know?
If we are to list this among the other arts, so that
when anybody enquires what art it is, we shall say
“Parasitic,” to correspond with Music and Rhetoric. The examples in the Greek are “Grammar and Medicine,” but it was necessary to choose English examples which retained the Greek ending.
Come now, first of all, if it please you, let us consider what an art is in general; for in that way we
can go on to the individual] arts and see if they truly
come under that head.
To be sure.
Then do not hesitate to tell, if you do know.
An art, I remember to have heard a learned man
say, The particular learned man who said it first is not known to us. It is the orthodox Stoic definition, quoted repeatedly by Sextus Empiricus. Cf. Quint. 2,17, 41: ille ab omnibus fere probatus finis ... artem constare ex perceptionibus consentientibus et coexercitatis ad finem utilem vitae.
He was quite right in what he said, and you in your recollection of it.
If Parasitic satisfies this definition completely, what other conclusion could there be than that it is an art?
It would be an art, of course, if it should really be like that.
Now then, let us apply to Parasitic the individual
characteristics of an art and see whether it is in
harmony with them or whether its theory, like a
good-for-nothing pot when you try its ring, sounds
cracked. Just so Critolaus had tested rhetoric and found it wanting : see Philodemus, Rhetoric 2; Sextus, Agatnet the Rhetortcrans; and Quintilian 2, 17.
As for knowing how to talk appropriately and to act in such a way as to become intimate and show himself extremely devoted to his patron, do not you think that this shows intelligence and highlydeveloped knowledge?
Yes, indeed.
And at banquets, to go away with more than anybody else, enjoying greater favour than those who do
not possess the same art—-do you think that can
be managed without some degree of theory and
wisdom ?
What about knowing the merits and defects of
bake-stuffs and made dishes? Does that seem to you
matter for an untrained man’s bumptious inquisitiveness? Yet excellent Plato says:
When a man is
about to partake of a banquet, if he be not versed
in the art of cookery, his opinion of the feast in
preparation is something deficient in weight.
That Parasitic is based not only on knowledge, but on exercised knowledge, you may readily assure yourself from this fact: the knowledges that belong to the other arts often remain unexercised for days and nights and months and years, and yet the arts are not lost to those who possess them ; but if the . parasite’s knowledge is not in exercise daily, not only the art, I take it, but the artist himself, is lost thereby !
And as to its being “directed to some end. useful to the world,” it would be crazy, don’t you think, to investigate that point. I, for my part, cannot discover that anything in the world is more useful than eating and drinking, and in fact without them it is impossible to live at all !
Quite so.
Again, Parasitic is not the same sort of thing as
beauty and strength, so as to be considered a gift,.
like them, rather than an art. Again a thrust at Rhetoric, which some considered “vis tantum” ; cf. Quintilian 2, 15, 2.
But on the other hand, it is not want of art; for
want of art never achieves anything for its possessor. Rhetoric is a want of art: cf. § 27, and Quint. 2, 15, 2.
Not by any means.
How about a man who should take horses in hand without knowing how to drive?
He would not come through, either.
Why, pray, except because he does not possess the art by which he would be able to save himself?
To be sure.
Then the parasite would not be saved by Parasitic if it were want of art? TY CHIADES True.
Then it is art that saves him, and not want of art ?
Quite so.
It is, apparently.
I assure you I know of many instances when good helmsmen have been wrecked and expert drivers thrown from their seats, and some had _ broken bones, while others were completely done for; but nobody can cite any such mishap in the case of a parasite. Then if Parasitic is not want of art and not a gift, but a complex of knowledges exercised in combination, evidently we have reached an agreement to-day that it is an art.
As far as I can judge from what has been said. But wait a bit: give us a first-class definition of Parasitic.
Right. It seems to me that the definition might best be expressed’ thus: Parasitic is that art which is concerned with food and drink and what must be said and done to obtain them, and its end is pleasure.
That, to my mind, is a tip-top definition of your
art; but look out that you do not get into conflict
with some of the philosophers over the end. With the Epicureans, who claimed the same summum bonum, and the Stoics, who rejected it. The Stoics are met tirst, with the argument that not virtue but Parasitic is the consummation of happiness. The sense of τέλος shifts slightly, to prepare for its use in the citation from Homer.
wise Homer, admiring the
life of a parasite on the ground that it alone is blessed
and enviable, says:
As to Epicurus, quite shamelessly filching the end
of Parasitic, he makes it the end of his conception
of happiness. That the thing is plagiarism, and that
pleasure does not concern Epicurus at all, but does
concern the parasite, you can assure yourself from
this line of reasoning. I for'my part consider that
pleasure is first of all the freedom of the flesh from
discomfort, and secondly, not having the spirit full
of turbulence and commotion. Now then, each of
these things is attained by the parasite, but neither
by Epicurus. For with his inquiries about the shape
of the earth, the infinitude of the universe, the magnitude of the sun, distances in space, primal elements,
and whether the gods exist or not, and with his continual strife and bickering with certain persons about
the end itself, he is involved not only in the troubles
Cf. Odyssey13, 79, and92.
Again, it is not only in this way that pleasure is foreign to Kpicurus, but in another way. This Epicurus, whoever the learned gentleman is, either has or has not his daily bread. Now if he has not, it is not a question of living a life of pleasure; he will not even live! But if he has, he gets it either from his own larder or that of someone else. Now if he gets his daily bread from someone else, he is a parasite and not what he calls himself; but if he gets it from his own larder, he will not lead a life of pleasure.
Why not?
If he gets his daily bread from his own larder, many are the unpleasantnesses which must needs attend such a life, Tychiades! Just see how many! A man who intends to shape his life by pleasure should satisfy all the desires that arise in him. What do you say to that?
I agree with you.
Therefore the man of vast means no doubt has
the opportunity of doing so, while the man of
little or no means has not; consequently a poor
Yes, by Zeus, I agree with you.
Now Epicurus is likely to have all this happen to him, so that he will never reach the end. But the parasite has no cook with whom to lose his temper, nor lands nor house nor money over the loss of which to be vexed, so that he alone can eat and drink without being annoyed by any of the matters which inevitably annoy the rich.
That Parasitic is an art has been well enough demonstrated by means of this argument and the others. It remains to show that it is the best art, and not simply this, but first that it excels all the other arts put together, and then that it excels each of them individually.
It excels all put together for this reason. Every
art has to be prefaced by study, hardships, fear and
Again, should you not note that when pupils make progress in those arts, their fathers and mothers give them as special rewards what they give the parasite every day? ‘“By Zeus, the boy has written nicely,” they say; “give him something to eat!”’ “He has not written correctly; don’t give him anything!” So highly is the thing esteemed, both as a reward and by way of punishment.
Again, the other arts attain to this end late,
reaping their harvest of pleasure only after their
apprenticeship; for “the road to them leadeth
uphill’ and is long. The quotation is from Hesiod, Works and Days290, and refers to the road that leads to virtue. The scholasticus, the grey-headed student, was a familiar figure; see Lucian’s Hermotimus.
Moreover, the other arts, not merely in certain
cases but in every case, have come into existence to
provide support and nothing else, while the parasite
has his support immediately, as soon as he enters
upon his art. Do not you see that while the farmer
Everybody knows, too, that those who ply the rest
of the arts drudge all the time except one or two
days a month which they celebrate as holidays, The manuscripts add: “and the cities too hold some feasts once a year and others once a month.”
Furthermore, those who wish to be successful in the other arts eat little and drink little, like invalids, and it is impossible to learn them while one is rejoicing the inner man with plenty of food and plenty of wine.
The other arts, moreover, cannot be of use to their possessor without tools, for it is impossible to pipe without a pipe or to strum without a lyre or to ride without a horse ; but this one is so genial and presents so little difficulty to the artisan that even one who has no tools can follow it.
And we pay, it is likely, for our lessons in the other arts, but get paid in this one.
Besides, the
other arts have teachers, but Parasitic has none;
like the Art of Poetry according to the definition
of Socrates, it comes by some divine dispensation. Plato, Ion 534 B-c.
Reflect, too, that we cannot exercise the other arts