<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2:12</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2:12</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text><body><div type="translation" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" xml:base="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2" subtype="section" n="12"><p>
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.
</p><p><label>TYCHIADES</label>
Why not?
</p><p><label>SIMON</label>
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?
</p><p><label>TYCHIADES</label>
I agree with you.
</p><p><label>SIMON</label>
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


<pb n="v.3.p.263"/>

man cannot become an adept or attain the end, that
is to say, pleasure. Even the rich man, however, .
who through his wealth ministers lavishly to his ©
desires, cannot attain that. Why? Because quite
inevitably, when a man spends his money, he becomes
involved in many an unpleasantness, at one moment
quarrelling with his cook for preparing the meat
badly—or else if he does not quarrel, eating poor
food on that account and coming short of his
pleasure—and the next moment quarrelling with
the man who manages his household affairs, if he
does not manage them well. Is not that so?
</p><p><label>TYCHIADES</label>
Yes, by Zeus, I agree with you.
</p><p><label>SIMON</label>
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.
</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>