<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-eng2:56</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2:56</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="56"><p>


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

<pb n="v.3.p.311"/>

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.

</p></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>