<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-eng2:58</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0062.tlg030.perseus-eng2:58</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="58"><p><label>TYCHIADES</label>
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.
</p><p><label>SIMON</label>
How silly df you, Tychiades, not to be able to


<pb n="v.3.p.313"/>

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.

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