Athenaeus - Deipnosophists Book VI
Book VI. 223 d – e
In like manner we, Timocrates, merely restore to you the morsels left by the Dinner-Sophists, we do not give them: so quotes the orator from Cothoce in his tirade against Demosthenes. He, when Philip offered to give Halonnesus to the Athenians, advised them not to accept it if he gave it, but only if he gave it back.
Book VI. 231 b - c
After Aemilianus had concluded these many remarks, Pontianus said: “As a matter of fact, gold was really very scarce in Greece in ancient times, and the silver to be found in the mines was not considerable. Duris of Samos, therefore, says that Philip, the father of King Alexander the Great, always kept the small gold saucer which he owned lying under his pillow.
Book VI. 242 a - b
However that may be, Machon mentions Lark* in the following: ‘One of his companions once asked Eucrates the Lark how Ptolemy had treated him. I know not yet clearly, he replied; to be sure, he has given me draughts to drink in plenty, like any physician; but of food to eat he has not yet given me anything.’
* Lark is described as the name of a fourth century parasite.
Book VI. 244 b – d
Mentioning another parasite name Archephon, Machon says: ‘The parasite Archephon was invited to dinner by King Ptolemy after he had returned to Egypt from Attica. All kinds of fish which found near rocks were set upon the table, as well as genuine crayfish, and to crown all, a fat casserole was brought in containing three sliced gobies, at which all the guests were amazed. Archephon was enjoying greatly his fill of the parrot-fishes together with the red mullets and the forked hake – he was a fellow gorged with sprats and minnows and Phaleric anchovies, but he kept aloof from the gobies most abstemiously. Now his conduct was so very strange that the king asked Alcenor, “It can’t be, can it, that Archephon has overlooked the gobies?” To which the hunchback replied, “No, Ptolemy, quite the contrary; he was the first to see them, but he refrains from touching them, because he treats this fish as taboo, and fears it somehow; and having come to dinner without paying his share, it is against his ancestral custom to injure a fish which carries its credentials with it.”*
* “pebble,” was used of ballots and counters, equivalent to a ticket of admission, such as Archephon himself usually lacked, being a parasite. Apparently, the goby was supposed to carry a jewel in its belly, as Shakespeare’s “toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head.” Of the parrot-fish, we read that it chews its cud, Athen. 319 f.
Book VI. 245 a
‘Gryllion, the parasite of Menander the Satrap, used to go about in a coat with purple border and attended by a large retinue; and the Athenian Silanus, when asked who that was replied, “The Honourable Jaw of Menander.” ‘
Book VI. 245 e – 246 a
When Phyromachus upset the bowl as he was dipping bread into his lentil soup, Lark said, ‘He ought to be fined for having himself registered when he does not know how to dine out.’ Once a delicious vol-au-vent was passed round at Ptolemy’s table, but always gave out at his place. He said, ‘Ptolemy, am I drunk, or do I imagine that I am seeing things go round me?’ And when the parasite Chaerephon said that he could not take wine, he remarked, ‘You mean you can’t take what is mixed with the wine.’ And when Chaerephon arose at a dinner stark naked he said ‘Chaerephon, you are like an oil-jug; I can see how far you are full.’ About the time when Demosthenes accepted the cup from Harpalus he said, ‘The very man who calls other people “neat-wine-goblets” has grabbed the biggest one for himself.’*
* The arrival of the Macedonian Harpalus at Athens, in 324 B.C., with much stolen treasure, gave rise to charges of corruption against many public men, including Demosthenes. The epithet quoted from Demosthenes is ascribed to him by Hypereides.
Book VI. 246 e
Aristodemus tells the story of Bithys, the parasite of King Lysimachus, who, when Lysimachus thrust a wooden scorpion into his cloak, jumped up in utter fright, and then, realizing what the thing was, he said, “I will now give you a shock, Your Majesty. Give me a talent.’ For Lysimachus was very niggardly.
Book VI. 248 c – 249 a
When Plutarch had finished this long account of parasites, Democritus took up the discussion and said, “But I too shall have something to tell about flatterers, ‘like plank glued firmly to plank,’ as the Theban poet has it. ‘The flatterer, indeed, fares best of all,’ the noble Menander once said, and the meaning of flatterer is not remote from that of parasite. Take Cleisophus, for instance. He is mentioned in all records as the flatterer of Philip, king of Macedon, and was a native of Athens, as Satyrus the Peripatetic declares in his Life of Philip. But Lynceus of Samos in his Reminiscences calls him a parasite in these words: “When Cleisophus, Philip’s parasite, was chided by Philip because he was always begging, he replied, “It’s because I don’t want to be forgotten.” Once Philip gave him a damaged horse, which he sold. And when, after a while, he was asked by the king where the horse was, he said, “It’s been sold for damages.” And when Philip, amid loud applause, perpetuated the joke at his expense, he said, “After that, ought I not to be the one to keep you?” ‘
Hegesander of Delphi narrates the following of Cleisophus in his Commentaries: ‘When Philip announced that letters had been brought to him from Cotys, king of Thrace, Cleisophus, who was present, exclaimed, “Good news by the gods!” And when Philip asked him, “What do you know about what he has written?” he replied, “Zeus, the All-Highest is my witness, that’s a neat rebuke.”’ Satyrus, in his Life of Philip, says that when Philip had his eye knocked out Cleisophus went along with him with his own eye bandaged in the same way. Again, when Philip was wounded in the leg, Cleisophus marched limping along with the king. And whenever Philip tasted any food that was bitter, Cleisophus also made a wry face as if he had eaten it too.
Book VI. 249 c – e
Theopompus in his forty-fourth book of his Histories says that Philip established Thrasydaeus of Thessaly as tyrant over his compatriots; he was a man of small intelligence, but a very great flatterer. But Arcadion the Achaean was no flatterer; an account of him is given by the same Theopompus and by Duris in the fifth book of his Macedonian History. This Arcadion detested Philip and went into voluntary exile from his native land. He was very talented, and several of his sayings are remembered. It happened, anyhow, that once when Philip was staying in Delphi Arcadion was also there; the Macedonian caught sight of him, and summoning him to his presence asked him, ‘How long, Arcadion, are you going to remain in exile?’ And he replied, ‘ Until I am come unto them who know not – Philip.’ Phylarchus, in the twenty-first book of his Histories, says that Philip laughed at this retort, and inviting Arcadion to dinner so put an end to his hostility.
Concerning Nicesias, Alexander’s* parasite, Hegesander records the following: When Alexander complained of being bitten by flies, and was energetically shooing them away, Nicesias, one of his parasites present, said, ‘Surely these flies have much the better of all other flies in having tasted your blood.’
* Alexander of Epeirus. But Kaibel refers this passage to Alexander the Great.
Book VI. 250 f – 251 d.
Satyrus in his Lives says that Anaxarchus, the philosopher of eudaemonism, was one of Alexander’s parasites. On one occasion when he was traveling with the king there came a violent clap of thunder so extraordinary that everybody cowered in fear, and he said, ‘Can it be that you, Alexander, the son of Zeus, did that?’ Alexander laughed and said “No, for I don’t want to be so terrifying as you would have me, when you urge me to have the heads of satraps and kings brought to me when I am dining.’ And Aristobulus of Cassandreia says that the Athenian pancratiast Dioxippus, when Alexander was wounded and his blood was flowing, quoted the line, ‘Ichor, such as floweth in the blessed gods.’
Epicrates of Athens, according to Hegesander, when he went on the embassy to the Persian king, accepted many bribes from him, and never scrupled to flatter the king so openly and boldly that he would declare the Athenians ought to choose annually, not nine archons, but nine envoys to send to the king. I wonder, for my part, how the Athenians could have let him go without bringing him to trial, seeing that they fined Demades ten talents for proposing a decree naming Alexander a god, and actually put to death Timagoras because when ambassador to the Persian king he made obeisance to him. Timon of Phlius, in the third book of his Satires, says that Ariston of Chios, an acquaintance of Zeno of Citium, was a parasite of the philosopher Persaeus, because he was a close friend of King Antigonus. Phylarchus, in the sixth book of his Histories. says that Nicesias, the parasite of Alexander,* seeing the king writhing with the effects of some medicine which he had taken, said, ‘O King, what are we to do, when even you gods suffer such agonies?’ And Alexander, scarcely looking up at him, answered, ‘Gods, indeed!’ I’m afraid we are such as the gods hate.’ In the twenty-eighth book the same Phylarchus says that Antigonus, called Guardian, who conquered the Lacedaemonians, had a parasite named Apollophanes, the one who said that Antigonus’s luck was on the side of Alexander.
* Alexander of Epeirus. But Kaibel refers this passage to Alexander the Great.
Book VI. 254 f - 255 a
Flatters, again, were the Athenians who settled in Lemnos, as Phylarchus declares in the thirteenth book of his Histories. For by way of showing their gratitude to the descendants of Seleucus and Antiochus, after Seleucus had rescued them from the bitter tyranny of Lysimachus and had also restored to them both of their cities, the Athenians of Lemnos erected temples, not merely to Seleucus, but also to his son Antiochus; and the added measure of wine poured out in their social gatherings they name for ‘Seleucus the Saviour.’
Book VI. 255 c - d
Again, Clearchus of Soli, in the work entitled Gergithius, explains how it came about that the name of flatterer originated. He begins by representing Gergithius himself, from whom the book has its title, as having been one of Alexander’s parasites. And then he goes on to explain that Flattery renders base the characters of flatterers, since their associates look on them with contempt.
Book VI. 256 c – f
There have also been in our part of the world, in the days of Glus the Carian, women called Kolakides,* subject to female despots. A remnant of these crossed over to the mainland, being summoned to come to the wives of Artabazus and of Mentor, and had their names changed to “Ladder-lasses” from the following practice: in their desire to please the women who summoned them, they made ladders of themselves so that the women riding in carts could mount or dismount on their backs. To that pitch of luxury, not to call it abjectness, did they by their devices bring these very stupid women. Therefore, they, borne by the turn of fate out of their luxurious circumstances, lived lives of hard necessity in their old age; while the other women, who have taken over these manners that were in vogue in our country, were brought to Macedonia after they had fallen from their high estate, and it is not even decent to say how they affected by their intercourse the princesses and other women of rank in Macedonia; this much may be said, that by the reciprocal practice of their magic enchantments they became veritable “bull-chasers” and street-walkers, replete with every abomination.** Thus flattery is the cause of many terrible evils to those who complacently allow if for the pleasure of being flattered.
* Quasi “Flatteresses.”
** Referring sens, obs. to the ancient customs of the Taurobolium in honour of Artemis Tauropolos, apparently involving also licentious rites such as were practiced in honour of Cotyto.
Book VI. 259 f – 261 c
In the light of all these facts, therefore, it is easy for us, my friends, to see how great are the evils in life caused by flattery. Theopompus also testifies to this in the ninth book of his History of Philip. He says: ‘Agathocles had been a slave, one of the Thessalian penestae. He enjoyed great power with Philip on account of his flattery and because when he was with him at drinking-bouts, he danced and caused mirth. Philip dispatched him to destroy the Perrhaebi and to take charge of affairs in that quarter. For the Macedonian always had that kind of men about him, in whose company he usually spent the greater part of his time because of their love of drinking and their vulgarity, and with them he used to hold deliberations on the most important matters.’ Concerning him Hegesander of Delphi relates also this, that he used to send a large quantity of small coin to the wits assembled in the precinct of Diomean Heracles in Athens, and would order certain persons to write down what they said and report it to him. Theopompus, again, in the twenty-sixth book of the Histories, says that ‘Philip, knowing that the Thessalians were licentious and wanton in their mode of life, got up parties for them and tried to amuse them in every way, dancing and rioting and submitting to every kind of licentiousness; he was himself naturally vulgar, getting drunk every day and delighting in those pursuits which tended to that direction and in those men, the so-called gallants, who said and did laughable things. And so he won most Thessalians who consorted with him by parties rather than by presents.’ The Siceliot Dionysius behaved similarly, as the comic poet Eubulus represents him in the play bearing the same name as the tyrant: ‘Yet, toward the dignified and toward all flatterers he is rather stern, but toward those who jest at his expense he is good-tempered; and so he thinks that only these are free men, even if they be slaves.
Nevertheless Dionysius was not the only one who patronized those who wasted their property in drunken revels and gambling and similar licence, but Philip did it as well. Theopompus gives an account of both, writing as follows in the forty-ninth book: ‘Philip spurned those who were of decent character and who were careful of their property, but he honoured with praise the extravagant and those who spent their lives in dicing and drinking. Therefore he took pains that they should have these amusements, and even made them competitors in every kind of wickedness and disgusting conduct. For what scandalous or appalling act was not in their programme? Or what honourable and upright act was not missing? Did they not in some cases, grown men though they were, go shaved and depilated, in other cases even go so far as to consort infamously with each other, though they were bearded? In fact each had in his train two or three prostitute companions and they themselves granted to others the same favours. Hence one may rightly assume that they were not companions, but ‘mistresses,’ and might rightly call them not soldiers, but harlots; for they were man-killers by nature, man-harlots by habit. In addition, they loved drunkenness instead of soberness, they were eager to plunder and murder instead of living decent lives. Truth-telling and keeping promises they regarded as no part of their duty, whereas they readily assumed the odium of perjury and cheating in the most august sanctuary. Careless of what they had, they itched for what they had not, though they owned a whole section of Europe. For I believe that though these companions numbered at that time not more than eight hundred, yet they enjoyed the profits of as much land as any ten thousand Greeks possessing the richest and most extensive territory.’ And with reference to Dionysius, Theopompus gives a similar account in the twenty-first book: “Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, patronized those who wasted their property in drunken revels and gambling and similar licence; for he wanted all to be utterly abandoned and degenerate, and these he treated well.’
Demetrius Poliorcetes was also fond of merrymaking, as Phylarchus relates in the tenth book of his Histories. And in the fourteenth he writes as follows: ‘Demetrius used to allow those who wanted to flatter him at drinking-bouts even to drink to him as sole king, whereas to Ptolemy they drank as commander of the fleet, to Lysimachus as custodian of the treasury, and to Seleucus as master of the elephants. And this drew upon him no little hatred.’