I am surprised that the voluptuousness of such an Epicurean is not founded upon the idea of death, for, considering the miseries of life, his sovereign good must be at the end of it.  Believe me, if Horace and Petronius had viewed it as painted, they would never have accepted Epicurus as their master in the science of pleasure.  The piety for the gods attributed to him, is no less ridiculous than the mortification of the senses.  These slothful gods, of whom there was nothing to be hoped or feared; these impotent gods who did not deserve the labor and fatigue attendant upon their worship!

Let no one say that worshipers went to the temple through fear of displeasing the magistrates, and of scandalizing the people, for they would have scandalized them less by refusing to assist in their worship, than shocked them by writings which destroyed the established gods, or at least ruined the confidence of the people in their protection.

But you ask me:  What is your opinion of Epicurus?  You believe neither his friends nor his enemies, neither his adversaries nor his partisans.  What is the judgment you have formed?

I believe Epicurus was a very wise philosopher, who at times and on certain occasions loved the pleasure of repose or the pleasure of movement.  From this difference in the grade of voluptuousness has sprung all the reputation accorded him.  Timocrates and his other opponents, attacked him on account of his sensual pleasures; those who defended him, did not go beyond his spiritual voluptuousness.  When the former denounced him for the expense he was at in his repasts, I am persuaded that the accusation was well founded.  When the latter expatiated upon the small quantity of cheese he required to have better cheer than usual, I believe they did not lack reason.  When they say he philosophized with Leontium, they say well; when they say that Epicurus diverted himself with her, they do not lie.  According to Solomon, there is a time to laugh and a time to weep; according to Epicurus, there is a time to be sober and a time to be sensual.  To go still further than that, is a man uniformly voluptuous all his life?

Religiously speaking, the greatest libertine is sometimes the most devout; in the study of wisdom, the most indulgent in pleasures sometimes become the most austere.  For my own part, I view Epicurus from a different standpoint in youth and health, than when old and infirm.

Ease and tranquillity, these comforts of the infirm and slothful, can not be better expressed than in his writings.  Sensual voluptuousness is not less well explained by Cicero.  I know that nothing is omitted either to destroy or elude it, but can conjecture be compared with the testimony of Cicero, who was intimately acquainted with the Greek philosophers and their philosophy?  It would be better to reject the inequality of mind as an inconstancy of human nature.