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