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.

Where exists the man so uniform of temperament, that he does not
manifest contrarieties in his conversation and actions? Solomon merits
the name of sage, as much as Epicure for less, and he belied himself
equally in his sentiments and conduct. Montaigne, when still young,
believed it necessary to always think of death in order to be always
ready for it. Approaching old age, however, he recanted, so he says,
being willing to permit nature to gently guide him, and teach him how
to die.