an 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.

M. Bernier, the great partisan of Epicurus, avows to-day, that "After
philosophizing for fifty years, I doubt things of which I was once
most assured."

All objects have different phases, and the mind which is in perpetual
motion, views them from different aspects as they revolve before it.
Hence, it may be said, that we see the same thing under different
aspects, thinking at the same time that we have discovered something
new. Moreover, age brings great changes in our inclinations, and with
a change of inclination often comes a change of opinion. Add, that the
pleasures of the senses sometimes give rise to contempt for mental
gratifications as too dry and unproductive and that the delicate and
refined pleasures of the mind, in their turn, scorn the voluptuousness
of the senses as gross. So, no one should be surprised that in so
great a diversity of aspects and movements, Epicurus, who wrote more
than any other philosopher, should have treated the same subjects in a
different manner according as he had perceived them from different
points of view.

What avails this general reasoning to show that he might have been
sensible to all kinds of pleasure? Let him be considered according to
his relations with the other sex, and nobody will believe that he
spent so much time with Leontium and with Themista for the sole
purpose of philosophizing. But if he loved the enjoyment of
voluptuousness, he conducted himself like a wise man. Indulgent to the
movements of nature, opposed to its struggles, never mistaking
chastity for a virtue, always considering luxury as a vice, he
insist