Book 1 and 2.

Book 15, chapter 2.

...whether they drank water everywhere or were content with a small measure of wine, he wished it to be allowed for them to occasionally indulge their natural inclination just a little. This was for the exact same purpose as Plato, who, in his books on laws, as Aulus Gellius A second-century Roman author known for his "Attic Nights," a collection of notes on grammar, philosophy, and history. observes: did not praise that most shameful drunkenness which usually weakens and diminishes the minds of men, but he did not disapprove of this somewhat more generous and pleasant invitation to wine, which would take place under certain sober judges and masters of the banquets. For he thought, Gellius continues, that minds are refreshed and renewed for the restoration of the duties of sobriety by moderate and honorable relaxations during drinking; and that they are gradually rendered more cheerful and made more fit to resume their intentions. And that this was indeed the mind of Epicurus will be understood more fully from what is to be said below concerning the advantages of sobriety. From these things it will also become manifest that he could not have approved of that Stoic distinction, by which they decreed

Book 7.

in Laertius: That the Wise Man will be drenched in wine, but will not be drunk, The Stoics argued that a Wise Man might drink heavily, but his reason would remain unclouded, unlike a common drunkard. that is, he would do the same as those who are drunk, but not from intention, and with his mind nonetheless persisting in its purpose. This is attacked from another side not only by Philo Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who sought to harmonize Greek philosophy with Jewish scripture. while he discusses the question

Book on the planting of Noah.

whether the wise man gets drunk, which he says was studied diligently by most philosophers; but

Letter 83.

also by Seneca himself: For if, he says, you argue that the Wise Man is intoxicated by much wine and retains his right course even if he is tipsy, you might as well conclude that he will not die from drinking poison, nor sleep after taking opium, nor vomit up whatever sticks in his guts after taking hellebore. But if his feet stumble and his tongue is not steady, why should you think him to be partly sober and partly drunk? You might say Lucretius A Roman poet and Epicurean philosopher, author of "On the Nature of Things." looked toward the same point when he touched upon the foulness and inconveniences of drunkenness thus:

Book 3.

When the force of wine has penetrated,
And its sharp heat has spread abroad into the veins;
A heaviness of the limbs follows: the legs
Are hindered for the staggering man: the tongue slows; the mind is soaked;
The eyes swim; shouting, sobbing, and quarrels break out, etc.

Here I connect two related sayings; and to the interpretation I add, unless something intervenes, relying on the authority of Seneca, from whom a restoration into the text could perhaps also have been introduced. For his words are: *Two greatest sects disagree in this matter, the Epicureans and the Stoics; but each sends one toward leisure by a different path.

On the leisure of the wise, chapter 30.

Epicurus says: The Wise Man will not enter public life, unless something should hinder him; the other Stoic seeks leisure from a purpose, the former Epicurean seeks it from a cause.* This sort of exception is meanwhile in the place of a response to what can be objected: concerning the neglect of the Fatherland or public utility. Since if a time should intervene in which the Fatherland requires the counsel and help of the Wise Man, he would be the one to set his own leisure