infer that no
art can imitate the skill of nature. Shall the Deity, then, have a
tongue, and not speak--teeth, palate, and jaws, though he will have no
use for them? Shall the members which nature has given to the body for
the sake of generation be useless to the Deity? Nor would the internal
parts be less superfluous than the external. What comeliness is there
in the heart, the lungs, the liver, and the rest of them, abstracted
from their use? I mention these because you place them in the Deity on
account of the beauty of the human form.

Depending on these dreams, not only Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Hermachus
declaimed against Pythagoras, Plato, and Empedocles, but that little
harlot Leontium presumed to write against Theophrastus: indeed, she had
a neat Attic style; but yet, to think of her arguing against
Theophrastus! So much did the garden of Epicurus[97] abound with these
liberties, and, indeed, you are always complaining against them. Zeno
wrangled. Why need I mention Albutius? Nothing could be more elegant or
humane than Phaedrus; yet a sharp expression would disgust the old man.
Epicurus treated Aristotle with great contumely. He foully slandered
Phaedo, the disciple of Socrates. He pelted Timocrates, the brother of
his companion Metrodorus, with whole volumes, because he disagreed with
him in some trifling point of philosophy. He was ungrateful even to
Democritus, whose follower he was; and his master Nausiphanes, from
whom he learned nothing, had no better treatment from him.

XXXIV. Zeno gave abusive language not only to those who were then
living, as Apollodorus, Syllus, and the rest, but he called Socrates,
who was the father of philosophy, the Attic buffoon, using the Latin
word _Scurra_. He never called Chrysippus by any name but Chesippus.
And you yourself a little before, when you were numbering up a senate,
as we may call them, of philosophers, scrupled not to say that the most
eminent men talked like foolish, visionary dotards. Certainly,
therefore, if they have all erred in regard to the nature of the Gods,
it is to be feared there are no such beings. What you deliver on that
head are all whimsical notions, and not worthy the consideration even
of old women. For you do not seem to be in the least aware what a task
you draw on yourselves, if you should prevail on us to grant that the
same form is common to Gods and men. The Deity would then require the
same trouble in dressing, and the same care of