For the feeling of pleasure is not at all a necessity, but the accompaniment of certain natural needs--hunger, thirst, cold, marriage. If, then, it were possible to drink without it, or take food, or beget children, no other need of it could be shown. For pleasure is neither a function, nor a state, nor any part of us; but has been introduced into life as an auxiliary, as they say salt was to season food. But when it casts off restraint and rules the house, it generates first concupiscence, which is an irrational propension and impulse towards that which gratifies it; and it induced Epicurus to lay down pleasure as the aim of the philosopher. Accordingly he deifies a sound condition of body, and the certain hope respecting it. For what else is luxury than the voluptuous gluttony and the superfluous abundance of those who are abandoned to self-indulgence? Diogenes writes significantly in a tragedy: “Who to the pleasures of effeminate And filthy luxury attached in heart, Wish not to undergo the slightest toil.” And what follows, expressed indeed in foul language, but in a manner worthy of the voluptuaries. Wherefore the divine law appears to me necessarily to menace with fear, that, by caution and attention, the philosopher may acquire and retain absence of anxiety, continuing without fall and without sin in all things. For peace and freedom are not otherwise won, than by ceaseless and unyielding struggles with our lusts. For these stout and Olympic antagonists are keener than wasps, so to speak; and Pleasure especially, not by day only, but by night, is in dreams with witchcraft ensnaringly plotting and biting. How, then, can the Greeks any more be right in running down the law, when they themselves teach that Pleasure is the slave of fear? Socrates accordingly bids “people guard against enticements to eat when they are not hungry, and to drink when not thirsty, and the glances and kisses of the fair, as fitted to inject a deadlier poison than that of scorpions and spiders.” And Antisthenes chose rather “_to be demented than delighted_.” And the Theban Crates says: “Master these, exulting in the disposition of the soul, Vanquished neither by gold nor by languishing love, Nor are they any longer attendants to the wanton.” And at length infers: “Those, unenslaved and unbended by servile Pleasure, Love the immortal kingdom and freedom.” He writes expressly, in other words, “that the stop[231] to the unbridled propensity to amorousness is hunger or a halter.” And the comic poets attest, while they depreciate the teaching of Zeno the Stoic, to be to the following effect: “For he philosophizes a vain philosophy: He teaches to want food, and gets pupils One loaf, and for seasoning a dried fig, and to drink water.”