Editing Epicurus (section)

===Renaissance===
[[File:Raffael 063.jpg|thumb|Epicurus is shown among other famous philosophers in the Italian Renaissance painter [[Raphael]]'s ''[[School of Athens]]'' (1509–1511).{{sfn|Frischer|1982|page=155}} Epicurus's genuine busts were unknown prior to 1742, so early modern artists who wanted to depict him were forced to make up their own iconographies.{{sfn|Frischer|1982|pages=155–156}}]]

In 1417, a manuscript-hunter named [[Poggio Bracciolini]] discovered a copy of Lucretius's ''On the Nature of Things'' in a monastery near [[Lake Constance]].{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} The discovery of this manuscript was met with immense excitement, because scholars were eager to analyze and study the teachings of classical philosophers and this previously forgotten text contained the most comprehensive account of Epicurus's teachings known in Latin.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} The first scholarly dissertation on Epicurus, ''De voluptate'' (''On Pleasure'') by the Italian Humanist and Catholic priest [[Lorenzo Valla]] was published in 1431.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Valla made no mention of Lucretius or his poem.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Instead, he presented the treatise as a discussion on the nature of the highest good between an Epicurean, a Stoic, and a Christian.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Valla's dialogue ultimately rejects Epicureanism,{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} but, by presenting an Epicurean as a member of the dispute, Valla lent Epicureanism credibility as a philosophy that deserved to be taken seriously.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}}

None of the [[Quattrocento]] Humanists ever clearly endorsed Epicureanism,{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} but scholars such as [[Francesco Zabarella]] (1360–1417), [[Francesco Filelfo]] (1398–1481), [[Cristoforo Landino]] (1424–1498), and [[Leonardo Bruni]] ({{circa}} 1370–1444) did give Epicureanism a fairer analysis than it had traditionally received and provided a less overtly hostile assessment of Epicurus himself.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Nonetheless, "Epicureanism" remained a pejorative, synonymous with extreme egoistic pleasure-seeking, rather than a name of a philosophical school.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} This reputation discouraged orthodox Christian scholars from taking what others might regard as an inappropriately keen interest in Epicurean teachings.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=321}} Epicureanism did not take hold in Italy, France, or England until the seventeenth century.{{sfn|Jones|2010|pages=321–322}} Even the liberal religious skeptics who might have been expected to take an interest in Epicureanism evidently did not;{{sfn|Jones|2010|pages=321–322}} [[Étienne Dolet]] (1509–1546) only mentions Epicurus once in all his writings and [[François Rabelais]] (between 1483 and 1494–1553) never mentions him at all.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} [[Michel de Montaigne]] (1533–1592) is the exception to this trend, quoting a full 450 lines of Lucretius's ''On the Nature of Things'' in his ''[[Essays (Montaigne)|Essays]]''.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} His interest in Lucretius, however, seems to have been primarily literary and he is ambiguous about his feelings on Lucretius's Epicurean worldview.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} During the [[Reformation|Protestant Reformation]], the label "Epicurean" was bandied back and forth as an insult between [[Protestantism|Protestants]] and Catholics.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}}