Editing Epicurus (section)

===Revival===
[[File:PierreGassendi.jpg|thumb|The French priest and philosopher [[Pierre Gassendi]] is responsible for reviving Epicureanism in modernity as an alternative to Aristotelianism.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}}]]

In the seventeenth century, the French Catholic priest and scholar [[Pierre Gassendi]] (1592–1655) sought to dislodge Aristotelianism from its position of the highest dogma by presenting Epicureanism as a better and more rational alternative.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} In 1647, Gassendi published his book ''De vita et moribus Epicuri'' (''The Life and Morals of Epicurus''), a passionate defense of Epicureanism.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} In 1649, he published a commentary on Diogenes Laërtius's ''Life of Epicurus''.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} He left ''Syntagma philosophicum'' (''Philosophical Compendium''), a synthesis of Epicurean doctrines, unfinished at the time of his death in 1655.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} It was finally published in 1658, after undergoing revision by his editors.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} Gassendi modified Epicurus's teachings to make them palatable for a Christian audience.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} For instance, he argued that atoms were not eternal, uncreated, and infinite in number, instead contending that an extremely large but finite number of atoms were created by God at creation.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}}

As a result of Gassendi's modifications, his books were never censored by the Catholic Church.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} They came to exert profound influence on later writings about Epicurus.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} Gassendi's version of Epicurus's teachings became popular among some members of English scientific circles.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} For these scholars, however, Epicurean atomism was merely a starting point for their own idiosyncratic adaptations of it.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} To orthodox thinkers, Epicureanism was still regarded as immoral and heretical.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} For instance, [[Lucy Hutchinson]] (1620–1681), the first translator of Lucretius's ''On the Nature of Things'' into English, railed against Epicurus as "a lunatic dog" who formulated "ridiculous, impious, execrable doctrines".{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}}

Epicurus's teachings were made respectable in England by the natural philosopher [[Walter Charleton]] (1619–1707), whose first Epicurean work, ''The Darkness of Atheism Dispelled by the Light of Nature'' (1652), advanced Epicureanism as a "new" atomism.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} His next work ''Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charletoniana, or a Fabrick of Science Natural, upon a Hypothesis of Atoms, Founded by Epicurus, Repaired by Petrus Gassendus, and Augmented by Walter Charleton'' (1654) emphasized this idea.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} These works, together with Charleton's ''Epicurus's Morals'' (1658), provided the English public with readily available descriptions of Epicurus's philosophy and assured orthodox Christians that Epicureanism was no threat to their beliefs.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=322}} The [[Royal Society]], chartered in 1662, advanced Epicurean atomism.{{sfn|Jones|2010|pages=322–323}} One of the most prolific defenders of atomism was the chemist [[Robert Boyle]] (1627–1691), who argued for it in publications such as ''The Origins of Forms and Qualities'' (1666), ''Experiments, Notes, etc. about the Mechanical Origin and Production of Divers Particular Qualities'' (1675), and ''Of the Excellency and Grounds of the Mechanical Hypothesis'' (1674).{{sfn|Jones|2010|pages=322–323}} By the end of the seventeenth century, Epicurean atomism was widely accepted by members of the English scientific community as the best model for explaining the physical world,{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=323}} but it had been modified so greatly that Epicurus was no longer seen as its original parent.{{sfn|Jones|2010|page=323}}