The book is not really bad, though it has the feel of a (modestly revised) dissertation, and it does get it basically right (viz. - Epicurus DID have a swerve, despite the fact that the relevant portion of the text has been lost; and one can reliably reconstruct Epicurus' views from Lucretius and Cicero -- as Marx had himself already argued, against Gassendi, in HIS dissertation...). But the book is not, for all that, terribly interesting and it is technical. Moreover, the technical/philological arguments are not always good ones - though the answer comes out right in the end despite this. Of course, getting the right answer for the wrong reasons is NOT a virtue in philology. Hence, the 3-stars.