It is definitely useful to see these things in their context. For example;
In a letter scholars have dated to c. 355, Julian the Apostate was commenting on the political inaction of the Epicureans;
Letter to Themistius the philosopher - Wikisource, the free online library
Another letter from the same advocates the Suppression of Epicurean texts;
Fragment of a letter to a priest - Wikisource, the free online library
QuoteLet us not admit discourses by Epicurus or Pyrrho; but indeed the gods have already in their wisdom destroyed their works, so that most of their books have ceased to be. Nevertheless there is no reason why I should not, by way of example, mention these works too, to show what sort of discourses priests must especially avoid; and if such discourses, then much more must they avoid such thoughts. For an error of speech is, in my opinion, by no means the same as an error of the mind, but we ought to give heed to the mind first of all, since the tongue sins in company with it.
By edict of a pagan emperor in a letter to one of his priests, Epicureanism becomes thought crime. It is actually worse in his view to think about than to speak about it, because speech is vulnerable to correction and purgation while thought is not.
The 15th century Florentine iconoclast priest Savonarolo would be proud.
Quote“Listen women,” he preached to the crowd, “They say that this world was made of atoms, that is, those tiniest of particles that fly through the air.” No doubt savoring the absurdity, he encouraged his listeners to express their derision out loud: “Now laugh, women, at the studies of these learned men.”
A few decades after the reign of Julian came St. Augustine's survey of the situation -- "The ashes of Epicureanism are so cold that not a single spark can be struck from them."
Within two centuries of Diogenes Laertius, there was almost nothing left.