in one of the Appendices to the complementary volume of his interesting work entitled Lucrttiw : Ej'icurrjtn and PIKI (London, 1909) takes occasion to dispute the late Prof. Seller's assertion (adopted by me) that in the philosophy of Lucretius " the fotdera iinturai are opposed to the faedera fali". And he goes on to maintain against me that Epicurus is justly credited with proclaiming the reign of law {op. cit., pp. 168-169). It is unfortunate that Dr. Masson's references are made not to the

more »

... hapter on Epicurus and Lucretius in volume ii. of my On-ek Philosopher*, but to an article in the Wtstmintier Review for April, 1882, of which that chapter is a revised reprint. Thus it is neither easy for me to verify his quotations nor to tell how far I am responsible for the exact wording in which they are given. However, my opinion of the scientific value of Epicureanism has remained substa ilially unaltered since it was first published ; and I am prepared to abide by the particular expression given to it in my Greek Philosophers. First as to the fosdera naturai. These, according to Dr. Masson, " are never really opposed by Lucretius to the fosdeia fali". I admit that they are not opposed in terms ; but they are practically opposed to an extent that fully justifies Prof. Sellar's use of the word. For the fosdera naturai are never once mentioned as having been broken, whereas the fosdera fati, on the sole occasion when the phrase occurs in Lucretius, are mentioned only as being broken. The passage runs as follows :-