The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.

About this Item

Title: The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile.
Author: Blundeville, Thomas, fl. 1561.
Publication: London :: Printed by William Stansby, and are to be sold by Matthew Lownes,; 1617.
Rights/Permissions: To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms: Logic -- Early works to 1800.
Link to this Item: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001
Cite this Item: "The arte of logick Plainely taught in the English tongue, according to the best approued authors. Very necessary for all students in any profession, how to defend any argument against all subtill sophisters, and cauelling schismatikes, and how to confute their false syllogismes, and captious arguments. By M. Blundevile." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A16218.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 16, 2024.

Pages

What is the third precept?

That no part or speciall kinde be vsed as a generall kinde, nor the generall kinde as a part or speciall kinde: as in this diuision which Cicero reproueth, I will shew that through the concupi∣scence, boldnesse, and couetousnesse of our aduer•…•…aries, all mis∣chiefes haue chanced to the Common-wealth: here couetous∣nesse is mingled with concupiscence, whereof it is a part: for con∣cupiscence is the generall kinde of all lusts or desires. But this precept seemeth rather to appertaine to a Rhetoricall partition, then a Dialecticall diuision.