e colasiou{n} of p{re}posic{i}ou{n}s
nis nat spedful to a
necessarie
conclusio{n}.
Chaucer - Boethius
?ou hast q{uo}d she ?e ry?t
estimac{i}ou{n} of ?is. but who so euere wene ?at it be an
harde ?ing to acorde hym to a conclusiou{n}. it is ry?t
?at he shewe ?at so{m}me of ?e p{re}misses ben fals. or 3568
ellys he mot shewe ?at ?
e colasiou{n} of p{re}posic{i}ou{n}s
nis nat spedful to a
necessarie
conclusio{n}.
? and yif it
be nat so. but ?at ?e p{re}misses ben yg{ra}nted ?er nis
nat whi he sholde blame ?e argument.
[Sidenote: What I am about to say is not less wonderful, and it
follows necessarily from the same premises.]
for ?is ?ing ?at 3572
I shal telle ?e nowe ne shal not seme lasse wondirful.
