Note 624 — Chapter IV · (continued 2)

Brucker, iv. 9-21. Ginguéné, who observes that Brucker’s analysis, à sa manière accoutumée, may be understood by those who have learned Lully’s method, but must be very confused to others, has made the matter a great deal more unintelligible by his own attempt to explain it Hist. Litt. de l’Italie, vii. 497. I have found a better development of the method in Alstedius, Clavis Artis Lullianæ (Argentor. 1633), a staunch admirer of Lully. But his praise of the art, when examined, is merely as an aid to the memory, and to disputation, de quavis quæstione utramque in partem disputandi. This is rather an evil than a good; and though mnemonical contrivances are not without utility, it is probable that much better could be found than that of Lully.