 Much closer to Bradwardine’s theory than to Buridan’s is that of another Paris logician, Albert of Saxony, who arrived in Paris sometime before 1351 and taught there until around 1362. His view of the insolubles is similar to Buridan’s early view, arguing in a similar way that every proposition signifies its own truth. But there is reason to doubt whether Albert was a student or even follower of Buridan, for Buridan belonged to the Picardian Nation at the University, whereas Albert was in the English (or by then “Anglo-German”) Nation, and in general his outlook follows the English logical tradition from earlier in the century. What is perhaps most impressive, and enjoyable, about Albert’s treatise on Insolubles (Albert of Saxony, [AS-I]), the first part of the sixth treatise of his Perutilis Logica (A Really Useful Logic), is the extensive list of insolubles treated, and their variety. For example, we find there a paradox much discussed in the recent literature on paradoxes under the title ‘V-Curry’, closely related to  Curry’s paradox.  In fact, in its contemporary form it appears in Dumbleton’s discussion of the insolubles (see above,  Section 3.6)  and in Heytesbury’s Sophismata Asinina ([H-SA}: sophism 18, p. 413): consider the inference with sole premise ‘This inference is valid’ and conclusion ‘A man is an ass’. Albert contraposes it, inferring ‘This inference is invalid’ from the premise ‘God exists’. The text translated in “Insolubles” ([AS-I]: XIV, p. 368) follows the Venice 1522 edition. As given in [AS-L] (p. 1158), following the manuscripts, the text should read: