Bad arguments have never been in short supply. The scholarly interest they have elicited in recent years, on the other hand, is quite exceptional. Fallacy studies have become a well established and flourishing field of argumentation theory. Without notable exception, the ever-growing literature on argumentative failures suffer from a conspicuous lack of interest in Mediaeval fallacy theory - arguably the most creative stage in the whole history of argumentation theories. The standard story is that after Aristotle got off to a tentative start, the study of fallacies laid dormant until people at Port Royal and John Locke revived it in spectacular fashion. "Fallacies in the Arabic, Byzantine, Hebrew and Latin Traditions" will show that this narrative is misleading, if not altogether false. Free of boundaries or limitations imposed by differences in discipline, language and culture, the volume will provide ample and unambiguous record of the exegetical proficiency, technical expertise and argumentative savoir-faire typically displayed by mediaeval logicians jurists and theologians on issues whose complexity we underestimate to some extent - such as the problem of defining what a fallacy is or the pitfalls of linguistic expression. Working its way from the inside out within each mediaeval tradition and comparing mediaeval findings and lessons to contemporary views and trends, the volume will show where the potential for novelty and the rightful place of mediaeval theories of fallacies lies within contemporary argumentation studies.