In Isidore’s _De Rhetorica_ practically the whole of Cassiodorus’ text-book on this subject is incorporated without acknowledgment. Two authorities, Victorinus and Cicero, are quoted,[190] but on referring to Cassiodorus it becomes plain that even here Isidore is merely copying his authority’s citation of authority. However his brief chapter on law cannot be paralleled in any extant treatise before his time and its insertion must be credited to his initiative. [190] Isidore, _Etym._, 2, 19, 14, “Praeterea secundum Victorinum enthymematis est altera definitio. Ex sola propositione, sicut jam dictum est, ita constat. ‘Si tempestas vitanda est, non est navigatio requirenda.’” Cassiodorus, _De Rhet._ Halm, _Rhetores Latini_, p. 500. “Praeterea secundum Victorinum enthymematis est altera definitio. Ex sola propositione, sicut jam dictum est, ita constat enthymema, ut est illud: ‘si tempestas vitanda est, non est navigatio requirenda.’” Isidore, _Etym._, 2, 9, 18. “Hunc Cicero ita facit in arte rhetorica.” Cass. in Halm, p. 500, 18. “Hunc Cicero facit in arte rhetorica.” ANALYSIS[191] [191] The analytical treatment of this subject is obviously carried to an absurd degree. The whole activity of the orator is analyzed into five parts: _inventio_, _dispositio_, _elocutio_ (wording), _memoria_, _pronuntiatio_. The whole subject-matter is analyzed into three parts: deliberative, epideictic, forensic. All court cases are analyzed from the point of view of the defence, according to _status_, that is, according to the nature of the leading point in the case. The speech itself (_oratio_) is analyzed into four parts: introduction, narrative, argument and conclusion. All cases are analyzed again according to the psychological impression they make on the audience. All arguments are analyzed into regular and irregular syllogisms. Even negation, giving the lie, is analyzed into several sorts. Rhetorical figures are analyzed elaborately.