At the fall of Rome the Trivium was dominated by _rhetorica_; in the Carolingian period, by _grammatica_; in the high middle age, by _dialectica_. The shift of emphasis to logic probably began in the eleventh century. Even Chartres, renowned for its teaching of _grammatica_, shows hints of this under Fulbert.[1] In the next century the theory of logic was fortified by commanding in Latin translation those parts of Aristotle’s _Organon_ which had not been available; and its practise became more urgent through the historic debates as to universals. By offering thus the most active training in composition, logic confirmed the restriction of rhetoric to style. John of Salisbury, after giving full scope to _grammatica_, focuses his great book on _dialectica_. _Rhetorica_ he merely mentions; it claims none of his thought. Nor does any other leader of the high middle age treat rhetoric as active in the intellectual processes of composing. Rhetoric has no educational vitality. The vital study that taxes and develops men’s minds is logic. In detail, _grammatica_ at Chartres[2] during the great century of the school (about 1050-1150), shows a full development of _prælectio_ and distinct cultivation of rhythmic.[3] _Rhetorica_, except in _dictamen_ and in some application of the larger ancient precepts of composition to preaching, is at a standstill.[4] The more significance therefore attaches to a short poem of Fulbert summing up the differences between rhetoric and logic: the one concrete, current, reasoning in enthymemes, aiming at persuasion; the other abstract, syllogistic, aiming at conviction.[5] This giving of the full ancient scope to rhetoric in theory may be a reminder, may be even a protest. At any rate the practise had no such scope. The Chartres manuscript[6] containing these verses is an eleventh-century collection of traditional materials for the study of logic. The study was advanced by Gilbert de la Porrée.[7] Thierry’s collection[8] of the traditional writers on the seven arts, _Bibliotheca septem artium_, or _Heptateuchon_, gives 190 leaves to _grammatica_,[9] 88 to _rhetorica_,[10] 154 to _dialectica_.[11] The remaining 160 leaves of the two large volumes are devoted to the Quadrivium. Thierry’s prologue,[12] summarizing the functions of the several arts _viâ_ Martianus Capella, distributes those of the Trivium as follows: through _grammatica_, elegance; through _dialectica_, logical coherence; through _rhetorica_, ornament. Oral composition, as distinct from revision for style, seems to have no pedagogy except through logic. B. THE TRIVIUM IN HUGH OF ST. VICTOR