As a companion to his _Grammar_ and _Orthography_, Alcuin composed a _De rhetorica et virtutibus_,[252] in the form of a dialogue between Charles and himself. The king desired such instruction to equip him for the civil disputes (_civiles quaestiones_) which were brought before him from all parts of his realm. And Alcuin proceeded to furnish him with a compend of the _scientia bene dicendi_, which is Rhetoric. This crude epitome was based chiefly on Cicero’s _De inventione_, but indicates a use of other of his oratorical writings, and has bits here and there which apparently have filtered through from the _Rhetoric_ of Aristotle. Some illustrations are taken from Scripture. The work is most successful in showing the difference between Cicero and Alcuin. The genius, the spirit, the art of the great orator’s treatises are lost; a naked skeleton of statement remains. We have words, terms, definitions, even rules; and Alcuin is not conscious that beyond them there is the living spirit of discourse. A more complete descent from substance to a clatter of words and definitions is exhibited by Alcuin’s _De dialectica_.[253] In logical studies _facilis descensus_! Others had illustrated this before him. His treatise is again a dialogue, with Charlemagne for questioner. Opening with the stock definitions and divisions of philosophy, it arrives at logic, which is composed (as Isidore and Cassiodorus said) of dialectic and rhetoric, “the shut and open fist,” a simile which had come down from Varro. Says Charles: “What are the _species_ of dialectic?” Answers Alcuin: “Five principal ones: Isagogae, categories, forms of syllogisms and definitions, topics, periermeniae.” What a classification! Introductions, categories, syllogisms, topics, _De interpretatione_-s! It is not a classification but in reality an enumeration of the treatises which had served as sources for those men from whom Alcuin drew! Evidently this excerpter is not really thinking in the terms and categories of his subject. His work shows no intelligence beyond Isidore’s, from whose _Etymologies_ it is largely taken. And the genius of our author for metaphysics may be perceived from the definition which he offers Charles of substance--_substantia_ or _usia_ (_i.e._ οὐσία): it is that which is discerned by corporeal sense; while _accidens_ is that which changes frequently and is apprehended by the mind. _Substantia_ is the underlying, the _subjacens_, in which the _accidentia_ are said to be.[254] One observes the crassness and inconsistency of these statements.