John Cassian, Rhetoric and Education: Reading the Conferences as Elaborated Chreias

Abstract

John Cassian’s writings reveal an extensive education. In his works, he reflects on his own education, such as a case of mnemotechnical distraction, and also provides education for his readers. But it is also clear that he employs his own rhetorical education by using conscious rhetorical strategies. This third aspect is the focus of this article. In Late Antique higher education, the chreia was one of the basic rhetorical progymnasmata exercises. It could be elaborated through the so-called ergasia exercise. By providing examples from the first conference, it is shown how Cassian employs elaborated chreias presenting his own patterns of ergasia elements. In connection with this, Cassian’s view on the origin of thoughts as drawn from Origen and Evagrius is discussed. Reading model texts, especially the Bible, is seen as a transformative practice that shapes the reader’s heart. Though Cassian rejects classical content, replacing it with spiritual writings, he retains classical form. As a collection of Christian chreic texts, the Conferences could have functioned as model texts for monks and monastic students wanting not only to read, but also to compose their own monastic texts according to the rhetorical structures taught in traditional schools of rhetoric. Cassian thus emerges as a new kind of monastic rhetorician.

1. Introduction

Through his experience in the Eastern monasteries of Palestine and Egypt, John Cassian was deeply rooted in the language and theology of the Eastern tradition. In Gaul, he introduces this tradition when writing in a monastic setting for a Western audience, adapting the precepts to the needs of the West. Bringing together and systematizing ideas found in the Apophthegmata Patrum, Cassian unites Eastern and Western traditions (Weber 1960). He was a disciple of Evagrius of Pontus and was well versed in his and Origen’s thought. His roots are in the Eastern tradition and theologically he is closer to Evagrius than to Western theologians like Augustine. This is expressed, among other things, by an emphasis on the role of the individual. The individual is to be moulded rather than the collective. In Cassian, there is a clear emphasis on the individual monk’s own responsibility for his spiritual and knowledge progression.

Cassian’s first work, the Institutes (Institutiones), consists of 12 books, the first four of which present the rules or orders that a monk needs to know to lead a virtuous life: the habit, prayer, work, and novitiate. The next eight books, which make up the second part, describe the eight vices that monks had to avoid. Cassian bases this part on Evagrius’ description of the so-called logismoi, negative thoughts. These are movements or urges which, in Evagrius’ view, obstruct the path to apatheia, freedom from passion. Cassian does not use the term apatheia, preferring more biblical terms. He speaks of “the pure heart” (puritas cordis) and the path to purity of heart, alluding to Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God” (Matt 5:8). Cassian has a stronger moral emphasis compared to Evagrius; Cassian emphasises the vices of everyday life, while Evagrius is more focused on the desire for God.1

Cassian’s second work, the Conferences (Collationes Patrum), consists of fictitious conversations with desert fathers and deals with the path to salvation. Here, too, the path to purity of heart is central to the teaching. The near goal (skopos) is the pure heart, but the final and ultimate goal (telos) is “to see God”, to behold the divine truths and enjoy contemplation (theōria). This final goal belongs to eternity and thus cannot be achieved here on earth. But to reach it, the human being needs a proximate goal, a benchmark to strive for, which can be achieved on earth, and which gives a foretaste of the final goal. The path to purity of heart begins with the everyday practice of asceticism.

In Conference 14, Abba Nesteros describes two types of knowledge: one practical and one theoretical, or perhaps rather spiritual:

Prima πρακτική, id est actualis, quae emendatione morum et uitiorum purgatione perficitur: altera θεωρητική, quae in contemplatione diuinarum rerum et sacratissimorum sensuum cognitione consistit. Quisquis igitur ad θεωρητικὴν uoluerit peruenire, necesse est ut omni studio atque uirtute actualem primum scientiam consequatur. nam haec πρακτικὴ absque theoretica possideri potest, theoretica uero sine actuali omnimodis non potest adprehendi.

(Coll. 14.1.3–14.2.1; Petschenig [1886] 2004, pp. 398–99)

The first kind is πρακτική, or practical, which reaches its fulfilment in correction of behaviour and in cleansing from vice. The other is θεωρητική, which consists of the contemplation of divine things and of the understanding of the most sacred meanings. Whoever, therefore, wishes to attain the θεωρητική must first pursue practical knowledge with all his strength and power. For the πρακτική can be possessed without the theoretical, but the theoretical can never be seized without the practical.

(trans. Ramsey 1997, p. 505; slightly modified by me)

Thus, Cassian emphasizes the importance of experience, the practical knowledge, which must precede theoretical understanding. Already in his preface to the Institutes, Cassian stresses the importance of experience, which he himself has gained from the teaching of the Egyptian experienced fathers. He also contrasts the eloquent language and knowledge of the famous authors Basil of Caesarea and Jerome with his own unskilled and simple style of writing. Richard Goodrich argues that, by doing this, Cassian is expressing not only conventional self-deprecation but also criticism of those authors for being eloquent yet inexperienced. Thus, he establishes himself as an authoritative monastic writer (Goodrich 2007, pp. 66–75). But he is also, as will be argued, more eloquent than he admits.

Based on the description in Coll. 14.1.3–14.2.1 one could characterise the Institutes as a work aimed at imparting practical knowledge of how to live as a monk, a kind of ethical formation, which consists of constantly making progress in ascetic living and purifying one’s heart from vices. Only then is it possible to acquire the theoretical and spiritual knowledge, which is based on the biblical scriptures, and which is mainly treated in the Conferences.

Cassian’s extensive literary and rhetorical education is evident in his writings, yet his use of rhetoric has largely been overlooked by scholars.2 Cassian’s Conferences have been characterized as belonging to the genres of dialogue or erōtapokriseis, that is, question-and-answer literature (Stewart 1998, p. 30). However, no one has, to my knowledge, analysed how Cassian uses and elaborates the chreia, one of the basic progymnasmata exercises.3

In this article, I will examine Rebecca Krawiec’ suggestion that Cassian viewed his works as monastic equivalents to classical handbooks of grammar and rhetoric (Krawiec 2012). Though I believe that Cassian’s works cannot be seen as actual rhetorical manuals for monastic novices in the same sense as the Classical ones, it may be worthwhile to examine how his education and views on education appear in them.4 What does he say about his own education and how does he use ancient education in the form of, for example, various rhetorical tropes and strategies? I will argue that the Conferences is a work stylistically permeated by Classical rhetoric, and that it can be understood as a collection of elaborated chreias and amplified arguments, which may have offered a Christian model for reading and writing in line with the rhetorical practices taught in classical schools.

2. Cassian and Ancient School Education: The Use of Mnemonics

In traditional ancient education, a fundamental idea was that students were moulded by imitating the good and the exemplary. Reading and re-reading texts by role models, such as classical authors like Plato, Cicero, and Virgil, trained not only expressiveness, but also moral judgement and character. The role of rhetoric was not only to persuade, but to cultivate virtue—to make the speaker a better person. To speak well was to think well, and to think well was to live well. You had to know ancient literature and rhetorical theory well enough to compose your own speeches and writings. Not only would the good teacher of rhetoric master this literary skill, but he was also expected to be an example of virtue.

Robert Kaster has claimed that the ancient rhetorician (the rhetor) was a “literary artist as well as a teacher”, whereas the grammarian, who usually taught at a lower level, was “fundamentally and simply a man of ratio and memoria” (Kaster 1988, p. 205).5 Referring to this, Rebecca Krawiec suggests that Cassian’s first work, the Institutes, comprises the “ratio and memoria of the grammarian”, while his later work, the Conferences, represents a “‘higher’ learning not covered in the Institutes”, that is the “‘artistry’” of the rhetor” (Krawiec 2012, p. 777). She has also claimed that “Cassian regarded his works [texts] as the equivalent of the handbooks of grammar and rhetoric that would have formed the basis of an elite education” (Krawiec 2012, p. 773). Accordingly, she argues that the Institutes and the Conferences are an ars monastica, a parallel to the traditional artes of grammar and rhetoric. Their function is to explain the education and provide instructive models. Their role is to form a “new type of reader”, a new monastic reading culture that values the Bible and praying. The students, that is the novices, should now become not only skilled orators but also experienced in sublime prayers (Krawiec 2012).

Unlike Origen, who was a trained teacher of rhetoric, there is no record of Cassian being a teacher in a formal sense, but his well-composed works indicate a solid schooling and training in rhetoric. One of the few passages in the Conferences, in which Cassian himself and not his companion Germanus speaks, deals with his experience as a schoolboy. It is found in the 14th Conference, on spiritual knowledge. Cassian and Germanus have come to Abba Nesteros to ask about certain passages in the Bible that they have memorised. Nesteros teaches them about the two different types of knowledge, practical and theoretical. But Cassian raises a problem that he has when he prays and sings the psalms. He says:

Instantia paedagogi uel continuae lectionis macerauit intentio, ut nunc mens mea poeticis illis uelut infecta carminibus illas fabularum nugas historiasque bellorum, quibus a paruulo primis studiorum inbuta est rudimentis, orationis etiam tempora meditetur, psallentique uel pro peccatorum indulgentia supplicanti aut inpudens poematum memoria suggeratur aut quasi bellantium heroum ante oculos imago uersetur.

(Coll. 14.12.1; Petschenig [1886] 2004, p. 414)

The insistence of my teacher and the constant attention paid to reading have so weakened me that now my mind, infected as it were with those poems, meditates even during the time for prayer on the silly fables and narratives of wars with which it was filled when I was a boy and had begun my studies. The shameless recollection of poetry crops up while I am singing the psalms or asking pardon for my sins, or a vision of warring heroes passes before my eyes.

(trans. Ramsey 1997, pp. 516–17)

The passage is discussed by Mary Carruthers as a case of mnemotechnical distraction (Carruthers 1998, pp. 88–90).6 The difficulty mentioned by Cassian arises from a specific method used in classical education, which focused on building a strong foundation through mnemonic techniques. This involved memorising foundational texts twice: first by learning the sounds of the words, syllable by syllable, and then by attaching meanings and commentary to those words. The texts were divided into easily digestible segments and thoroughly memorised through repetitive exercises. This rote learning aimed to establish a firm basis for further education, serving as a compartment for storing and retrieving additional knowledge (Carruthers 1998, p. 89).7

All memories are signs that take the form of images of matters with which they have been associated in one’s mind. Thus, memories are mental images, and they are always emotional. The aim of memoria as described by ancient rhetoricians was to give an orator the means to invent his material and help him compose speeches in situ (Carruthers 1998, pp. 8–9). A common classical mnemonic technique is the one called the method of loci or the “mind (or memory) palace”. You imagine a place (that is a locus or topos)—such as a building, a road, or another place with which one is very familiar—and then you fill it with images of objects that symbolise what you want to remember. This architectural mnemonic is described by Cicero, De oratore 2.86–87, Quintilian, Institutio oratoria 11.2.18–26, and the anonymous work Rhetorica ad Herennium 3.29.8

Mnemotechnical distraction results in deviation from the intended path of one’s thoughts, leading to “mistakes”. You can lose the associations and thus the information the images were supposed to evoke, or you can misplace the mental map itself, forgetting the proper sequence of locations within it. But in Cassian’s case the error is caused by the inadvertent transition from one mental map to another triggered by a shared cue or keyword. Thus, in his mind he moves from a psalm to an unrelated scene in the pagan poems he read as a schoolboy.

Nesteros’ recipe for Cassian’s problem is that he should replace his memory network, the old locations, one could say, that he used for the pagan poetry, with new ones for the spiritual writings he now needs to meditate on. The new maps will block the old ones. Nesteros says:

De hac ipsa re, unde tibi purgationis maxima nascitur desperatio, citum satis atque efficax remedium poterit oboriri, si eandem diligentiam atque instantiam, quam te in illis saecularibus studiis habuisse dixisti, ad spiritalium scripturarum uolueris lectionem meditationemque transferre.

(Coll. 14.13.1; Petschenig [1886] 2004, p. 414)

From this very fact, which has given rise to your immense despair of being cleansed, there can come quite a speedy and effective remedy if you wish to transfer the same diligence and urgency, which you said that you had in those worldly studies, to the reading of and meditation upon spiritual writings.

(trans. Ramsey 1997, p. 517)

Unlike Origen and Greek Church Fathers such as Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom, Cassian believes that ancient classical literature cannot contribute any knowledge—it must simply be replaced by Christian spiritual writings.9 But this does not mean that the traditional methods of education themselves, such as the use of mnemonic techniques and rhetorical exercises, need to be replaced or changed.10

3. Ancient School Education: The Chreia

In Cassian’s writings, there are also other windows into his classical and rhetorical education. One of these is his use of literary forms linked to rhetorical school exercises. The teaching methodology from early times was based on memorisation and imitation of models. As early as the 5th century BC, sophists taught rhetoric, requiring students to memorise speeches. During the Hellenistic period, this teaching was systematised. A training programme was developed, consisting of certain preparatory practical exercises. These exercises were called progymnasmata. An important part of teaching ancient rhetoric using these exercises was to train students to compose their own exercises and modify existing texts according to prescribed models. The exercises therefore had an increasing level of difficulty.

A number of rhetorical manuals or other works on progymnasmata have survived. The most influential were those written by Theon of Alexandria at the end of the 1st century, by Hermogenes of Tarsus in the 2nd century,11 and by Aphthonius of Antioch, also called Aphthonius the Sophist, in the late 4th century. Collections of model texts have also been preserved, e.g., by Libanius, who was a teacher of Aphthonius. Rhetorical manuals and model texts were not only preserved—they were actively used in the schooling of young people until the modern era. In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, it was mainly Hermogenes’ handbook that was used. It also came to the West and was translated into Latin, entitled Praeexercitamina, by Priscian in the 5th century. Known as the “grammarian”, he is best known for writing a grammar that was widely used in teaching during the Middle Ages. However, from the Renaissance onwards, it was Aphthonius’ handbook that was used, as it was considered clearer and contained more detailed exercises. It was translated into Latin in 1507 and was used well into the 19th century.

The authors included between 12 and 14 exercises in their handbooks. The number of exercises differs slightly in the handbooks, as does the order of the exercises. Aphthonius lists the following: fable, narration, chreia, maxim, refutation, confirmation, common-place, encomion, invective, comparison, characterisation, description, thesis and law. Students learnt to modify texts according to these models, above all to compose speeches, but also to combine the forms to create poetry, dramas, historical narratives and so on. Cassian uses several of these forms in his works, such as fables, chreias, maxims and comparisons. Below, I will give examples of how he uses and elaborates chreias, which are common in the Conferences.

In their handbooks, the rhetoricians define the chreia in similar ways. Theon states that “a chreia is a concise statement or action which is attributed with aptness to some specified character or to something analogous to a character” (Hock and O’Neil 1986, p. 83).12 Aphthonius adds an etymological explanation of the term, saying: “Since it is useful (χρειώδης), it is called ‘chreia’” (Hock and O’Neil 1986, p. 225).13 Thus, the term is derivative of chreiōdes: “morally useful”.

Theon and the other authors use examples from classical collections of chreias, usually attributed to philosophers. A well-known example of a chreia is given by Hermogenes: “Isocrates said that the root of education is bitter, but its fruit is sweet” (Kennedy 2003, p. 77).14 The influence of classical rhetoric, particularly chreias, on the New Testament has been widely studied; see, e.g., Mack and Robbins (1989), Robbins (1988, 1993), Moeser (2002) and Parsons and Martin (2018). However, the use of chreias in other Christian texts has not received as much research attention. Nevertheless, the collections of the Apophthegmata Patrum have been recognised as examples of Christian adaptations of chreias (McVey 1998; Rönnegård 2010; Larsen 2006, pp. 74–115; 2016).

The authors of the Progymnasmata handbooks classify the chreias into different types, three of which are the main types: (1) sayings chreias, (2) action chreias, and (3) mixed chreias, which consist of both sayings and action. Theon then divides these types into several further categories. One of the subcategories of sayings chreias are response chreias. Many of the chreias in Cassian’s Conferences are of this type. Theon also includes eight exercises on how to rework and elaborate chreias. These are recitation, inflection, comment, objection, expansion, condensation, refutation and confirmation. Like the other school exercises, they were intended to improve the students’ ability to compose speeches and other writings. They therefore had an increasing level of difficulty. But while Theon had eight different exercises, the later authors Hermogenes, Aphthonius and Nicolaus described only one exercise called ergasia, which means elaboration. This exercise became the standard for how to rewrite and manipulate a chreia. The concept of chreia is thus ambiguous—it includes both the chreia itself, i.e., the saying or action, and the elaboration.

The elements or topics that were included in the ergasia exercise are the same as we already find in classical rhetorical works where they can be used to reinforce an argument in a speech. Some rhetorical works contain long lists of topics that can be used to strengthen an argument. Aristotle considered parables and examples to be powerful tools for creating convincing arguments (Aristotle, Rhetorics 1.2.8 and 2.20.2-4). Shorter lists of topics for argumentation can be found, for example, in Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, a work probably written by Anaximenes of Lampsacus in the 3rd century BC. The topics listed there are analogy, contrary and judgement (Anaximenes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 1.1422a, 25–27).

Rhetorica ad Herennium, from the first century BC, describes two patterns for amplifying an argument (often called an epicheireme). In 2.18.28, five elements are presented: proposition (propositio), rationale (ratio), proof of the rationale (confirmatio rationis), embellishment (exornatio), and résumé (conplexio). In 2.19.46, the fourth element, embellishment (exornatio), is further divided into four sub-elements, analogy (simile), example (exemplum), amplification (amplificatio), and judgement (res iudicata), thus resulting in a total of eight elements. In 4.43.56, a very similar outline is presented for elaborating a theme or thesis. It lists seven elements: theme (res), rationale (ratio), theme again with or without rationale (pronuntiatio), contrary (contrarium), analogy (simile), example (exemplum), and conclusion (conclusio).

Thus, Hermogenes and later rhetoricians used this simplified rhetorical pattern for elaborating an argument, which we find in Rhetorica ad Herennium. That pattern reduces the long lists of topics and their arrangements to a basic list of foundational categories needed for a comprehensive argumentation. The purpose of using these categories is to claim them as evidence for the thesis. Both Hermogenes and Aphthonius have essentially the same pattern for elaborating a chreia—a pattern consisting of eight elements, which became standard. A comparison of the patterns in Rhetorica ad Herennium and in Hermogenes and Aphthonius can be seen in

Table 1. Elaboration of an argument or of a chreia through the exercise called ergasia.

Rhetorica ad Herennium 2.18.28 + 2.19.46 (Caplan 1954)	Rhetorica ad Herennium 4.43.56 (Caplan 1954)	Hermogenes, Progymnasmata 7–8 (Rabe 1913)	Aphthonius, Progymnasmata 4 (Rabe 1926)
		1. Encomium/Praise (ἐγκώμιον)	1. Encomium/Praise (ἐγκώμιον)
1. Statement (propositio)	1. Theme (res)	2. Paraphrase of the chreia (παράφρασις τῆς χρείας)	2. Paraphrase (παράφρασις)
2. Rationale (ratio)	2. Rationale (ratio)	3. Rationale (αἰτία)	3. Rationale (αἰτία)
3. Confirmation of the rationale (confirmatio rationis)	3. Theme again with or without the rationale (pronuntiatio)
	4. Contrary (contrarium)	4. Contrary (ἐναντίον)	4. Contrary (ἐναντίον)
Embellishment (exornatio): 4. Analogy (simile)	5. Analogy (simile)	5. Analogy (παραβολή)	5. Analogy (παραβολή)
5. Example (exemplum)	6. Example (exemplum)	6. Example (παράδειγμα)	6. Example (παράδειγμα)
6. Amplification (amplificatio)
7. Judgement (res iudicata)		7. Judgement (κρίσις)	7. Testimony of the elders (μαρτυρία παλαιῶν)
8. Résumé (conplexio)	7. Conclusion (conclusio)	8. Exhortation (παράκλησις)	8. Short epilogue (ἐπίλογος βραχύς)

.

4. Cassian and Ancient School Education: The Use of Elaborated Chreias

Ancient literary production often shows traces of combinations of progymnasmata forms and other genres and rhetorical tropes. The progymnasmata were not seen as a set of rigid rules but a “source of techniques and material to be adapted to the task at hand” (Webb 2001, pp. 290–91). It was important for the chreia to be “apt”, but otherwise there was great freedom to vary the form and the order of the elements (Hock and O’Neil 1986, p. 46). Cassian makes frequent use of the chreia form in the Conferences, usually in the form of long elaborations with many recurring elements. Examples of somewhat shorter elaborations can be seen in the first book, where Cassian discusses the goals of monastic life via Abba Moses. He distinguishes between the ultimate goal, telos or finis, which is the kingdom of God, and the immediate goal, skopos, which is “purity of heart”. The final goal is equated with contemplation of God. In connection with this, Germanus raises the issue of mental distractions. Moses’ answer in 1.16–1.18 is in the form of a response chreia—one of the three main categories of chreias. That is, it begins with a question by Germanus that is answered in the form of a chreia elaborated by Moses. An overview with a summary of the text can be seen in

Table 2. The use of a response-chreia in Coll. 1.16–1.18.

Ergasia Elements	Cassian, Coll. 1.16.1–1.18.2 (My Condensation)
Question	Germanus: Why are we disturbed by evil thoughts, and can our minds be free from them?
Chreia	Moses: It is impossible for the mind not to be disturbed by thoughts, but it is possible for anyone who makes an effort to accept or reject them.
Rationale 1	Since they do not derive from us, we can expel or accept them. By our own free will we can correct our mind and make the spiritual thoughts grow.
Example	To make this happen, we should meditate on the Scripture, observe fasts and vigils.
Contrary 1	If we instead cease with these good things, the mind is filled with vices and will fall.
Analogy	The mind is like a mill-wheel. The mill is inevitably in motion by the water, but a man can choose to grind either wheat or darnel. The mind is in perpetual motion by thoughts, but we can decide what to feed it with.
Rationale 2	For if we constantly meditate on Holy Scripture, spiritual thoughts will arise, causing the mind to dwell on them.
Contrary 2	But if we neglect this meditation and become involved in worldly concerns, the result will be as if a kind of weed had sprung up, which will impose harmful labour on our heart.
Conclusion	Wherever the treasure of our works is, there our heart will also necessarily abide.

. It can be seen that Cassian follows the standard pattern quite well, but the order of the elements or topics is slightly different, and he repeats both the rationale and the contrary before the conclusion.

First, Germanus asks the question “Why are we disturbed by evil thoughts, and can our minds be free from them?” Moses’ response-chreia is in the form of a contrary (an antithesis). He states: “It is impossible for the mind not to be disturbed by thoughts, but it is possible for anyone who makes an effort to accept or reject them.” Next, the rationale for the chreia is given in the form of an assertion that can be argued (arguable justification). In this case, as to why we can choose to accept or reject thoughts, Moses states that it is because they do not originate from ourselves. Through our own free will, we can control our minds and make the spiritual thoughts grow.

In a Classical chreia the following elements should serve as supporting arguments to show that the chreia is consistent with commonly held beliefs and judgements about different aspects of human experience. The listener or reader should be convinced and not given the opportunity to doubt or object to the proposition. To reinforce the argument, Moses gives an example (paradeigma). In Classical texts examples are usually taken from the fields of history and religion and refer to a well-known person. The aim is to show that what is claimed in the chreia has been actualized in some event in history. At best, the argument should confirm the validity of the chreia. In Christian texts, they often refer to biblical figures. However, in Greco-Roman literature, the example can also include contemporary events, customs or common practices or behaviours (Price 1975, pp. 25–26). These so-called “unspecified” examples are described by several ancient rhetoricians (Rhetorica ad Alexandrum 8.5; 8.14; 32.3; Apsines of Gadara, Ars rhetorica 6.13; Quintilian, Inst. Orat. 12.4).15 Here we see such an example. It consists of exemplified monastic practices, namely that, in order to grow spiritual thoughts, we should meditate on the Bible, fast and watch.16

The argument from the contrary is usually drawn from the fields of logic or dialectic, and its main function is to clarify the chreia, acting as a test of the validity of the argument.17 Here, like many other contraries it is based on the opposition between virtues and vices. It contrasts the good things mentioned earlier, that is, meditation on the Bible, watching and fasting, with the consequences of vice, which will fill the mind if we cease the good things. Contraries can be analysed as enthymemes, i.e., rhetorical syllogisms (Eriksson 2002, p. 347). They consist of premises and a conclusion, but they are usually truncated, that is, the main premise is implied. We can set up the argument like this:

The main rule or premise is implied from the example.

Rule: Good things, such as the reading of the Holy Scripture, observing vigils, fasting and praying, lead to the mind being able to contemplate heavenly things.

Case: They cease because of our negligence.

Result: The mind is filled with the filth of the vices and falls.

At the centre of the ergasia elements of the chreia is an analogy. Analogies are usually drawn from the natural and social sciences, and, in particular, from the agricultural sphere, as we find here, where the mind is compared to a mill wheel grinding flour. The mill is incessantly moved by the water, but the miller can choose to grind either wheat or inferior barley. Likewise, the mind is in constant motion with thoughts, but we can decide what to feed it with. All responsibility is thus placed on the person in charge, the miller, that is, on the monk himself.

The analogy is followed by a second rationale, which emphasises why we should constantly meditate on the Bible: spiritual thoughts will arise and make the mind dwell on them. Reading the Bible is thus the recipe for a mind disturbed by bad thoughts. Reading the Bible is good food for the mind. Then follows a second contrary: if we neglect this meditation and engage in worldly affairs, the result will be as if a kind of weed has grown, which injures our heart. Here, as in the previous contrary, is the same main premise implied from the previous example, namely, that good things, such as reading the Bible, keeping vigils, fasting, and praying, lead the mind to think about spiritual things. This is contrasted with worldly concerns that ultimately lead to our heart being damaged. The contrary also contains a metaphor: evil thoughts are a kind of weed. The elaborated chreia ends with a conclusion. It functions as a summary that should confirm the truth of the principal statement/chreia, and thus demands imitation. Here, it states that wherever the treasure of our works is, there our heart will also necessarily abide.

After this conclusion, Moses makes a new statement which constitutes a new chreia followed by a more intricate chain of ergasia elements. He now speaks of the sources of the thoughts. They are three: they come from God, from the devil, and from ourselves; see

Table 3. The use of a response-chreia in Coll. 1.19–1.20.

Ergasia Elements	Cassian, Coll. 1.19.1–1.20.1 (My Condensation)
Chreia	Above all we should know what the three sources of our thoughts are: They come from God, from the devil, and from ourselves.
Rationale 1	They are from God when he visits us by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and when he chastens us with compunction; and when he opens to us the heavenly sacraments and turns our will to the better.
Example	King Ahasuerus was chastised by the Lord, exalted Mordechai to the highest degree of honour, and recalled his sentence concerning the killing of the Jewish people.
Testimonies 1	The prophet mentions: ‘I will hear what the Lord God has to say in me.’ (Ps 85:8) Another says: ‘An angel said, who was speaking in me.’ (Zech 1:14) […]
Rationale 2	And from the devil a whole series of thoughts is born, passing off evil things for good and transforming himself for us into an angel of light.
Testimonies 2	The evangelist says: ‘When supper was finished and the devil had already put it in the heart of Judas Iscariot, son of Simon, to betray the Lord.’ (Jn 13:2) […] Peter also says to Ananias: ‘Why has Satan tempted your heart, to lie to the Holy Spirit?’ (Acts 5:3) […]
Rationale 3	They also come from us, however, when we spontaneously remember things that we are doing or have done or have heard.
Testimonies 3	Concerning such things the blessed David says: ‘I thought of ancient days, and I kept the eternal years in mind, and I meditated. At night I was exercised in my heart, and I examined my spirit.’ (Ps 76:6–7 LXX) […]
Conclusion	We should, then, be aware of this threefold distinction and with discretion examine all the thoughts that emerge in our heart, first tracing their origins, so that we may be able to consider how we should approach them. Then we shall become approved money-changers.

.

In the first rationale, Moses explains the thoughts that come from God. They are in the form of the Holy Spirit when we are chastised through repentance and penance and when we receive the sacraments. To confirm its validity, he gives an example—the biblical King Ahasuerus in Esther 6:1–10:3. He was chastised by the Lord. Moses thus shows that there is an event in biblical history where God was the source of the thoughts.

The example is followed by a testimony. This is the seventh element in both Hermogenes’ and Aphthonius’ lists of ergasia topics. Hermogenes calls it krisis, i.e., a precedent or judgement, which is due to the fact that in legal cases, precedents are brought up that can influence the outcome of the case. Aphthonius calls it “the testimony of the elders”. It consists of quotes from authorities and is usually taken from philosophical literature or sacred writings. The aim is to confirm the validity of the chreia by showing that recognised authorities have said similar things. Here, as is common in Christian literature, it consists of biblical quotations that confirm that biblical authorities have acknowledged the proposition that God is the source of some of our thoughts.

The pattern of a rationale followed by a testimony, but without any example, is repeated twice. In the second rationale, Moses says that a whole series of thoughts come from the devil, who turns evil things into good and transforms himself into an angel of light for us. A number of biblical quotations are given in support of the rationale. In the third rationale, Moses states that the thoughts come from us when we spontaneously think about what we do or have done or have heard. And again, it is followed by Bible quotations to support the rationale. The elaboration ends with a conclusion: We should, then, be aware of these three sources, and to be able to know if we should accept or reject the thoughts we must examine them with discretion and trace their origins.

This understanding of mental distraction, that is, that disturbing thoughts in the mind can be accepted or rejected, derives from Origen, De principiis 3.1.3, and Evagrius of Pontus. In Praktikos 6, Evagrius says:

Ὀκτώ εἰσι πάντες οἱ γενικώτατοι λογισμοὶ ἐν οἷς περιέχεται πᾶς λογισμός. Πρῶτος ὁ τῆς γαστριμαργίας, καὶ μετ’ αὐτὸν ὁ τῆς πορνείας· τρίτος ὁ τῆς φιλαργυρίας· τέταρτος ὁ τῆς λύπης· πέμπτος ὁ τῆς ὀργῆς· ἕκτος ὁ τῆς ἀκηδίας· ἕβδομος ὁ τῆς κενοδοξίας· ὄγδοος ὁ τῆς ὑπερηφανίας. Τούτους πάντας παρενοχλεῖν μὲν τῇ ψυχῇ ἢ μὴ παρενοχλεῖν, τῶν οὐκ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν ἐστι· τὸ δὲ χρονίζειν αὐτοὺς ἢ μὴ χρονίζειν, ἢ πάθη κινεῖν ἢ μὴ κινεῖν, τῶν ἐφ’ ἡμῖν.

(Guillaumont and Guillaumont 1971, pp. 506, 508)

There are eight general and basic categories of thoughts in which are included every thought. First is that of gluttony, then impurity, avarice, sadness, anger, acedia, vainglory, and last of all, pride. It is not in our power to determine whether we are disturbed by these thoughts, but it is up to us to decide if they are to linger within us or not and whether or not they are to stir up our passions.

(trans. Bamberger 1972, pp. 16–17)18

Cassian’s view on the origin of thoughts draws from Origen and Evagrius as well. In De principiis 3.2.4, Origen mentions four sources in this order: we ourselves, opposing powers, God, and angels. Evagrius, too, mentions four sources: demons, angels, God, and the monk himself (On Thoughts 1–2, 8, 31). However, according to Evagrius, the main source of thoughts is the demons. In Praktikos 7–14, he links demons to the eight generic thoughts and mentions, for example, the demons of fornication, acedia (listlessness), and pride. Cassian adapts Evagrius’ perspective but develops it further, giving more balanced emphasis to the three sources: God, the devil, and ourselves. Unlike Evagrius, but in line with Origen, Cassian also offers a reason why monks can choose to accept or reject these thoughts: human free will.

5. Concluding Remarks

In the tradition of ancient rhetoric, rhetoric is not only a technical craft and a tool of persuasion but also a pathway to personal and social refinement. To read model texts is to be shaped by them—it serves as an exercise in becoming a morally upright and thoughtful human being. In the Christian tradition, the idea that repeated reading of model texts moulds the human being was adopted and transformed. The main goal of reading is not to analyse the text but to allow it to shape the heart. Reading becomes a form of prayer, where the text is not only understood but also lived, thus weaving together rhetoric, ethics, and theology in Christian education.

Cassian’s education appears in several different ways in the Conferences. He reflects on his own education, and he educates the reader. Through his use of rhetorical forms, especially elaborated chreias, which can be found in handbooks containing progymnasmata, we also see how he makes use of his own rhetorical training and has a conscious rhetorical strategy. According to Cassian, in a genuinely Christian education, ethical and practical knowledge must precede theoretical and spiritual understanding. Theoretical knowledge and learning must be based on the Bible. The old Classical, non-Christian texts must simply be replaced by Christian, spiritual writings. For Cassian, the Bible is the ultimate model text, and its repeated reading is not just an intellectual exercise but a form of spiritual transformation. Reading the Bible is a path to contemplation—it aims to open the heart to the presence of God.

While a contemporary Christian author like Jerome represents a text-centred and authority-bound educational tradition, where reading requires the right teacher and the right interpretation, Cassian represents an experiential and contemplative tradition, where the individual’s own reading and responsibility are assumed. Both see reading as education—but education for different kinds of life: the learned and the contemplative.

Though Cassian rejects the sources used in classical education, his texts are stylistically imbued with Classical rhetoric. The traditional methods of education, such as the use of mnemonic techniques and rhetorical exercises, do not need to be changed. Can the Conferences be seen as a kind of handbook for a new monastic reading culture? And perhaps also for a writing culture? While the work cannot be considered a de facto monastic equivalent of Greco-Roman rhetorical manuals, the carefully composed rhetorical structure of the Conferences, as a collection of elaborated chreias and amplified arguments, may have served as a Christian model for monks and monastic students who wanted to read and compose texts according to the rhetorical structures taught in traditional schools. Cassian thus represents a new type of Christian rhetorician, and as such, both a literary artist and spiritual teacher.19