The Purposes and Authority of Secular Education in the Monastic Rule of Cassiodorus

Abstract

This article examines the purposes, origins, and authority of ‘secular education,’ or the seven liberal arts, in Cassiodorus’ Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum. Whilst previous scholarship has argued that Cassiodorus traces the origins of the liberal arts to Holy Scripture and views their primary purpose as aiding biblical exegesis, closer analysis of Institutiones reveals a more complex picture. Some passages suggest that the liberal arts also derive, in part, from the order of the created universe, and that their principal purpose lies in the cultivation of virtues. These virtues, while grounded in the specific ends of the liberal arts, are ultimately directed toward the theoretical contemplation of God, echoing Aristotle’s hierarchy of sciences and virtues.

1. Introduction

Cassiodorus’ Institutiones divinarum et saecularium litterarum1 is a 6th century monastic manual from the monastery Vivarium. As the title implies, it gives an introduction to ‘divine’ and ‘secular’ education. It consists of two books. Book I treats divine education, which here mainly refers to texts of the Bible and Christian authors. Book II treats ‘secular’ education, which here means the seven liberal arts of Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Arithmetic, Music, Geometry and Astronomy.2 The seven liberal arts had figured in Roman schools to various degrees for centuries. Institutiones II is, however, the first Latin curriculum that specifically treats the seven arts in one volume. It is also the first liberal arts curriculum figuring in monastic regulation. The Christian monastic adoption of the liberal arts at this point in time was not self-evident. The question of why Cassiodorus systematised such a curriculum is of scholarly interest.

The aim of this article is to clarify the authority, purposes and limitations of ‘secular education’, or the seven liberal arts, in Cassiodorus’ Institutiones. This is achieved by analysing various claims about origins, as well as different kinds of purposes, ascribed to the seven secular arts in Institutiones. Specifically, the article aims to explore whether, and in what ways, these different claims fit together. This is discussed without assuming that various statements are all reducible to a single claim about origin or a single ascribed purpose. Therefore, even the implications that arise from the finer details of these claims must be considered.

Previous scholarship generally agrees on two main points regarding the purpose and authority of the liberal arts in the Institutiones: their study serves to deepen the understanding of Holy Scripture, and their authority derives from their origin in Scripture itself.

Arguments about the liberal arts’ origin in Scripture are typically made by referencing passages in Institutiones that explicitly claim their Scriptural origin. Karla Pollmann lists types of such statements as follows: “For the Bible as the source of all knowledge, see Inst. 1.6.2. on Dialectic, with the backing of Jerome, and 1.27.1; learned men only added to knowledge (Inst. 1.21.2).)”, as well as Exp. Ps. 23.10.192–7 (Pollmann 2017, p. 79, note 17).

James O’Donnell claims that “it is clear” that the theory of the scriptural origin of the liberal arts found in Cassiodorus’ Expositio Psalmorum “dominates the conception” of Institutiones (O’Donnell 1979, p. 206). According to O’Donnell, Institutiones specifies the theoretical principles and guidelines for interpreting Scripture by means of the liberal arts in the way practiced in Expositio Psalmorum.3 Moreover, book II is to be understood as an extended gloss on Inst. 1.27 (O’Donnell 1979, p. 212).

I nevertheless argue that more subtle statements about the origins of the liberal arts have been overlooked. Specifically, those are statements placing the origins of the liberal arts, or some of the liberal arts, or certain senses of the liberal arts outside of Scripture.

Regarding the purpose of secular studies, previous scholarship has generally concluded that the arts are instrumentalised for the study of Holy Scripture (e.g., O’Donnell 1979, pp. 212–13; Fögen 2016, p. 92; Hadot 2005, p. 191; Stenger 2022, pp. 270–84; Astell 1999, p. 39; Pollmann 2017, p. 87; Mair 1980, p. 547). Scholars usually cite statements in Institutiones that argue for the benefits of secular studies for understanding Scripture, especially Inst. 1.27. They also point to the practice of using the liberal arts for biblical interpretation in Expositio Psalmorum (e.g., O’Donnell 1979, p. 206; Pollmann 2017, pp. 86–88). However, a few scholars have also noted that Cassiodorus lists multiple purposes for studying the liberal arts. Pollman argues that the liberal arts are given a relative autonomy and have an element of anagogic ascent, though they are not pursued for their own sake. They are still instrumentalised for biblical interpretation (Pollmann 2017, p. 87). Samuel Barnish points out secular uses, such as surveying, sailing and farming, as well as virtue-forming aspects “leading to the praise of the creator by the intelligent contemplation of his works” (Barnish 1989, p. 177). According to Barnish, secular studies should, however, not be understood as having value independent of Scripture, given the relationships between books I and II.4 Barnish does not deliberate further on the relationships between these kinds of purposes. This article does so, however.

Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (c. 485–c. 585) was born into a noble family and received a thorough education. His life encompassed two prominent careers, first as a statesman and later as a monastic leader. In both occupations, he proved an esteemed scholar, a man concerned about antiquitas and proud of his Latin Christian heritage. He was also a Catholic Christian in the court of the Arian Christian ‘barbarian king’ Theoderic in Ravenna. For many years Cassiodorus held the office of praetorian prefect, the highest political office in Italy under that of Emperor. After the fall of the Amal dynasty, however, he was forced out of office and taken to Constantinople where he remained for fourteen years. Sometime about the year 554 he retired to the monastery Vivarium, which he had established on his family’s estates in Squillace. This is where he completed Institutiones probably close to the year 562 (O’Donnell 1979, p. 203), though, a separate ‘draft’ version of book II called De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium litterarum has been traced to sometime between 536–554.5 De artibus is of some importance, as a comparison between the draft and the complete version yields insights into adaptations made to suit the monastic community of Vivarium.6

As Vessey puts it, Institutiones is “the first truly compendious statement of what has since become familiar as the curriculum of the seven liberal arts” (Vessey 2004, p. 13). As such, Institutiones is also a systematic curriculum with a thought-through order of education, together with recommendations for further reading to the student. Additionally, it regulates monastic practices at Vivarium, including instructions for the copying of texts. Institutiones marks a major shift in the educational setting of the 6th century. It is a testament to the way in which many monasteries in Late Antiquity increasingly became schools in their own right,7 a point of incredible impact for the remainder of European history. This trend also marks a new demography of students. Whereas literate education for the most part had belonged to the sphere of the Roman elite (Janson 2002, pp. 68–69), and schooling was expensive, monks and nuns from all societal strata now became literate (see Olsen 2017, especially chapters one and two). The declining economy of Italy in the 6th century, after wars and plague, meant that cities and the elite could no longer afford as many teachers as before. Instead, cheaper handbooks for self-learners increasingly became the standard. This meant that while the elite came to be less educated than before, the lower classes had more access to education than previously (Brown 2013, pp. 196–98). Vivarium was one of the main centres for this textual production. This difference in the societal backgrounds of student monks is reflected in Cassiodorus’ statement that Institutiones II is intended as an introduction for the uneducated and a repetition for the educated.8

Education in Late Antiquity had taken a kind of religious turn. Christians, Jews and, to an extent, pagan Neo-Platonists began to see religion as something that should direct all learning (Stenger 2022, for example pp. 291–92). Education was no longer viewed merely in functional terms but experienced a kind of revival of the original meaning of paideia. This was still the case in Cassiodorus’ time. Although the old Roman religion(s) were no longer an actual threat for Christians, the Roman sense of antiquitas and romanitas, especially among the bureaucratic classes, still made paganism a potential problem. Emperor Justinian closed the Academy of Athens in 529 because of the pagan tone of its Neo-Platonic tradition. That marks a sharp contrast against Justinian’s monetary support for the Alexandrian school, which did not share these pagan elements (Bjornlie 2013, pp. 53–58). The presence of pagan elements in the Roman schools was probably one reason that Cassiodorus lamented their popularity and the neglect of Scriptural teaching.9

Liberal arts—in particular, Grammar, Rhetoric, and Dialectic—had been used by previous Church Fathers, but it was sometimes coupled with an unease associated with either its pagan connotations or with uses directed towards worldly gains and fame. Not least Jerome and Augustine were important forerunners of Cassiodorus in this regard. Some other monastic Christian traditions, however, had seen little value in the liberal arts and adopted different Greco-Roman educational ideals similar to those of the Epicureans and Cynicans (Rydell-Johnsen 2018, pp. 224–25). These latter philosophical movements naturally shared in the criticism of the liberal arts. In contrast, the conventional schools and expectations of parents were often more concerned with the skills expected of a Grammarian or orator, rather than the formation of virtue (Stenger 2022, pp. 289–90).

The concept of liberal arts goes back to Aristotle and is connected to his ethical system. He considered an art liberal insofar as its end did not serve the uses of other goods than their own. Liberal arts were pursued for their own sake and connected to what is noble. For humans, the rational animal, the most noble goods were those of wisdom, theoretical knowledge of the most universal. For that reason, Aristotle regarded First Philosophy, i.e., Metaphysics, as the highest art, since it dealt with the most universal forms of knowledge including the most universal causes. The liberal arts and noble goods were considered higher than the servile arts and useful goods. These latter were pursued for either practical or necessary ends or for the sake of a higher art. They served ends other than their own. Examples of servile arts are agriculture, pursued for the sake of nourishment, or medicine, pursued for the sake of bodily health. For Aristotle, this did not imply that the servile arts were bad but only that they were not as good as the liberal arts. Indeed, without the necessities required to sustain bodily life, and to a certain extent the political life, one could not maintain the highest and most theoretical life. There is a servile part of human nature, even though she is rational (for a comprehensive discussion see Rosenthal-Pubul 2018, pp. 11–21).

Although the concept of liberal arts spread throughout the Greco-Roman world, their precise definition remained unclear for a long time. The specific list of the seven liberal arts found in Institutiones II (Grammar, Rhetoric, Dialectic, Arithmetic, Geometry, Music and Astronomy) seem not to have been cemented until Late Antiquity. Nevertheless, they received their first systematic outline already by Varro (116–27 BCE), who was considered one of the most learned men of Roman Antiquity. In his Nine Books of Disciplines (Disciplinarum libri IX) they are, however, presented alongside architecture and probably medicine (Tubbs 2014, p. 25). The oldest source in which the liberal arts are listed specifically as the seven arts of Institutiones II is found in Martianus Capella’s allegorical encyclopaedia De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii. The arts of architecture and medicine are also present in this work, but because Capella considered them servile, they are not counted among the liberal arts.

In Institutiones II, Cassiodorus most often calls these seven liberal arts the ‘secular’ arts, as distinguished from the ‘divine’ arts of Institutiones I.10 In this, Cassiodorus follows a Christian tradition that goes back at least to Augustine. Augustine writes, praising Varro, that the kinds of erudition that non-Christians call liberal, Christians call secular.11 In the Institutiones, the seven liberal arts are separated into two groups: the three ‘arts’ of Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic, and the four ‘disciplines’ or ‘sciences’ of Arithmetic, Music, Geometry and Astronomy.

2. The Origins and Foundations of the Liberal Arts in Institutiones

As stated in the introduction, the consensus view among scholars is that Institutiones claims that the liberal arts originate from Holy Scripture. We have already listed some key passages supporting this claim: Inst. 1.6.2.; 1.27.1.; 1.21.2.; Exp. Ps. 23.10.192–7.12 The question of the origins of the liberal arts is also taken to be fundamental for the perception of the worth of the liberal arts as such. For O’Donnell, the theoretical foundation for the liberal arts in their scriptural origin is also the basis for their purpose of biblical exegesis. Since he takes book II to be a gloss of Inst. 1.27., he argues that Institutiones I is theoretically complete, covering both divine and secular education. The introduction of the liberal arts in book II is written “only in order to take command of those subjects once and for all, to make them truly a branch of ‘divinity,’ to subordinate them to higher things” (O’Donnell 1979, pp. 212–13). O’Donnell even goes so far as to state that: “In fact, Cassiodorus seems not to have cared one way or the other what happened to secular culture, for he did not admit its theoretical right to exist” (O’Donnell 1979, p. 220).

Although the notion of ‘secular culture’, or similar notions of classical culture, are somewhat anachronistic (see Vessey 2004, p. 78), I believe this comment is a good place to begin our analysis of Institutiones II. Let us assume that O’Donnell refers to the ancient literary traditions, i.e., philosophy, Rhetoric, and other writings of so-called secular doctores used in the educational system of the Roman elite. I propose that there are passages in Institutiones II that provide a theoretical justification for the existence of extra-biblical studies with a foundation found outside of Scripture.

Indeed, such a passage is to be found already in the preface of Institutiones II, more precisely in Inst. 2.praef.1–3. This is where Cassiodorus introduces the theme of the second book and states arguments for why it is important. He cites Scripture as evidence, or an authoritative witness, to support his claims. At first glance, this seems to contradict my claim regarding foundations outside of Scripture, but as we shall see, the issue is more complex. For our purposes, there is a major point to be made about Cassiodorus’ presentation of Arithmetic here: “Thus the study of arithmetic is endowed with much praise, since the Lord, maker of things, arranged the universe by number, weight, and measure.”13 This is followed by biblical quotations that affirm Cassiodorus’ claim, before he concludes: “Therefore each wonderful work of God is bounded by an indispensable limit. Since we believe that God created everything, we may to a certain extent learn how things are made.”14 Cassiodorus continues his discussion by contrasting God’s works with those of the devil. “We are given to understand that the evil works of the devil are not defined by weight, measure and number, since the result of injustice is always the opposite of justice.”15 This is again backed up by biblical evidence. Thus, Cassiodorus provides a metaphysical framework in which the operations of the secular disciplines are thought of as being able to attain true knowledge on their own terms. Here, divinely inspired Scripture is understood to affirm the very ontology required and presupposed by the liberal arts. Indeed, from a rhetorical critical perspective one might as well say that Cassiodorus is using theology and Scripture as a means with the end of promoting secular education. It is important to note that the foundation of the disciplines in this regard is not rooted in Scripture, but in the order of the universe (i.e., God’s ordered creation). Scripture merely provides ‘evidence’ for this foundation.

Here it is also worth pointing out that the part of the preface cited above, Inst. 2.praef.1–3, does not appear in the ‘draft edition’, De artibus. The reason for adding this preface in Institutiones could either be due to stylistic concerns to make book II fit better with book I, or because of concern for a different audience than that of De artibus. Given the significant differences between Book I and Book II of the Institutiones, the former explanation appears more likely. Nevertheless, this does not exclude the possibility that the latter may have played a role as well. If De artibus was addressed to the educated elite, they likely would not need any convincing of the benefits of secular education. If Institutiones mainly addressed monks of whom some were educated and some of lesser cultural heritage, then perhaps some ‘apologetics’ for the secular studies were needed, or at least suitable at this point. Regardless, Cassiodorus’ argument to anchor secular education in the creation and order of the cosmos is something that puts a mutual constraint on both divine and secular arts. That constraint is consistency. They need to be aligned. This becomes clear when Cassiodorus later presents a definition of the disciplines and their claim to truth:

Disciplines are those pursuits that are independent of opinion and therefore never deceive; they are called disciplines because they are obliged to observe their own rules. Our attention to these disciplines neither <enlarges them,> nor are they diminished <by a narrow intellectual perspective>. They do not undergo any [other] changes but remain strong in themselves and preserve their rules with unchangeable firmness.16

The point is that Cassiodorus does not merely subordinate the arts and disciplines to Christian doctrine. Claims like this point in the direction that theology also must adhere to the “unchangeable firmness” of the disciplines. The road, as it happens, runs both ways.

Furthermore, for the reader of De artibus, the first encounter with the argument for anchoring the disciplines in the structure of the cosmos attributes its primary evidence from authority to Pythagoras. The passage speaks about Arithmetic, and is also found in Institutiones:

Pythagoras regarded this science so highly that he remarked that God created everything by number and measure. He said that some things were fashioned in motion and other things in place in such a way, however, that only those disciplines of which we have spoken received substance. I believe this, and take my start as many philosophers have done from that statement of the prophet, that God arranged everything according to number, measure, and weight <Wisdom 11:21>.17

This is followed by citing Wisdom 11:21 as evidence. Later, Cassiodorus presents Music as the discipline of the proper harmony of the universe. Pythagoras is again cited as evidence: “Pythagoras bears witness that this world was founded through music and can be given order by it.”18 A similar argumentation presents God as a geometer, thus, further legitimising and praising the discipline.19

The arts are not given as grand a narrative as the disciplines, but their theoretical right to exist is implied as they are presented as a prerequisite to understand the latter.

The point that the disciplines and to some extent the arts, have their foundation in the structure of the universe is one that has frequently been overlooked. Surely, this not only counts as a ‘theoretical right to exist’ for the liberal arts, but also renders null the claim that Institutiones II can be reduced to a gloss of Inst. 1.27.

Scholars tend to read Cassiodorus’ different claims that the liberal arts have their ultimate roots in Scripture as quite straightforward and as referring to a single and simple conception of this origin (e.g., Fögen 2016, p. 92, referring to Inst. 1.praef.6.; Stenger 2022, pp. 270–84; Astell 1999, p. 39). But that assessment is too reductionistic.

In Institutiones I.praef.6., Cassiodorus claims that information of the liberal arts has been “sown” in Holy Scripture, “that secular teachers afterwards wisely transferred to their own rules.”20 Cassiodorus also writes, citing Josephus for authority, that the Egyptians took up the seeds of Arithmetic and Astronomy from Abraham, but “cultivated the other disciplines more broadly for themselves.”21 This cultivation is not said to have originated in Scripture. This could rather be understood as a claim to a somewhat equal cultural footing between a Christian and a Hellenic (and Egyptian) heritage. Pollmann has suggested something similar, as she claims that Cassiodorus “Christianizes the pagan ideal that canonical poets like Homer or Vergil contain all knowledge by transferring it to the Bible” (Pollmann 2017, p. 78). More explicitly, the claim about Abraham is merely that biblical characters are the first to know, or at least to write about the liberal arts, even if they have not always cultivated them the most. Cassiodorus writes about different types of origins. There is a distinction between origins in the sense of a ‘seed’ of information of an art and origins in the sense of a fully cultivated technical art. Moreover, Cassiodorus’ readers should presumably understand the event of Abraham speaking as temporally taking place before it is written down in Holy Scripture. They were taught by Abraham, not by Scripture. Indeed, the upshot of Cassiodorus’ claim here is that the Egyptians were taught the ‘seeds’ of Arithmetic and Astronomy by Abraham, even before Holy Scripture was written.

Regarding the origin of Dialectic, the issue is tricky. Cassiodorus says that the earliest philosophers “gave a place to it” but that no one before Aristotle was able to “formalize it to the technique of an art.”22 Such a formalisation is not to be found in Scripture, nor does Cassiodorus try to show it. What Cassiodorus highlights are dialectical patterns used in the Scriptures.23 In another instance, however, Cassiodorus seems to be arguing differently:

As blessed Jerome says in the epistle he wrote to Paulinus: ‘Job begins in prose, slips into verse, ends in prose, and fixes everything by the laws of dialectic in major and minor premise, corroboration, and conclusion.’ But if this is true—and it must be as the authority of so great a man sets it down—where are those who say that the art of dialectic did not begin from most Holy Scripture?24

Indeed, Cassiodorus here uses the term ‘art’ (artem dialecticam), to depict that Dialectic has its beginning (coepisse) in Scripture. Here it seems that Cassiodorus is somewhat careless in his terminology. But this should perhaps not raise any eyebrows since the later medieval philosophical precision in categorising the liberal arts had not yet been developed.

• The context seems to indicate that Cassiodorus is referring to the laws of Dialectic. An example of such a ‘law’ would be something like the categories of Aristotle. In book II, Cassiodorus gives them the following introduction: “The categories or predicates of Aristotle follow, in which all discourse is wondrously contained in various meanings.”25 This too would seem to be a part of the definiteness of creation rather than something in Scripture. Hence, in the quotation of Jerome, it seems more likely that Cassiodorus is making a rhetorical point about Scripture using logical rules that historically precede the Greek philosophers. It seems, then, that the origins and foundations of Dialectic—at least in some respects—are ordered in the structures of creation. We may assume that this also extends to Grammar and Rhetoric, given the linguistic basis that they share with the rules of Dialectic.

3. The Purposes of the Liberal Arts in Institutiones: Servile or Noble Arts?

In this section, I will distinguish between different kinds of purposes, or ‘ends’ of the liberal arts in Institutiones. These will be treated in the following order: particular ends, virtues, service of higher arts, and service of worldly utility. Subsequently, I will discuss what seems to be concerns and misuses regarding secular education in Institutiones, as well as constraints it imposes on the arts.

It has already been noted that some passages in Institutiones state that the liberal arts are useful for understanding Scripture and the divine studies of book I. The most important passage in this regard is Inst. 1.27., which introduces the liberal arts in this connection. The application of the liberal arts for interpreting Scripture used in Expositio Psalmorum also shows that Cassiodorus thought the liberal arts useful for biblical interpretation. Inst. 2.7.4. similarly speaks of their usefulness for understanding divine law.

Some scholars have claimed that this is their only purpose (e.g., Hadot 2005, p. 191; O’Donnell 1979, pp. 212–13). Pollman recognises further uses, and takes secular studies to be a possible way of Christian life for Cassiodorus, but still takes the study of Scripture to be the liberal arts’ “proper application and true purpose” (Pollmann 2017, p. 79; cf. 86–91).

The disposition and overall contents of Institutiones II makes this unlikely, however. For example, as Vessey observes, the art that receives by far the most extensive treatment, Dialectic, is notably lacking in explicit examples that link it to monastic biblical study (Vessey 2004, p. 74).

Moreover, that is not how Cassiodorus introduces the arts in the preface of book II. Cassiodorus exhorts his readers to pay close attention to the definitions and etymologies given to the liberal arts in the beginning of book II. In Inst. 2.praef.4., Cassiodorus approvingly references Varro as claiming that all arts initially came into being for some useful purpose. He gives the word art (ars) two etymologies. The first connects it with regulation, from artet. This is how Cassiodorus justifies Grammar, and its regularising function as being the first art and the basis of liberal education. The second etymology derives ‘art’ from the Greek apo tēs aretēs, meaning ‘from excellence’ or ‘from virtue’ (a virtute), which Cassiodorus specifies as “that which learned men call the knowledge of each particular thing.”26 The arts’ functions—what they are for—are also briefly defined in the preface: Grammar regulates the suitable treatment of subjects. Rhetoric aims at honourable eloquence. Dialectic separates truth from falsity. Mathematics is theoretical; it considers quantity in the abstract.27 Each of the liberal arts is subsequently given a more detailed definition linking its purpose to its function at the beginning of its respective chapter in book II.

In Aristotelian terminology, the kind of functions defined above were spoken of as aiming at some particular ‘good’ or ‘end’28, e.g., the good of Dialectic would be to discern truth. Cassiodorus also uses the Latin equivalent of ‘function’ (officcium) and ‘end’ (finis) when defining the arts of Grammar and Rhetoric.29 Although Cassiodorus does not systematically use the term finis to explicitly mark the ends of each art, his descriptions of them convey their functions, all of which are connected to their own particular end. Cassiodorus’ view of the particular ends of the liberal arts can be illustrated in his praise of Astronomy: “It is such a wonderful thing to approach the heavens mentally and to examine the entire celestial structure using rational investigation.”30

The analysis above suffices to show that the liberal arts have particular ends in Institutiones. Rather than going through the details of each particular end, I will go on to examine other kinds of ends, or purposes, of the liberal arts. We should, however, note that the particular ends of the liberal arts listed above bear no direct, explicit connection to biblical exegesis. They do, however, have a necessary connection with forming virtues.

The distinctions between liberal and servile arts have been treated earlier in this article. Whilst servile arts were considered instrumental in producing goods external to the soul, liberal arts were considered to form habits in the soul. Liberal arts were considered to have their goods, or aims, in themselves because they cultivated virtue. The cultivation of virtue was the mark of their ‘noble’ or ‘liberal’ aim. As the arts were defined by their subject matter and their particular ends, their practice was thought of as forming particular virtues directed toward those ends. However, for authors like Aristotle, this did not mean that there was no hierarchy between the arts or between different virtues for that matter. Rather, all virtues were ultimately ordered to the highest good of happiness (eudaimonia). For humans, the rational animal, this meant wisdom (sophia/sapientia), theoretical contemplation of first causes and principles. There is a striking parallel to this thinking in Institutiones. Cassiodorus writes:

Frequent reflection on the disciplines sharpens our understanding, clears the mud of ignorance, and leads, with the Lord’s help, soundness of mind smiles upon us, to theoretical contemplation.31

Hence, the liberal arts do not only have the function of cultivating virtues in general for Cassiodorus, but specifically the highest virtue of wisdom, whose end is theoretical contemplation. From this alone, it seems anachronistic to think that all the different benefits that Cassiodorus ascribes to liberal arts could be reduced to the goal of interpreting Scripture. The aspect of cultivating virtue can also be seen in passages like Inst. 2.3.12, where types and figures of syllogisms are said to train the intellect. Cassiodorus also describes the hard work of mastering the disciplines as leading to its own delight in Inst. 2.3.19. Again, this is a very general point that is in line with how the classical authors wrote about education. Just as the virtues were hierarchically ordered, so too were the arts. This brings us to the discussion of how lower arts are subordinate to higher arts. Lower arts prepare the mind for the study of higher arts. Cassiodorus also makes a point of presenting Astronomy last, so that the disciplines lead up to the stars:

The obvious purpose was to direct our mind, which have been dedicated to secular wisdom and cleansed by the exercise of the disciplines, from earthly things and to place it in a praiseworthy fashion in the divine structure.32

A subordinate art could be called servile insofar as it contributes to a higher art by preparing the intellect for higher understanding. This is distinct from how servile arts contribute to the end of another by producing means (like architecture for the builder). The liberal arts are servile in the former sense, not servile in the latter productive sense. These kinds of distinctions are lacking in modern scholarly discourse when Cassiodorus is said to ‘instrumentalise’ the liberal arts for ‘a higher purpose’ or ’understanding Scripture’. The seven liberal arts, insofar as they were thought of as ‘liberal,’ were always thought of as serving the higher purpose of virtue formation leading towards the good life. The lower arts, like the lower virtues ‘served’ the higher ones. Hence, in this regard these liberal arts had a differing degree of servility to them. Likewise, statements such as Pollmann’s, that the liberal arts “should not be pursued for their own sake, but always be referred to the Creator” (Pollmann 2017, p. 87), presuppose a dichotomy between these ends that would seem foreign both to Cassiodorus and the classical tradition, though in the latter case, ‘the Creator’ needs to be changed to ‘God’ or ‘the Good’. Rather, Cassiodorus’ ‘preparatory’ subordination of all sciences to the highest and divine science seems analogous to Aristotle’s view. This is of some import, since Aristotle was the one to invent the distinction between liberal and servile arts, as well as the hierarchy leading to a highest, divine science. For purposes of illustration, Aristotle’s discussion of the highest science deserves a lengthier quote:

For this science must be theoretical of the primary principles and causes. And indeed the good and the ‘for the sake of what’ are one of the causes. […] it is clear that we seek it for no other use but rather, as we say, as a free man is for himself and not for another, so is this science the only one of the sciences that is free. For it alone exists for its own sake. And for this reason it is with justice that its acquisition would not be thought to be human. For in many ways the nature of men is enslaved. […] And such a science would be alone in two ways. For it would be that which a god would most choose, that is the one of the sciences that is divine, if indeed any of them is divine. And this happens to be alone in both of these ways. For god is thought to be among the causes for all things and to be a kind of principle, and also god would have such knowledge either exclusively or mainly. So all sciences are more necessary than this one and none is better.33

The main difference between Aristotle’s highest and most liberal science and Cassiodorus’ Christian view is found in the concept of God as someone who loves humans and aids them in their pursuit towards Him, through grace and divine revelation. Indeed, Cassiodorus says that it was divine love that moved him to compose the two books of Institutiones.34 It is in this sense that the liberal arts are subordinate to the divine arts of book I. However, there are still issues with the hierarchical ordering of the arts in Institutiones that need to be discussed.

The lower arts help the student understand the higher arts. In this regard, Grammar and Rhetoric are for Dialectic. Dialectic as an art is for the theoretical disciplines, i.e., trivium is for quadrivium. The mathematical disciplines are for the highest forms of learning, i.e., divine learning. In Institutiones, this obviously includes sacred doctrine and interpretation of Holy Scripture. Indeed, all seven liberal arts are said to be beneficial for understanding Scripture in Inst. 1.27.

It is, however, not clear how Dialectic should be understood in relation to the other arts, or to the divine studies of book I. Cassiodorus does not only introduce logic under the rubric of Dialectic, but all the branches of philosophy. Philosophy is treated both as an art and as a discipline. As was alluded to in the introduction, Cassiodorus divides the liberal arts into two groups. Grammar, Rhetoric and Dialectic are called arts since they deal with things that are subject to opinion. Arithmetic, Music, Geometry and Astronomy are called disciplines, since the knowledge they yield, when governed by their own principles, possesses certainty. It is also worth pointing out that philosophy often ranked as the highest discipline in the Greco-Roman educational system, rivalled only by Rhetoric (Morgan 1998, pp. 193, 265). Cassiodorus’ description of philosophy, especially theoretical philosophy, seems identical to the description of Aristotle’s highest science:

Theoretical philosophy is that by which we go beyond the visible world to contemplate something of the divine and heavenly, and which we see only with the mind, since we have gone beyond corporeal sight.35

And earlier:

Philosophy is the demonstrable, insofar as it is humanly possible, knowledge of divine and human matters. Philosophy is the art of arts and discipline of disciplines. Or again, philosophy is a preparation for dying, which is better fitted to Christians who trample down the lusts of this world and live a life of principle in a likeness of the homeland to come.36

This makes ‘philosophy’ a discipline to guide Christian life. It is not entirely clear how ‘philosophy’, in the sense of ‘the discipline of disciplines’ should be understood in relation to the divine studies of book I. Perhaps the discipline philosophy in Institutiones should be understood as Aristotle’s metaphysics, as a discipline that treats first causes, and so treats God. Cassiodorus gives us little guidance here. In his treatment of Dialectic, Cassiodorus divides theoretical philosophy into three branches: natural philosophy, mathematical philosophy (i.e., the mathematical sciences of the liberal arts), and divine philosophy.37 In other words, to the extent of what is humanly possible, there is a philosophy that deals with the divine. However, although Dialectic (including philosophy) is given the longest treatment by far among the liberal arts, it is still presented as part of the book treating ‘secular education’. It is not presented as a divine discipline in Institutiones I, which treats divine learning. Hence, philosophy in the sense of ‘the discipline of disciplines’ should probably be ranked above the mathematical disciplines, but lower than the divine learning presented in Institutiones I.

For Cassiodorus, the liberal arts cannot attain the full ascent to the theoretical contemplation of God by themselves. They need divinely revealed knowledge provided in Scripture and Christian doctrine, and more importantly, divine grace. The liberal arts shape the mind towards a correct understanding of things and direct it in the pursuit of knowledge of God as much as is humanly possible.38 This is ultimately the relation between the divine and liberal arts for Cassiodorus. This is what he means by “referring everything to the glory of the Creator.”39 Better exegesis of the Bible is certainly one important benefit of the liberal arts according to Cassiodorus. Nevertheless, it is neither the only purpose nor the highest purpose. The ultimate goal of liberal studies is the same as the goal of interpreting Holy Scripture, namely, to draw closer to God and the beatific vision: “to reach heaven by the use of our mental faculties.”40 This ultimate purpose, however, does not denigrate or remove the particular ends of each liberal art.

Lastly, Cassiodorus also lists benefits of the liberal arts that are neither ordered toward their own ends, virtue formation, nor toward a better understanding of Holy Scripture. Cassiodorus gives examples where the liberal arts seem to be made servile to earthly goods. Moreover, this is conducted approvingly, and as distinct from the misuses of secular studies. For example, Astronomy supplies the knowledge needed to construct sundials. Cassiodorus also notes that Astronomy’s practical value for navigation and agriculture should not be overlooked.41 Here the liberal arts are made into servants of the arts of sailing and agriculture. They are made servants of ‘lower’ things. This is a stark contrast to serving the higher interpretation of Scripture that many modern scholars take to be the purpose of studying the liberal arts according to Cassiodorus. If one wishes to argue that Cassiodorus does not take the liberal arts to be good in themselves but merely good as ‘servants’, then it is rather the statements about sailing and agriculture that should be used as evidence. Nevertheless, Cassiodorus does not seem to think that this is a problem. Varro included architecture and (probably) medicine in his treatment of education. Aristotle also noted that the theoretical life sometimes had to be subordinated to the political life, for the sake of society.42 Moreover, from Cassiodorus’ Christian point of view, even the highest of the apostles were servants. The Incarnation meant that God became man. As man, the Divine Logos was trained as a carpenter, washed his disciples’ feet, and allowed himself to be unjustly executed in the manner given to lapsed slaves. Because of this, the Son of God was glorified by God the Father. The humble were exalted. In fact, in book I on divine education, Cassiodorus indorses certain practices of servile arts that are analogous to the servile uses of Astronomy above. He recommends books for tending gardens, agriculture, and the raising of bees, doves and fish, etc., in order that all may be sustained and kept in good health.43 Vivarium had an ideal of self-sufficiency. Cassiodorus also provides a theological justification for the inclusion of these instructions in book I. “When these things are prepared for pilgrims and for the sick they become heavenly although they appear to be earthly.”44 This claim is followed by supporting passages of Holy Scripture. Perhaps Cassiodorus’ view is best summed up in “One must not neglect whatever activities can profitably aid man.”45

4. Concerns About Secular Education in Institutiones: Limits, Constraints and Misuses

There are also improper uses of the liberal arts that Cassiodorus warns about. He criticizes those who employ the liberal arts for the sake of praise. This is contrasted with the claim that everything should be referred to the glory of God.46

Cassiodorus likewise affirms that there are epistemological limits to secular as well as divine studies, due to the limits of human understanding.47 He claims that the disciplines are independent of opinion and therefore never deceive.48

an art involves working in an accustomed state with things that have the possibility of being other than they are; a discipline, however, is concerned with those things that cannot turn out differently or other than they are. We assume that this means matters concerning worldly learning, since only divine letters cannot deceive, for they hold the unmovable personal authority of truth.49

The statement about the certainty of the disciplines is thus qualified. This could be understood as a rhetorical move to completely subordinate the secular studies to Christian doctrines. However, that would be an over-simplified conclusion. We must still ascertain what Cassiodorus concerns about secular studies were, and in what way Christian doctrine related to those concerns. The most obvious examples of the limitations of liberal arts have to do with how one can ‘reach the heavens’ and how one can ‘see’ God as much as possible already in this life. Salvation depends on God’s grace and special revelation.50

There are also examples in Institutiones II where Christian doctrine is invoked to challenge the claims of the doctores.

Cassiodorus is a sceptic about a claim of Varro, that the world has the shape of an elongated sphere. Instead, Cassiodorus maintains that we should be content with what Scripture reveals on the subject.51 Cassiodorus never explicitly states his view on the earth’s shape, but his praise of Censorinus and Euclid suggests he accepted the spherical model common among educated thinkers of his time.52 He interprets biblical passages that might imply a flat earth figuratively, as not even referencing the Earth.53 It then remains unclear whether Cassiodorus’ distrust of Varro’s claim was based on his understanding of Scripture or because he thought it seemed to deviate from the spherical model that most educated people held to. Perhaps he reasoned that neither Scripture nor secular studies provided a clear answer and hence adopted an agnostic stance.

Cassiodorus raises another concern regarding secular education, but it is of a different sort. It deals with the relations between Astronomy and Astrology. Astrology is presented as a false art in Institutiones. Therefore, it does not constitute a direct conflict between divine and secular arts. However, this marks a conflict in the conceptions of what constitutes secular education. The place of Astrology was one of the dividing educational issues between Christians and pagan Neo-Platonists in Late Antiquity (Stenger 2022, p. 291). Cassiodorus associates Astrology with magic and deception, and cites Basil and Augustine as well as Plato and Aristotle as authorities who condemned astrology.54

Whilst Cassiodorus adopted the liberal arts into his educational programme and found them beneficial, astrology is met with outright rejection. Cassiodorus wants to preserve and integrate some conceptions of what could be viewed as secular education, but certainly not indiscriminately.

Finally, Cassiodorus takes issue with literal readings of explicitly pagan material integrated in the writings on liberal arts. His solution is straightforward enough. He swaps deity. Instead of having Jove use Geometry, Cassiodorus suggests the readers should associate the idea with God. They should conceive of the Holy Trinity as using Geometry to create and order the universe.55

Cassiodorus hence seems reluctant to have any possibility of conflict between the liberal arts and divine studies. Cassiodorus does claim that God can change the usual order of the universe for events referred to as miracles.56 However, since this occurs through the same divine will that ordains the order of the universe, it would not appear problematic in light of Cassiodorus’ conviction.

Misuse of secular education and what it should accommodate could also occur because of false beliefs. Against the non-Christian Neo-Platonists, Cassiodorus insists:

From that, most dear brothers, it turns out that we truly deserve to come to heaven rather by the Lord’s generosity than by the way in which the pagans falsely believed they could raise themselves to the structure on high.57

Non-Christian Neo-Platonists had a different conception of how far it was possible to ascend toward God through human means alone than (Neo-Platonic) Christians. Still, they both shared in the pursuit of such ascension.

5. Conclusions

This article has shown that the claim that the liberal arts are said to have their origin in Sacred Scripture according to Institutiones is reductionistic. The issue is much more complex. Although Cassiodorus explicitly writes that the liberal arts have their origins in Holy Scripture, he is speaking of their origins in different ways. He is also, in some senses, showing the origins or foundation of the liberal arts to be found in the order of the created cosmos. In one sense, information of the liberal arts is found in Scripture. In another sense, Scripture reveals that there is an order and definiteness to creation. Such a realist and anti-sceptic conception of the universe is a precondition for the liberal arts if they are to function as tools to better understand the universe. This also applies to their function of being able to train the mind and direct it towards God. In a further sense, Scripture tells of events that took place before the texts of the Scripture were written. According to Institutiones, in one such pre-Scripture event, Abraham taught some of the liberal arts to the Egyptians. However, the Egyptians cultivated the disciplines further. Although Cassiodorus points to instances of Dialectic in Holy Scripture, he writes that it was Aristotle who systematised Dialectic into an art. In this art of Dialectic, however, rules are found that map onto how the created world is ordered. This includes what can be expressed in discourse.

The above presents the liberal arts with a theoretical foundation. Their theoretical right to exist is especially tied to the way in which the liberal arts relate to and are part of the order of God’s creation. This is in stark contrast to the evil works of the devil and practices like astrology that, contrarily, should not exist (because they are false corruptions of that which exists).

The virtuous aim of acquiring true knowledge and training the mind is the most emphasised purpose of the liberal arts in Institutiones. The ultimate end of this virtue formation is theoretical contemplation of God. This purpose seems to be rather in line with the classical tradition, especially Aristotle, with the addition of identifying the highest Good with the Christian God, i.e., a God who loves humans and aids them in their pursuit of Him, through grace and special revelation. Knowledge of the latter can be acquired through divine studies. The liberal arts can be used to better understand Holy Scripture, but that is only one of their purposes. Neither is it their highest purpose, but the liberal arts share with divine studies the purpose of better contemplating God. The liberal arts each have their own particular ends that are goods in themselves and which form virtues of the mind. This training of the mind prepares the student for higher studies that in turn have their higher ends. Nevertheless, the liberal arts can properly serve not only the higher disciplines but also, at times, the lower, earthly ones, such as agriculture. This is allowed when it benefits humans. Moreover, even earthly arts can become heavenly when performed in Christian charity.

Improper uses of the liberal arts are not ordered toward God, but connected with deception, vainglory and false belief.

This article has shown that both the idea of the origins of the liberal arts and the purposes attributed to liberal arts studies are more layered and complex in Institutiones than have previously been recognised. It therefore follows that there is a complexity in Cassiodorus’ thinking that has not formerly been recognised.

For further research, I propose that the reception history of Institutiones deserves a revisit. The argument of this article suggests that Institutiones may lend itself as legitimisation for putting the liberal arts to use for many different purposes, some more profound than others. It may therefore be fruitful to examine the extent to which later works in the history of Western civilization that discuss or employ the liberal arts reflect Cassiodorian characteristics. Later sources may reflect such characteristics even without referencing Cassiodorus. It may also prove fruitful to look for Cassiodorian traits in the further development of the concept of the Book of Nature.