Hugh of St. Victor On Teaching the Arts
In his work the Didascalicon, Hugh of St. Victor discusses the proper order in which the arts ought to be studied and advice on how to teach them rightly. In order to “make a man into a philosopher,” there is a proper pathway for the student to follow in their instruction in the arts [1]. The student, under the tutelage of the teacher, should undergo training in the seven liberal arts, “in which are the foundation of all things and in which pure and simple truth is revealed—and especially to the seven already mentioned, which compromise the tools of all philosophy” (88). The seven liberal arts are the “foundation of all learning” (89) and must take precedence over the other arts initially because “without them the philosophical discipline does not and cannot explain and define anything” (89). In clarifying the pathway to philosophic knowledge for the student, Hugh then advises the teacher who will instruct the student in the arts. In his extended discussion on this point, Hugh essentially offers teachers three tips regarding how the arts are to be taught. They are, summarily, as follows:
The arts (i.e. the liberal arts) must all be studied in order to preserve their coherence and produce the perfecting effect upon the student.
Teachers must not teach various arts all at once but must distinguish in their instruction between treating an art in itself and applying the principles of an art to other areas of study.
When teaching students of any art, teachers should teach it clearly, briefly, and simply in order to affect easy understanding and prevent distraction.
Tip # 1
The first tip Hugh of St. Victor provides teachers can be stated both positively and negatively, as an imperative and as a warning. Positively, he says that arts (i.e. the liberal arts) must all be studied in order to preserve their coherence and produce the perfecting effect upon the student. Negatively, he sees it as a fundamental error for persons “who, not appreciating the coherence among the arts, select certain of them for study, and, leaving the rest untouched, think they can become perfect in these alone” (89). Essential to his understanding of the liberal arts is the internal coherence of these seven in how they relate, first, to knowledge, and second, to the intellectual powers of man. Regarding the first, the seven liberal arts — the three language arts of the Trivium and the four mathematical arts of the Quadrivium — form a complete whole that equips a man with the skills necessary to learn, study, and arrive at true knowledge. They do not teach everything about everything, but they do relate to everything. Regarding the second, each art corresponds to a particular intellectual power or skill innate in the nature of man and are necessary for him to become complete or perfected. Thus, it is essential for students to learn and master each art in order for him to possess all “the tools” for further inquiry.
This is an important piece of advice for modern classical educators as they attempt to retrieve and apply the liberal arts in classical academic settings. It is apparent that in the recovery movement of the past few decades, the Trivium has taken precedence over the Quadrivium. To be clear, I do not believe that the CCE movement intentionally desired to dismiss the Quadrivium as unimportant. Rather, in light of the educational crisis facing modern America — especially in regards the failure of the public school system to equip students in the basic tenets of reading, writing, and speaking — the leading figures of the early CCE movement emphasized the Trivium and sought to recover its emphasis upon the necessity of skillful reading, writing, and communication. The recovery of the Trivium was a very important step in the reviving of classical education. But now, decades into the CCE movement, it is of vital importance that classical educators recognize the necessity of keeping the seven liberal arts unified. A “classical” education in the Trivium that is detached from the Quadrivium is incomplete and deficient, for it will not achieve the goal of the liberal arts. Today, there are many educators in the CCE movement that are bringing to the public the medieval understanding of the Quadrivium. This is exciting to see. Nevertheless, due to the depth of knowledge required to grasp the medieval view of the Quadrivium — especially in its metaphysical and theological areas — the recovery of the Quadrivium in modern classical education will take more time, more training, and more effort than the Trivium required.
Tip # 2
The second tip Hugh of St. Victor supplies for teachers is a significant yet often overlooked distinction between treating an art in itself and applying the principles of an art to other areas of study. When teaching the liberal arts, there are “two separate concerns” (89) that must be recognized and distinguished. The first concern pertains to teaching an art in itself (e.g. teaching the art of grammar), while the second pertains to applying the principles of the art in other areas of study. Hugh states that “two distinct things are involved here: treating of the art and treating by means of the art,” (89). This distinction is, in my opinion, one of the most important things classical educators can learn.
To unpack this distinction, Hugh uses the example of grammar. He says, “Treating of an art is treating, for instance, of grammar; treating by means of that art is treating some matter grammatically. Note the difference between these two—treating of grammar, and treating something grammatically. We treat of grammar when we set forth the rules given for words and the various precepts proper to this art; we treat grammatically when we speak or write according to the rule” (90). The profundity of this distinction lies in its simplicity. Hugh recognizes the difference between teaching students the art of grammar by instructing them in language, and teaching students to apply grammatical principles to other areas of study. Both are important, yet they are distinct. And in my interpretation of Hugh’s thought, it seems that instruction in the art of grammar must come before grammatical application takes place. Students should know grammar before they begin thinking grammatically about different subjects. In fact, it is through their real knowledge and mastery of grammar that their minds then are able to apply those principles beyond mere letters or sentences. Thus, Hugh warns teachers about attempting to teach various arts at once or weaving in different arts into their instruction in order to maintain this distinction.
In my observation of the current CCE movement, this distinction is not made very clear. Let us take the Trivium as an example. Much of today’s language about the Trivium used in discussions, trainings, articles, or books consists in highlighting the Trivium as either “stages for child learning and development” or as principles to apply in every area of study. Grammar is often depicted as the first stage of a child’s schooling (e.g. the Grammar Stage) and also as a tool to understanding the “grammar of history” or “the grammar of science.” In both cases, grammar is not treated in itself as a distinct art yielding a corresponding skill, but is instead applied. They use grammar grammatically, which is not wrong in itself, but it does conflate grammar as an art and grammar applied.
The key takeaway for modern classical educators and the CCE movement as a whole is to begin reforming their speech, use, and application of the liberal arts so as not to conflate the art itself and the art applied. Every classical educator should be instructed in what each art is and how each art should be taught, whether the Trivium or Quadrivium. Then, as the students mature and grow in their skillfulness, application of these arts can be initiated in other areas of study. Then, and only then, can each art both perfect the student’s intellectual skill and inform other arts through application.
Tip # 3
The third and final word of advice Hugh gives provides great pedagogical advice for teachers. He encourages teachers, when teaching students any art, to teach it clearly, briefly, and simply in order to affect easy understanding and prevent distraction. Hugh writes that when “we treat of any art—and especially in teaching it, when everything must be reduced to outline and presented for easy understanding— we should be content to set forth the matter in hand as briefly and as clearly as possible, lest by excessively piling up extraneous considerations we distract the student more than we instruct him” (90). This word of advice is probably relatable to all classical educators! The beauty of this piece of advice lies in how Hugh relieves the pressure teachers may feel when teaching a great amount of content. If you are an educator and have felt the pressure — or perhaps committed the error of “cramming too much” as Hugh points out — then take this word as an encouragement to improve your pedagogical skill:
“We must not say everything we can, lest we say with less effect such things as need saying. Seek, therefore, in every art what stands established as belonging specifically to it. . . Do not strike into a lot of by-ways until you know the main roads; you will go along securely when you are not under the fear of going astray” (90).
Hugh of St. Victor, The Didascalicon of Hugh of St. Victor: A Medieval Guide to the Arts, trans. Jerome Taylor, Repr. Records of Western Civilization (New York City, Columbia Univ. Press, 1991), 89. All citations from Hugh of St. Victor in this article will be derived from this version and marked by parenthetical page numbers.
