Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Tomus
I, Libri I–XIII. Edited by L. D. Reynolds. Oxford Classical
Texts. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. 323 pp.

Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Epistles, 66–92. Vol. 2. Translated by
Richard M.Gummere. Loeb Classical Library. 1920. Reprint,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. 480 pp.

General Background to the Project

What exactly are the liberal arts and what specifically is their
purpose? Further, what is the relationship of the liberal
arts to philosophy, or should philosophy itself be considered to be
a liberal art? These are perennial questions that have been posed
and answered in various fashions since the very inception of the
notion of the liberal arts, and such uncertainties continue to be
raised by members of the contemporary academic community—
both students and educators alike. Indeed, the development of the
concept of the liberal arts has a most curious and somewhat
convoluted history. What is now properly considered to be the
canonical division of the three arts of the trivium (viz., logic,
grammar, and rhetoric) and the four arts of the quadrivium (viz.,
arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy) was not the achievement
of any single individual, as it took literally centuries of
philosophic discussion to arrive at the existence of, and the
distinctions between, these seven liberal arts.1

In the broadest sense, the root notion of the liberal arts
tradition can be traced back to the Pythagoreans in the sixth
century B.C., who emphasized, in a quasi-mystical fashion, the
importance of harmonizing one’s soul through a contemplative
understanding of the mathematical structure of the cosmos.2
Indeed, Pythagorean influences are distinctly evident in Book VII
of the Republic, wherein Plato (c. 428–348 B.C.) emphasizes the
need for the studies of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and
music in the proper education of the philosopher-kings.3 Although
indisputably Hellenic in their ultimate origins, the Greeks
themselves did not call such non-vocational studies “liberal arts,””
however.4 The actual phrase artes liberales was used for the first
time centuries later in the first century B.C. by the Roman authors
Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 B.C.) and Marcus Terentius
Varro (116–27 B.C.).5 For both of these writers, however, the
nature and number of these arts were matters of uncertainty.6 It
was not until the fifth century A.D. that the first written record of
the seven liberal arts appeared, in a work by Martianus Cappella.7
Even after these general formulations were made, however,
incessant discussion continued throughout the Middle Ages, and
indeed continues today, as to the precise nature and goals of the
septem artes liberales.8

Historically speaking, arguably one of the more seminal
figures in this ongoing discussion of the nature of the liberal arts
is Lucius Annaeus Seneca (ca. 4 B.C.–A.D. 65), the Roman Stoic
philosopher who lived contemporaneously with Jesus Christ
during the advent of Christianity.9 Writing during this formative
time of discussion of the liberal arts in late antiquity, Seneca the
Philosopher offered provocative and continuously relevant insights
as to the nature, unity, and purpose of the liberal arts.

Notable for the fact that he is the earliest Stoic philosopher
whose writings have remained throughout history extant in their
entirety, Seneca wielded enormous influence not only in classical
antiquity but throughout the Middle Ages and into modern times.10
One of the many avenues of Senecan philosophic influence has been
Epistle LXXXVIII of his 124 Moral Letters, which is devoted to the
topic of the nature and purpose of the liberal arts. During the
Middle Ages, this letter later became a separate treatise that was
disseminated independently of his other letters under the specific
title Lucii Annaei Senecae liber de septem artibus liberalibus.11

Purpose and Methodology of the Study

The thesis of this paper maintains that Seneca the Philosopher’s
historically innovative perspective on the liberal arts—which
reflects the Hellenistic tradition in general and Stoicism in
particular—seemingly paradoxically both depreciates and exalts
the intrinsic value of knowledge. Recognizing a need for a teleological
unification of the various liberal arts in the specific study
of philosophy, Seneca understands the perfection of human
nature in the virtuous activity of contemplation through which the
soul is free to rationally roam within the realm of divine nature (or
Logos). However, Seneca’s understanding of the unification of the
liberal arts comes at the cost of potential dogmatism. Insofar as
each discipline must be understood as being oriented primarily
toward wisdom alone, the Senecan perspective apparently neglects
the inherent integrity of each field of study. Philosophy thus
becomes a type of architectonic and rather a priori discipline,
rather than an a posteriori method of investigation, and the
relationships of the other branches of knowledge to each other
and to wisdom itself is thereby obfuscated.

The focus is of this essay is centered on Seneca’s view of the
liberal arts as expressed specifically in his Epistle LXXXVIII, with
supplementary references being made periodically to other pertinent
works of the Senecan corpus as required for further
illumination; explicit attention is given throughout to the manners
in which Seneca elaborates upon, as well as differs with, general
notions of Hellenistic thought. The first section presents an
examination of the philosopher’s specific view of the liberal arts
and investigates his general classification scheme, his reasons for
his deprecating them, and his view of their propaedeutic value.
The second section considers Seneca’s exalted conception of the
nature of philosophy and the virtue and freedom that wisdom
secures. At the close of the paper, summarizing conclusions are
rendered concerning both the weaknesses and the strengths of the
Senecan perspective.

SENECA’S DEPRECIATORY CONCEPTION
OF THE LIBERAL ARTS

Seneca’s Distinctive View of the Liberal Arts

Throughout essentially all of his numerous writings, Seneca
emphasizes the role of proper philosophical education in the
formation of virtuous character. However, within the entire
Senecan corpus, Epistle LXXXVIII stands as the locus classicus
for Seneca’s unique and influential view of the status of the liberal
arts.12 Seneca emphatically proclaims in this letter his novel
interpretation of the subject, requesting, “”In this discussion you
must bear with me if I do not follow the regular course,””13
asserting that his view of the characteristics of the liberal arts—
which was a subject of discussion at his time—will not follow
precisely in the footsteps of previous thinkers.

Written, as are all of Seneca’s moral letters, to Lucilius, his
Epicurean friend who was at the time the procurator of Sicily,
Epistle LXXXVIII begins: “”You have been wishing to know my
views with regard to liberal studies. My answer is this: I respect
no study, and deem no study good, which results in moneymaking.
Such studies are profit-bringing occupations, useful only
in so far as they give the mind a preparation and do not engage it
permanently. One should linger upon them only so long as the
mind can occupy itself with nothing greater; they are our apprenticeship,
not our real work.””14 Like many modern educators,
Seneca opens the question of the nature of liberal arts inducing
the specific criterion of utility: What is the use of the liberal arts?
The striking difference is what Seneca understands to be “”useful.””
Unlike many contemporary thinkers, Seneca professes that the
liberal arts cannot be oriented toward the goal of making money
or material profit, which is not the true good or proper function
of human beings.

In fact, he continues to enumerate several types of studies,
including sculpture, marble-working, wrestling, and cooking, that
others might deem to be included among the liberal studies, but
which he affirms should rather be regarded as non-liberal pursuits,
since they are conducive to luxurious living.15 In listing the
various teachable skills which people have considered arts, Seneca
discerns that certain studies (or fields of human endeavor)
have as their telos a type of servile orientation; intrinsically, such
studies serve the goal not of human perfection but of wastefulness
and luxury. Leisure time, which is a necessary requirement of
pursuing the liberal arts, also is a prerequisite for luxurious living,
and for this reason, as well as their association with pleasure, the
liberal arts in the proper sense and those arts that are oriented
toward luxury may be confused with each other.

Seneca then proceeds to classify the various types of arts
which are found in the world, following closely the four-fold
division recommended by the Stoic master Posidonius (c. 135–c.
50 B.C.)16; Seneca affirms that there exist four basic types of arts,
viz., firstly, the common (literally “”vulgar””) arts, which are those
made for the fundamental needs of life, such as cooking and
metal-working; secondly, the arts of amusement, such as those
which might be considered today to include many of the “”fine
arts””; thirdly, the arts of general instruction, the so-called “”puerile””
arts which the Greeks termed enkuklios paideia (literally, “”the
cycle of studies””), such as grammar and arithmetic; and, fourthly,
those arts that are properly called “”liberal.””17 In this quadripartite
classification of the arts, Seneca is suggesting that the liberal arts
not only are to be distinguished from those arts that are oriented
directly toward utility and those arts that are oriented directly
toward pleasure but also should be differentiated from other
educational arts.

What is the distinction between what Seneca is calling the
properly “”liberal arts”” and those arts that he states pertain to the
education of youth? In this answer reside Seneca’s novel insights
regarding the status of the liberal arts.

Seneca’s innovative definition of the liberal arts is the following:
“”Hence you see why ‘liberal studies’ are so called; it is because
they are studies worthy of a free-born gentleman. But there is only
one really liberal study,—that which gives a man his liberty. It is
the study of wisdom, and that is lofty, brave, and great-souled. All
other studies are puny and puerile.””18 Thus for Seneca the liberal
arts are not only those that are practiced by people with free time,
as are the traditional studies for youth in the general curriculum.
This view of the liberal arts reflects the traditional, etymologically
derived definition of the liberal arts, viz., arts studied by those
who, because of time and material resources, are free to pursue
them. Most importantly, in his novel definition of the artes
liberales, Seneca declares that the liberal arts should be oriented
to man’s very liberation and have the explicit goal of making a
person in some sense free. Seneca thus views these arts liberal not
with regard to their origins but to their ends. Although this view
of the liberal arts as inherently freeing to an individual is manifestly
latent in the thought of earlier philosophers (such as Plato
and Aristotle),19 Seneca historically appears as the first author to
connect the concept of the liberal arts explicitly with the goal of
human freedom—in what now has become an almost commonplace
understanding of the concept (often, however, with wildly
misguided notions of freedom).20 As will be discussed further
hereafter, for Seneca the freedom to which the liberal arts are
oriented is not primarily or even necessarily a political freedom,
and much less is it a freedom for the mind to think whatever it
finds pleasing. Indeed, for the Stoic philosopher, freedom consists
in the ability of the virtuous mind to comprehend, and thus
mirror, the truths of the universe and to commune with Nature
(identifiable with Reason and God) through the action of contemplation.

Aside from his emphasis on the teleological orientation of the
liberal arts toward freedom, the other striking aspect of Seneca’s
view of the liberal arts is precisely that they are not, strictly
speaking, many, but one! Only the art of wisdom, which is
identified with philosophy, adequately can be considered “”liberal””
in the Senecan view. Seneca had a general disdain for any pursuit,
including academic studies, that was undertaken for anything
other than the perfection of human nature culminating in a state
of virtue.21 Not only were the vulgar or pleasure-oriented arts
such as painting and sculpture viewed with a certain degree of
disdain with regard to the ultimate goal of humanity, but Seneca
discerned that even the intellectual pursuits that were traditionally
considered to be “”liberal arts”” could actually impede the
actualization of virtue.22 During the course of Epistle LXXXVIII,
Seneca specifically mentions the inherent deficiencies (and potential
moral difficulties) that pertain to the oft-considered
“”liberal”” studies of grammar, music, geometry, arithmetic, and
astronomy.23 Logic and rhetoric are the disciplines that later
would become canonical liberal arts which Seneca does not
mention specifically in this letter, although he does speak of poets
(particularly Homer) and litteratura throughout, both of which
would reflect the rhetorical discipline (of which Seneca’s father
was a renown practitioner).24 The study of logic was considered by
the Stoics to be a part of philosophy itself; however, elsewhere in
his works, Seneca avows that the study of logic cannot be an end
in itself.25

#page#

What are the essential deficiencies of these so-called “”liberal
arts”” that Seneca deems as “”puerile””? Seneca recognizes at least
three manners in which the liberal arts cannot be deemed as endsin-
themselves, namely: (1) epistemologically (lacking first-order
principles of knowledge), (2) teleologically (lacking direct orientation
toward moral goodness), and (3) temporally (lacking time
in which to pursue them). The first two deficiencies may be
considered intrinsic, while the third is extrinsic, but nonetheless
of great import for Seneca.

Epistemological Deficiencies

The first (or “”epistemological””) deficiency in the liberal arts is due
to their very nature as second-order disciplines. According to
Seneca in another one of his letters, each of the various academic
disciplines possesses its own definitive principles (decreta) which
distinguish it from each of the other liberal arts.26 Seneca does not
explicate further what are the specific principles that define each
of these arts; this would seem to be essential to complete a
coherent and comprehensive theory. Seneca does, however,
emphatically maintain what these doctrines are not—they are not
the most rudimentary, or first, principles of knowledge. The
commonly called “”liberal”” arts do not relate directly to the causes
of things but only to the categorization and assessment of phenomena.
Philosophy alone, according to Seneca, directly investigates
the causes of things, especially regarding the principles of
good and evil, and it serves as the foundational principle of the
other intellectual disciplines.27 Thus Seneca conceives of knowledge
to have a hierarchical structure, with some studies being
subordinated to others and philosophy being the discipline that
pertains to the most basic aspects of existence and action.28

Teleological Deficiencies

Arising directly out of their lack of first principles, the liberal arts
have another inherent shortcoming, namely a teleological insufficiency
(or deficiency of ultimate purpose). By themselves, with
regard to their intrinsic principles, each liberal art fails to have a
notion of the true human good. Seneca questions the central
principle that all subjects of learning are of equal value and insists
that many who profess to be educators lack the core concept of
the purpose of education; with seemingly Platonic inspiration in
his insistence on the essential notion of a universal good that
underlies all knowledge,29 in Epistle LXXXVIII Seneca avers:

Certain persons have made up their minds that the point at issue
with regard to the liberal studies is whether they make men good;
but they do not even profess or aim at a knowledge of this
particular subject. The scholar busies himself with investigations
into language, and if it be his desire to go farther afield, he works
on history, or, if he would extend his range to the farthest limits,
on poetry. But which of these paves the way to virtue? Pronouncing
syllables, investigating words, memorizing plays, or making
rules for the scansion of poetry, what is there in all this that rids
one of fear, roots out desire, or bridles the passions?30

Thus Seneca recognizes that there exist many varieties of
“”knowledge”” that have little or nothing to do directly with human
perfection. As if in answer to the Socratic question whether virtue
can be taught,31 Seneca affirms the traditional Stoic perspective
that virtue can in fact be instilled through education, and that
philosophy alone is the discipline which is potentially capable of
understanding the notion of the good that underlies both truth
and virtue. Seneca speaks of the instructors of the liberal arts in
this manner:

The question is: do such men teach virtue, or not? If they do not
teach it, then neither do they transmit it. If they do teach it, they
are philosophers. Would you like to know how it happens that
they have not taken the chair for the purpose of teaching virtue?
See how unlike their subjects are; and yet their subjects would
resemble each other if they taught the same thing. It may be,
perhaps, that they make you believe that Homer was a philosopher,
although they disprove this by the very arguments through
which they seek to prove it.32

Seneca’s comments about the disparately wide range of
subject matter taught by different instructors in the same discipline
unfortunately has a modern resonance. For Seneca, it is not
the specific facts comprising the curriculum of any of these
particular studies that is at issue. It is a question of the integration
of information with a view toward human fulfillment. Moreover,
Seneca’s specific mention of the poet Homer in opposition to the
philosopher is evocative of the continuous debate concerning the
nature of the liberal arts which has been a perpetual struggle in
interpretation between poets and philosophers as to what constitutes
the core of the tradition: effective communication and
advancement in society or the pursuit of truth itself?33 This is a
struggle in which, following ultimately Plato and more immediately
Posidonius,34 Seneca avers the definitive hegemony of
philosophy.35 In fact, the potential abuse of pursuing an academic
discipline without reference to the true good, Seneca acknowledges
to be a possibility within the study of philosophy itself,36 yet
he maintains that in principle, philosophy is the only discipline
that is inherently ordered toward such a broad and encompassing
investigation.

Temporal Deficiencies

In addition to these intrinsic epistemological and teleological
limitations of the liberal arts, there exists a third, extrinsic
deficiency, namely that regarding time. For Seneca, there is the
distinct implication that the reason why these various studies
should not be pursued exclusively, or aside from the guidance of
philosophy, is due to our extremely circumscribed temporal
existence as mortal beings. Man can only understand so much
within the parameters of a limited lifetime. If human beings were
to have an unlimited lifespan, perhaps in principle such studies
could be pursued ad infinitum in an ever-increasing understanding
of the minute features of the universe. As human nature is
intrinsically confined by time, however, people do not have the
means to achieve knowledge of everything, but merely of what is
most important. Reflecting upon this time-limited aspect of
learning, Seneca proclaims in Epistle LXXXVIII that one should
be prudent with the use of time and asserts that as pleasant as
pursuing many different studies may be one should be acquainted
only with as many arts as are useful to life; he warns that
overindulgence in the liberal arts can make people pretentious
bores who fail to understand the essential truths of existence
because of intemperately involving themselves in trivial mental
pursuits.37

The Propaedeutic Value of the Liberal Arts

Because of the inherent deficiencies of the liberal arts regarding
their derivative and secondary starting principles, their indirect
orientation toward goodness, and their temporal constraints, are
people to categorically avoid these traditional avenues of intellectual
investigation and cultivation? On the contrary, Seneca does
not consider these studies to be intrinsically pernicious, and in
fact he understands that they are capable of being preparatory for
virtuous living. He insists that they do in fact contribute to human
welfare by preparing the soul for the reception of virtue, although
they are incapable of leading the soul all the way toward its
ultimate goal.38 Indeed, the worth of the liberal arts as being a
stage toward leading the soul toward virtue is elsewhere echoed
in a Senecan dialogue written to console his mother during his
time of exile; he reminds his mother of her earlier acquaintance
with the liberal arts and suggests that they may serve as a
foundation for a properly philosophical understanding of her
lonely circumstances.39 Thus for Seneca the liberal arts potentially
possess an important, though not necessarily essential,
propaedeutic value.40 Seneca suggests that the mind can become
strengthened in its powers of understanding through the more
elementary arts. The study of grammar or music can aid in
enhancing the mind’s ability to comprehend more profound
subject matter with greater facility. It would seem obvious that a
person would be incapable of studying the deepest truths of
nature without first being equipped with the mental tools to do so.
It is for this reason that Seneca wishes to designate such arts as
boyish and puerile—as preparations for the manly and virile
liberal art oriented toward virtus itself, i.e., philosophy.

SENECA’S EXALTED CONCEPTION
OF PHILOSOPHY AND FREEDOM

The Divisions of Philosophy

The reduction of all the liberal arts into the single art of philosophy
calls for a clarification as to what precisely for Seneca
constitutes philosophia. Understanding philosophy in the classical
sense as the “”love or pursuit of wisdom,””41 in accordance with
the doctrines of the Stoic school, Seneca separates the field of
philosophy into three distinct parts, namely: (1) logic, which
involves questions of epistemology and includes both dialectic
and rhetoric, (2) physics, which investigates nature with regard to
its ultimate principles, and (3) ethics, which involves the principles
of the human good and virtuous action.42 Essentially, in the
perspective of the Hellenistic thinkers, the discipline of philosophy
was considered to be an all-encompassing field. This is true
not only for the Stoics, who arguably were among the first thinkers
to systematize philosophy in a definitive fashion,43 but also for the
Epicureans, who regarded philosophy alone as the only subject
worthy of pursuit—to the exclusion of all other liberal studies.44
Since Seneca was a Stoic who had a strong appreciation for the
teachings of Epicureanism, it is perhaps not surprising that he
maintained such a truncated view of the liberal arts in a reductionistic
subordination to philosophy. With his Stoic background,
what would later become known as the trivium (logic, grammar,
and rhetoric) would be subsumed completely by the Stoic division
of logic and the quadrivium arts (arithmetic, music, geometry,
and astronomy) would fall under the province of physics. There
would seem to be no need for further partitioning or articulation
of the artes liberales from the Stoical perspective. And, with the
added Epicurean injunction that philosophy alone should be
pursued, it is possible to view Seneca’s self-avowedly unique
position as being fundamentally conformable to the customary
Hellenistic notions of his time.

In his work Naturales Quaestiones, Seneca clarifies the distinction
between philosophy and the other arts by making a
comparison between moral philosophy, which deals specifically
with human action, and natural philosophy, which concerns even
the nature of God:

[T]he great difference between philosophy and other arts is
matched, I think, by the equally great difference in philosophy
itself, between that part which pertains to man and that which
pertains to the gods. The latter is loftier and more intellectual,
and so has permitted a great deal of freedom for itself. It has not
been restricted to what can be seen; it has presumed that there
is something greater and more beautiful which nature has placed
beyond our sight. In short, between the two branches of
philosophy there is as much difference as there is between man
and god. One teaches us what ought to be done on earth: the
other what is to be done in heaven. One dispels our errors and
furnishes a light for us to see through the uncertainties of life; the
other rises far above this fog in which we wallow, and rescuing
us from darkness, leads us to the place whence the light shines.45

The imagery in this particular passage resonates with Platonic
thought. Seneca asserts that there is a realm beyond the visible in
which philosophy can operate in order to grasp the greatest and
most sublime truths of existence.46

For Seneca, philosophy concerns the human mind’s understanding
of the basic principles of the universe and the practical
moral response to such understanding. Ordered to the essential
causes of truth and goodness, philosophy is the subject of utmost
importance; the supreme form of intellectual pursuit, it should be
the main priority in one’s life. He even exhorts: “”One must
therefore take refuge in philosophy.””47

The Nexus between Philosophy and Virtue

Keeping with the tradition of his Greek and Roman philosophical
predecessors, Seneca gives immense prominence to the pursuit of
wisdom throughout his writings and identifies wisdom with the
entirety of virtue itself.48 The goal of philosophy as being oriented
toward virtue and the mutual dependence between the two is
proclaimed when he states in Epistle LXXXIX: “”For philosophy
cannot exist without virtue, nor virtue without philosophy.””49 The
intimate connection between virtue and philosophy was grounded
in the Stoic’s view of the human soul as being equivalent to reason
itself. Indeed, though obviously indebted to Platonic and Aristotelian
thought, the Stoic Seneca is the first ancient author to
explicitly define man as the “”rational animal.””50 For Seneca,
philosophy as the pursuit of wisdom stands as the architectonic
art. He even goes so far as to call wisdom the “”art of life”” (in
Epistles XXIX and CXVII).51 Seneca perceives wisdom both as an
instrumental art for attaining the highest good and as the telos of
the perfected mind itself.52

Contemplative Dimensions of Wisdom and Freedom

Quite often Hellenistic thought in general, and Senecanism in
particular, are characterized as being interested primarily in the
practical dimensions of philosophy rather than in its theoretical
aspects.53 It has been maintained that the schools were concerned
with dogmatism more than pursuit of truth and the ultimate
explanations of things were viewed for the sake of action, rather
than being sought for their own sakes. Although there is a degree
of truth in this assertion, it fails to take into account the theoretical
dimensions of philosophy that were emphasized by Seneca
throughout his works.54

According to Seneca, the cosmos is governed by rationality
and human beings participate in the pervasive providence of
nature. For Seneca, the nature of the universe was a subject of
immense importance and a source of great intellectual satisfaction.
55 Indeed, philosophical meditation itself has intrinsic worth,
and it becomes an end in itself when one realizes that the
contemplation of the universal reason that constitutes and permeates
Nature is itself the highest function of the human mind
and soul.56

In conformance with the tradition of the ancient Stoics who
preceded him,57 since Seneca viewed nature as the manifestation
of the divine, an investigation into the reality of nature, especially
on the most theoretical level, was in fact an inquiry into the
essence of God. For him, natural science and theology tend to
converge within the highest levels of intellectual examination, and
philosophy is concerned with discovering the causes of things
from the most profound perspective.58 He maintains that the
theological sciences reign supreme and that the studies of human
conduct should be subordinated to this investigation of the
highest questions concerning the nature of the universe. Extolling
the investigation into the highest principles of being, he perceives
severe difficulties in a reductionistic account of nature.

It is precisely in the act of contemplation of Nature and God
that Seneca identifies the true meaning of freedom. In Epistle
XCII, he makes the assertion that the contemplation of nature is
a goal of humanity that should not be impeded, when he declares:
“”For the mind is free from disturbance when it is free to
contemplate the universe, and nothing distracts it from the
contemplation of nature.””59 Philosophy itself, in its aspiration for
attaining wisdom, is recognized by him as being a fundamental
goal for humankind; to be sure, he emphatically insists in Epistle
VIII that “”the very service of Philosophy is freedom.””60 Unlike the
Epicureans, who deemed that the contemplation of nature was
necessary to free the soul of its anxiety,61 the Stoical Seneca insists
that the freedom of the soul from pain is itself instrumental to the
higher human function of investigating the universe. As expressly
enumerated in Epistle LXXXVIII, the examination of the nature
of the universe involves questions about its first cause, the
essence of time, and the potential immortality of the soul.62
According to the Stoic view, only the virtuous soul is capable of
such immortality and is free in an even stronger respect—free to
aspire to the starry heavens themselves after mortal existence on
earth.

In fact, in this unceasing theoretical pursuit of knowledge of
the universe, Seneca emphatically recommends the study of the
great minds in history, most notably Socrates, who have gone
before and investigated the universe:

Of all men they alone are at leisure who take time for philosophy,
they alone really live; for they are not content to be good
guardians of their own lifetime only. They annex every age to
their own; all the years that have gone before them are an
addition to their store. Unless we are most ungrateful, all those
men, glorious fashioners of holy thoughts, were born for us; for
us they have prepared a way of life. By other men’s labours we
are led to the sight of things most beautiful that have been
wrested from darkness and brought into light; from no age are we
shut out, we have access to all ages, and if it is our wish, by
greatness of mind, to pass beyond the narrow limits of human
weakness, there is a great stretch of time through which we may
roam. We may argue with Socrates, we may doubt with Carneades,
find peace with Epicurus, overcome human nature with the
Stoics, exceed it with the Cynics. Since Nature allows us to enter
into fellowship with every age, why should we not turn from this
paltry and fleeting span of time and surrender ourselves with all
our soul to the past, which is boundless, which is eternal, which
we share with our betters?63

It is through the study of works of the greatest thinkers of
history that the soul can achieve its ultimate freedom, according
to Seneca, and one is capable of communing with these sages
merely through the contemplative reading of their texts; this truly
timeless freedom is afforded to each person regardless of one’s
period in history, whether it be the first century or the twenty-first
century A.D.

CONCLUDING CONSPECTUS

Recapitulation

Embedded within the traditions of Stoic thought, Seneca the
Philosopher maintains a unique perspective on the liberal arts, as
he both devalues such arts in the traditional sense yet emphatically
extols the intrinsic value of knowledge. Not surprisingly,
then, Seneca’s provocative suggestions concerning the nature of
the liberal arts have both weaknesses and strengths.

Limitations of the Senecan View of the Liberal Arts

When assessing Seneca’s perspective regarding the liberal arts,
there exist manifest weaknesses. In the debate as to the number
of the liberal arts, Seneca provides no clarification, as his reduction
of all liberal arts to one does not take into consideration any
possible intrinsic value of the various areas of knowledge. Potential
metaphysical unity between truth and goodness is not addressed
specifically by him. Although Seneca states that there
exist distinct first principles (decreta) that serve to differentiate
the various arts, he offers no insights as to what the nature of these
principles may be. In theory, Seneca’s position with regard to the
distinction of the arts by way of principles is both tenable and
promising, but since his suggestions are so elusive, they offer no
positive elucidation on the matter.

Furthermore, despite his insistence that the traditionally
termed “”liberal arts”” can serve as preparations for the philosophical
pursuit and the virtuous life, he does not specify the manner
in which this may occur. In fact, his formal position is that such
arts are not essential to virtue, yet philosophy is deemed a
necessary component of the virtuous life. As Newman suggests in
The Idea of a University, it is questionable whether the study of
philosophy is in fact sufficient for the virtuous life, as Seneca and
other Stoics profess; however, this issue pertains to the broader
matter of the Stoic view of human nature as being essentially
purely rational.64 Also, there arises the further difficult question
of whether it is even possible to have a holistic understanding of
first principles, as philosophy is asserted to possess, without
having prior comprehension of particular facts derived through
other branches of human learning. Philosophy for Seneca appears
as a seemingly a priori discipline that proceeds before the other
sciences both in the order of being (ordo essendi) and in the order
of knowing (ordo cognoscendi). This view of the absolute priority
of philosophy seems to anticipate an almost modern (even Cartesian)
approach. It is surely distinct from more inductive methodologies
envisioned for philosophy by Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle.
Certainly for both Plato and Aristotle, philosophy (particularly
“”first philosophy”” or “”metaphysics””) deals with questions about
the most fundamental principles in the order of being, yet
philosophy does not originate with these in the order of knowing.
Seneca appears to suggest a collapsing of these distinctions; for
Seneca, philosophia both derives from, and remains primarily
focused upon, the first-order principles of the cosmos.

Strengths of the Senecan View of the Liberal Arts

Despite the difficulties implicit in Seneca’s view of the liberal arts,
however, it is arguable that on the whole his view is rather sound.
According to the Senecan perspective, the educational process
requires more than merely simple inculcation of rudimentary
truths in young people. As important as it is for youth to be
instructed in fundamental areas of learning, it is the study of
philosophy that is required to synthesize their education in such
a way as to be conducive to a truly virtuous life.

Indeed, especially when considering the circumstances of the
debate concerning the essence of the liberal arts, Seneca demonstrates
clarity of thought when attempting to understand them
with regard to their end and not their origins. By realizing that
education has a purpose, Seneca offers a beacon of light even to
modern times, which are clouded by the specters of relativism,
pragmatism, and progressivism—which hold that there are no
such definitive ends. That this end corresponds with the actualization
of human nature as rational animals further gives power to
Seneca’s educational philosophy, as this view is entirely consistent
with two of the essential characteristics of a proper understanding
of education according to Jacques Maritain.65 By understanding
the various arts as being unified in a common end,
Seneca is correct in perceiving philosophy to have a key role.
Indeed, in the centuries following Seneca in the Middle Ages,
philosophy would have such a function as a master of all of the
liberal arts. His understanding of the sapiential aspect of knowledge
is also extremely provocative. Following the general principles
of Stoicism, Seneca understands human nature to be
fulfilled in contemplation of Nature. For the pantheistic Stoics,
such a study was identified with theology. The distinction between
the pagan and Christian view of theology is thus illuminated
through examining Seneca’s perspective; because there is no
transcendent God who discloses Himself through divinely revealed
faith, there is no basis in the pagan view for a differentiation
between philosophy and theology.66 As a system, this pagan
perspective is perhaps at least consistent, although undoubtedly
defective.

The Senecan view of freedom as being intimately related to
contemplation is also extremely promising, as it underscores the
truest manner in which human nature is able to be free.67 His view
of the contemplative end of man fits well within the classical
tradition, as he both understands and illuminates how the noetic
powers of the soul are able to transcend time and place.

In conclusion, when considering the Senecan view in its
entirety, one can begin to comprehend how the seminal thoughts
of this philosopher exercised immense influence to posterity in
this continuous discussion as to the nature and value of the liberal
arts. Indeed, Seneca’s essential insights can continue to provide
guidance as to the proper ends, if not means, of the education of
future generations of humanity.

Douglas C. Fortner
Pontifical College Josephinum

#page#

NOTES

  1. It is interesting to note that the seemingly reciprocally
    related terms trivium and quadrivium were not originally conceived
    by one thinker to describe the division of the liberal arts.
    The term quadrivium was first applied by the Christian philosopher
    Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius (A.D. c. 480–524)
    during the fifth century A.D. to designate the four higher,
    mathematically based arts. Moreover, it was not until several
    more centuries thereafter that followers of Alcuin (A.D. c. 755–
    804), Charlemagne’s scholarly advisor and theologian, used the
    term trivium to apply to the three “”lower”” arts of logic, grammar,
    and rhetoric. According to Bruce Kimball, who has researched
    extensively the development of the concept of the liberal arts:
    “”Acknowledging the leadership of Pythagoras, Boethius cites the
    four mathematical disciplines—’like a place where four roads
    meet’ (quasi quadrivio)—as the sole path to philosophy. In this
    way, while relying on an antecedent root, he coined the term
    quadrivium for future masters of the liberal arts.”” [Cf.] Boethius,
    De institutione arithmetica, libri duo, De institutione musica, libri
    quinque. Accedit geometria quae fertur Boetii, G. Friedlein (Leipzig:
    B. G. Teubner, 1867) 1:1.”” Bruce A. Kimball, Orators and
    Philosophers: A History of the Idea of Liberal Education (New
    York: College Board Publications, 1995), 47. “”The term trivium
    for the three language arts came into use among Alcuin’s circle of
    scholars in the Carolingian era. . . . [A]n earlier association
    between these words and the artes can be found in the fact that
    Roman teachers would stand at a streetcorner—trivio or
    quadrivio—to gather and teach their students.”” Ibid., 51.
  2. The Pythagorean inspiration for the liberal arts tradition is
    recounted by David Knowles as follows: “”The Hellenistic education
    . . . was a more schematized version of that of Isocrates. . . . This
    curriculum was a descendant of the original Pythagorean
    ‘quadrivium’ or fourfold exercise of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy,
    and acoustic.”” David Knowles, The Evolution of Medieval
    Thought, ed. D. E. Luscombe and C. N. L. Brooke (London:
    Longman Group Limited, 1988), 56. That the Pythagoreans are at
    the foundation of the tradition of the liberal arts is accentuated by
    the fact that they also were the first thinkers to emphasize systematically
    the philosophical notion of yevrÛa. “”Life, he [Pythagoras]
    said, is like a festival; just as some come to the festival to compete,
    some to ply their trade, but the best people come as spectator, so
    in life the slavish men go hunting for fame or gain, the philosophers
    for the truth. (Diogenes Laertius VIII.8) . . . Pythagoras turned
    geometrical philosophy into a form of liberal education by seeking
    its first principles in a higher realm of reality. (Proclus, in Eucl. 65
    Friedl.).”” Reginald E. Allen, Greek Philosophy: Thales to Aristotle
    (New York: The Free Press, 1991), 36.
  3. Plato, The Republic, Vol. 2, Books VI–X, trans. Paul Shorey
    (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1946), 146–208.
    (521C–534E). In addition to the four aforementioned disciplines,
    Plato also states the need for the study of stereometry (the
    science of three-dimensional solids), and he stresses that these
    various disciplines be unified through the study of dialectics,
    which he calls the “”coping stone”” of the other studies.
  4. The development of the concept of the liberal arts has been
    researched in great depth by Bruce Kimball, who concludes: “”It
    is probably true to say that all seven arts—the three language and
    the four mathematical—were known to and developed by the
    Greeks. . . . This is not to say that these disciplines had been fully
    elaborated”” (Orators and Philosophers, 23). According to Kimball:
    “”[There] is the effort to find an etymological bridge between
    liberalis and the Greeks. Here three possibilities are commonly
    advanced. One is skholê, the Greek word denoting ‘leisure, rest,
    ease,’ which came to mean ‘that in which leisure is employed . . .
    especially learned discussion, disputation, lecture.’ . . . Skholê
    passed into Latin as schola and eventually into English as ‘school,’
    and some take it to be a significant link to Greek education for
    leisure or ‘liberal education.’ Another oft-cited etymological
    bridge is eleutherios, which can be literally translated as ‘fit for a
    free man, liberal’; and this is precisely the rendering made in the
    standard translations of Aristotle’s discussions on education
    relied upon by many modern commentars on ‘liberal education.’
    Eleutherios—especially when applied to tekhnai, the Greek word
    for artes—has thus been considered the most direct link to
    Athenian ‘liberal education.’ Lastly, artes liberales has sometimes
    been regarded as a translation of the Greek term enkuklios
    paideia, meaning general education, prior to professional studies.
    . . . The curious thing, however, about the last etymological
    approach is that enkuklios paideia can in no way be literally
    translated as artes liberales.”” Ibid., 15.
  5. Dr. Kimball professes: “”The Roman Republic provides
    unambiguous etymological evidence, at least from the first century
    B.C. By that time, Cicero and others were employing the
    term artes liberales and the like, all clear antecedents for ‘liberal
    arts’ and ‘liberal education’ in English.”” Ibid., 29.
  6. “”Varro and Cicero do not themselves list seven arts. Varro,
    whose encyclopedic treatise was widely read, listed nine arts:
    medicine, architecture, philosophy, plus six of the later seven. In
    works of Cicero, one must conflate scattered listings in order to
    arrive at a list of seven, a fact reflecting the variability in programs
    of Roman education. Masters still roamed around teaching their
    subjects individually, and Cicero himself wrote that Roman
    education was neither ‘fixed by law, publicly supported, nor
    standardized.’ (De Republica 4.3)”” Ibid., 30.
    In this following passage of Cicero (De Oratore, III.xxxii.127),
    which is one of the first instances of the literal use of the phrase
    artes liberales, the disciplines delineated are not precisely those
    which would later constitue the canonical tradition: “”Hippias of
    Elis, visiting Olympia on the occasion of the quadrennial celebration
    of the famous games, boasted before an audience containing
    virtually the whole of Greece that there was not a single fact
    included in any system of encyclopaedic knowledge with which he
    was not acquainted; and that he had not only acquired the
    accomplishments that form the basis of the liberal education of
    a gentleman, mathematics, music, knowledge of literature and
    poetry, and the doctrines of natural science, ethics and political
    science, but had made with his own hand the ring he had on, the
    cloak he was dressed in and the boots he was wearing.”” The Latin
    reads: “”Eleus Hippias cum Olmpiam venisset maxima illa
    quinquennali celebritate ludoru, gloriatus est cuncta paene
    audiente Graecia nihil esse ullla in arte rerum omnium quod ipse
    nesciret, nec solum has artes quibus liberales doctrinae atque
    ingenuae continerentur, geometriam, musicam, litterarum
    cognitionem et poetarum, atque illa quae de naturis rerum, quae
    de hominum moribus, quae de rebus publicis dicerentur se
    tenere, sed anulum quem haberet, pallium quo amictus, soccos
    quibus indutus esset, se sua manu confecisse.“” Marcus Tullius
    Cicero, De Oratore, Book III, together with De Fato, Paradoxa
    Stoicorum, De Partitione Oratoria, trans. H. Rackham (Cambridge,
    MA: Harvard University Press, 1948), 98–101. Cf. Oxford
    Latin Dictionary., ed. P. G. W. Glare (Oxford: Oxford
    University Press, 1982), 1024.
  7. Although it is a matter of scholarly debate as to whether the
    seven arts were specified categorically before this time, Martianus’s
    work De Nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii (On the Marriage of
    Philology and Mercury) exercised a tremendous influence on the
    subsequent thinkers from late antiquity onwards. “”De nuptiis
    relates the story, told by an old man to his son, of how the god
    Mercury woos and wins Philology, an erudite young woman. At
    the wedding banquet in the heavens, Mercury presents his bride
    with seven handmaidens, each personifying one of the seven
    liberal disciplines, which are described in separate discourses
    during the banquet. Relying heavily on Varro and extolling Cicero,
    Martianus warns against a too intense or lengthy study of dialectic,
    which precedes that of rhetoric. . . . Fundamentally, the
    allegory teaches that the seven liberal arts are the means to bring
    eloquence (Mercury) and learning (Philology) together, an aim
    sanctioned by the gods. [Cf.] Martianus Capella, De nuptiis
    Philologie et Mercurii, ed. Adolfus Dick (Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner,
    1925, 1–2, 423, 588–704.”” Kimball, Orators and Philosophers, 31.
  8. The definite account of the liberal arts was articulated in the
    thirteenth century by St. Thomas Aquinas. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas’
    Commentary on Boethius’ De Trinitatae, Question V, Article 1,
    ad. 3; Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Lect. 3, n.59; and
    Summa Theologiae I–II, Question 57, Article 3, reply ob. 3.,
    wherein he states: “”Hence whatever habits are ordained to such
    works of the speculative reason are, by a kind of comparison,
    called arts indeed, but liberal arts, in order to distinguish them
    from those arts that are ordained to works done by the body; for
    these are are, in a fashion, servile, inasmuch as the body is in
    servile subjection to the soul, and man, as regards his soul, is free
    [liber]. On the other hand, those sciences which are not ordained
    to any such work are called sciences absolutely, and not arts. Nor,
    if the liberal arts be more excellent, does it follow that the notion
    of art is more applicable to them.”” Introduction to St. Thomas
    Aquinas, ed. Anton C. Pegis (New York: Random House, Inc.,
    1948), 572.
    A contemporary, yet classical formulation of the distinction
    amongst the seven liberal arts has been rendered succinctly by
    Sister Miriam Joseph, C.S.C. as follows: “”The trivium includes
    those aspects of the liberal arts that pertain to the mind, and the
    quadrivium, those aspects of the liberal arts which pertain to
    matter. Logic, grammar, and rhetoric constitue the trivium; and
    arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy constitute the
    quadrivium. Logic is the art of thinking; grammar, the art of
    inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; and
    rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to
    another, the adaptation of language to circumstance. Arithmetic,
    the theory of number, and mucic, and application of the theory of
    number (the measurement of discrete quantities in motion), are
    the arts of discrete quantity or number. Geometry, the theory of
    space, and astronomy, an application of the theory of space, are
    the arts of continuous quantity or extension.”” The Trivium: The
    Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric, ed. Marguerite
    McGlinn (Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books, 2002), 3.
  9. Seneca was well acquainted with the Roman educational
    system and studied extensively both the arts of rhetoric and
    philosophy. Born under the dominion of the Roman Empire in
    Corduba, Spain, to parents of an equestrian family, Seneca was
    brought to Rome as a youth, where, along with his two brothers,
    he studied the liberal art of rhetoric under the tutelage of his
    father—who is referred to in history as Seneca the Elder or
    Seneca the Rhetor. In addition to his rhetorical education, Seneca
    fervently studied philosophy as a youth (against the expressed
    wishes of his father), and, through various influential teachers and
    self-instruction, delved into Pythagorean and Stoic thought, as
    well as the classical philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Seneca
    became an eclectic Hellenistic philosopher steeped not only in the
    teachings of the Stoa as represented by its original adherents but
    also in the continuing Platonic and Peripatetic traditions. However,
    his early philosophical training would have to wait many
    years before coming to full fruition, as he became involved with
    the political machinations of the early Roman Empire, where in
    which he would pursue the cursus honorum first as a quaestor and
    ultimately as the tutor and personal advisor to Emperor Nero.
    Before his death (at direct the command of Nero), Seneca
    produced numerous philosophical works, including twelve Diologi
    (on topics ranging from the nature of Providence to the role of
    leisure and the shortness of life), a seven-book treatise concerning
    the nature of reciprocal social relationships (De Beneficiis), a
    seven-book work on physics titled the Naturales Quaestiones, and,
    arguably his most famous philosophical work, the 124 Epistulae
    Morales. Moreover, in addition to his philosophical works, Seneca
    also is notable for writing ten Roman tragedies (based on the
    Greek models of Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles).
  10. The significance of Seneca’s influence on the medieval
    mind has been expressed by José Antonio Fránquiz: “”It was during
    this period of optimistic horizons and broadening new perspectives,
    cosmopolitanism, wealth, social enlightenment, national
    expansion, and joie de vivre, that a need for a spiritual coordinator
    and critical assessor or interpreter of the times arose and was
    fulfilled in the life and thought of Lucius Annaeus Seneca. . . . A
    fairer and clearer understanding of . . . [the] content [of the
    Liberal Arts] could easily be discerned from an objective analysis
    of the thought of Cato, Plautus, Cicero, Tacitus, Ennius, Virgil,
    Pliny the Elder, and the Younger, Juvenal, Marcus Aurelius, but
    especially Lucius Annaeus Seneca. It was the thought of these
    men, and of Seneca in particular, that formed the educational
    subject matter of the curriculum during the Middle Ages.”” “”The
    Place of Seneca in the Curriculum of the Middle Ages,”” in Actes
    du quatrième congrès international de philosophie médiévale: Arts
    libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge (Montreal: Institut d’Études
    Médiévales, 1969), 1065–066.
    It has been further remarked by Richard Mott Gummere that
    “”Seneca was a Stoic, and Stoicism was the porch to Christianity.
    Then, as now, it was the thought-force that lay nearest to our
    inspirational religion. It was Stoicism which made the Christian
    fathers claim Seneca as one of their own.”” Seneca the Philosopher
    and His Modern Message (New York: Cooper Square Publishers,
    Inc., 1963), 54.
  11. Étienne Gilson discusses the historical import of Seneca
    the Philosopher with regard to Christian tradition of the liberal
    arts (specifically in relation to Epistle LXXXVIII) in the following
    manner: “”Pour m’en tenir à un exemple remarquable, je rappelaria
    le nom de Sénèque le Philosophe. Dans ses Lettres à Lucilius, il
    avertit son correspondent de ne pas faire de l’étude des artrs
    libéraux la fin ni l’essentiel de ses etudes. . . . Nous passerions
    facilement une heure en compagnie de cette letter [Ad. Luc., 88],
    que les Anciens transcrivaient souvent à part sous le titre de Lucii
    Annaei Senecae liber de septem artibus liberalibus. . . . La méfiance
    de Sénèque le Philosophe envers les arts libéraux aura son écho
    dans l’Imitatiion de Jésus Christ.”” “”La Philosophie et Les Arts
    Libéraux,”” in Actes du quatrième congrès international de philosophie
    médiévale: Arts libéraux et philosophie au moyen âge (Montreal:
    Institut d’Études Médiévales, 1969), 269–70.
    Moreover, it is interesting to note in passing that the Epistle
    LXXXVIII was the last letter contained in the first volume of the
    two-volume medieval transmission of the Epistulae Morales;
    Senecan scholar L. D. Reynolds, the modern authority on the text
    of Seneca’s letters, has professed that: “”The fundamental fact
    which we must bear in mind when studying the text of the Letters
    is that we are dealing, not with one manuscript tradition, but with
    two, and that these two traditions must be treated as separate
    problems. For the extant corpus of letters was divided at an early
    date into two volumes, one containing letters 1–88, the other
    letters 89–124, and the fact that both volumes are found in one
    tenth-century manuscript and commonly in later manuscripts
    should not be allowed to obscure this division.”” The Medieval
    Tradition of Seneca’s Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
    1965), 17.
  12. Martha C. Nussbaum summarizes the importance and
    essence of this letter in the following manner: “”The fullest
    expression of Seneca’s complex position on books and reverence
    is in Letter 88, the famous letter on liberal education. Here he
    attacks traditional Roman methods of education for young gentlemen,
    which focused on the close and reverential study of certain
    canonical texts. Seneca expresses grave doubts about the traditional
    notion of studia liberalia, if interpreted in its convention
    meaning of ‘studies suited to a freeborn gentleman’ (88.1–2). If
    such studies serve only to augment one’s income, they are no good
    at all. And even where they do have some use, they are useful only
    as a basis, not as the noble activity of the mind itself. The only
    study truly worthy of the name liberalis is philosophy: for that
    liberates the mind. It is good to have had the basic education
    embodied in conventional liberal studies, but philosophy is the
    only study whose activity is itself an exercise of human freedom.””
    The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics,
    (Princeton University Press, 1994), 346–47.
  13. Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Epistles, 66–92, vol. 2, trans.
    Richard M. Gummere, Loeb Classical Library (1920; reprint,
    Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991), 359; (Ep.
    LXXXVIII.18). “”In illo feras me necesse est non per praescriptum
    euntem.”” Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Tomus I, 316.
    The most notable proclamation of Seneca’s self-professed
    philosophic originality is in Epistle LXXX: “”Do I then follow no
    predecessors? Yes, but I allow myself to discover something new,
    to alter, to reject. I am not a slave to them, although I give them
    my approval.”” Epistles, 66–92, vol. 2, 213 (Ep. LXXX.1). “”Non
    ergo sequor priores? facio, sed permitto mihi et invenire aliquid
    et mutare et relinquere; non servio illis, sed assentior.”” Ad
    Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Tomus I, 260.
  14. Seneca, Epistles, 66–92, vol. 2, 349 (Ep. LXXXVIII.1–2).
    “”De liberalibus studiis quid sentiam scire desideras: nullum
    suspicio, nullum in bonis numero quod ad aes exit. Meritoria
    artificia sunt, hactenus utilia si praeparant ingenium, non detinent.
    Tamdiu enim istis inmorandum est quamdiu nihil animus agere
    maius potest; rudimenta sunt nostra, non opera.”” Lucius Annaeus
    Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Tomus I, Libri I–XIII, ed.
    L. D. Reynolds, Oxford Classical Texts (New York: Oxford
    University Press, 1965), 312.
    Seneca thus begins the letter addressing Lucilius’ question of
    the nature of the liberal arts, perhaps in response to Seneca’s
    emphatic position in the previous epistle that the arts of medicine
    and navigation contribute nothing to virtue. Cf. Seneca’s Epistle
    LXXXVII.15–17.
    Throughout this study, the original Latin quotations of Seneca
    from the definitive Oxford Classical Texts are provided in
    footnotes, and the corresponding English translations of Seneca’s
    writings are rendered in the text from the Loeb Classical Library
    editions.
  15. “”For I do not consent to admit painting into the list of
    liberal arts, any more than sculpture, marble-working, and other
    helps toward luxury. I also debar from the liberal studies wrestling
    and all knowledge that is compounded of oil and mud; otherwise,
    I should be compelled to admit perfumers also, and cooks, and all
    others who lend their wits to the service of our pleasures. For
    what “”liberal”” element is there in these ravenous takers of emetics,
    whose bodies are fed to fatness while their minds are thin and
    dull?”” Seneca, Epistles, 66–92, vol. 2, 359; 361 (Ep. LXXXVIII.18–
    19). “”[Non] magis quam statuarios aut marmorarios aut ceteros
    luxuriae ministros. Aeque luctatores et totam oleo ac luto
    constantem scientiam expello ex his studiis liberalibus; aut et
    unguentarios recipiam et cocos et ceteros voluptatibus nostris
    ingenia accommodantes sua. Quid enim, oro te, liberale habent
    isti ieiuni vomitores, quorum corpora in sagina, animi in macie et
    veterno sunt?”” Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales, Tomus I, 316–17.
  16. According to two renown scholars on Hellenistic philosophy,
    Drs. Long and Sedley: “”Seneca in our extract is answering an
    anonymous objection that the liberales artes, because they assist
    philosophy, should be included as one of its parts. Posidonius has
    already been named in section 21 of the same letter, and [I. G.
    Kidd in “”Philosophy and Science in Posidonius,”” Antike und
    Abendland 24 (1978), 8–10] gives strong reasons for taking him
    to be Seneca’s source.”” A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The
    Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 2, Greek and Latin Texts with Notes
    and Bibliography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987),
    165.
  17. “”Posidonius divides the arts into four classes: first we have
    those which are common and low, then those which serve for
    amusement, then those which refer to the education of boys, and,
    finally, the liberal arts. The common sort belong to workmen and
    are mere hand-work; they are concerned with equipping life; there
    is in them no pretence to beauty or honour. The arts of amusement
    are those which aim to please the eye and the ear. To this
    class you may assign the stage-machinists, who invent scaffolding