Honorius used Augustine’s reference to the Egyptians, and followed this Augustinian view, always recognized as orthodox in the Middle Ages. It was narrower than the practice among those who followed letters. Gerbert at the close of the tenth century loved to teach and read the pagan writers, and drew from them training and discipline.[155] In the next century, the German monk Froumund of Tegernsee, with Bernward and Godehard, bishops of Hildesheim, are instances of German love of antique letters.[156] Yet lofty souls might choose to limit their reading of the Classics, at least in theory, to the needs of their Latinity. Such a one was Hugo of St.-Victor, scholar, theologian, man of genius;[157] he professed to care more for the Christian ardours of the soul than for learning even as a means of righteousness, and chose to take the side of those who would read the classic authors only so far as the needs of education demanded: “There are two kinds of writings, first those which are termed the _artes_ proper, secondly, those which are the supplements (_appendentia_) of the _artes_. _Artes_ comprise the works grouped under (_supponuntur_) philosophy, those which contain some fixed and determined matter of philosophy, as grammar, dialectic and the like. _Appendentia artium_ are those [writings] which touch philosophy less nearly and are occupied with some subject apart from it; and yet sometimes offer flotsam and jetsam from the _artes_, or simply as narratives smooth the road to philosophy. All the songs of poets are such--tragedies, comedies, satires, heroics, and lyrics too, and iambics, besides certain didactic works (_didascalica_); tales likewise, and histories; also the writings of those nowadays called philosophers, who extend a brief matter with lengthy circumlocution, and thus darken a simple meaning. “Note then well the distinction I have drawn for thee: distinct and different (_duo_) are the _artes_ and their _appenditia_, ... and often from the latter the student will gain much labour and little fruit. The _artes_, without their _appenditia_, may make the reader perfect; but the latter, without the _artes_, can bring no whit of perfection. Wherefore one should first of all devote himself to the _artes_, which are so fundamental, and to the aforesaid seven above all, which are the means and instruments (_instrumenta_) of all philosophy. Then let the rest be read, if one has leisure, since sometimes the playful mingled with the serious especially delights us, and we are apt to remember a moral found in a tale.”[158]