THE CHARACTERS OF THEOPHRASTUS. GENERAL INTRODUCTION. MANY and various have been the opinions of the learned concerning the authorship, nature, and literary value of these "Characters." A few remarks upon each of these points will perhaps contribute to a more just appreciation, and profitable perusal of the work; and though it be impossible to obtain a full solution of every difficulty which may arise, still it is hoped that the conclusions at which we arrive will be generally satisfactory to the candid inquirer. "Charac With respect to the first question - the authorship of Authorship the "Characters"-little hesitation is at present felt. Some of the learned men, it is true, speaking from prejudice, or in haste, ters." have expressed a doubt whether they be the genuine productions of Theophrastus. Victorius, says Casaubon, judged that a work of this trifling character was unworthy of so great a name as that of the successor of the Stagirite; and in addition to the disparaging language of H. Stephens, it is possible to quote the less well known censure of Erasmus: "Extant," writes the latter [De Copiâ Rerum, p. 68.], "ad hoc facientes notæ Theophrasti titulo. Mihi grammatici cujuspiam videntur magis quam philosophi." In the opposite scale, however, we may place the very strongly expressed opinion of Casaubon, and a number of illustrious scholars, whose names it is unnecessary to particularise. The evidence External moreover, both external and internal, preponderates greatly on evidence. B Internal evidence. the same side. All the MSS. without exception ascribe the work to Theophrastus the Eresian, scholar of Aristotle. We have also the express declaration of Eustathius, in his commentary on Iliad N, that the "Characters" were composed by Theophrastus, plainly meaning, as Casaubon has pointed out, the same individual. Hermippus, a contemporary, is represented in Athenæus [1. 38.] as ascribing to Theophrastus a singular degree of genius, skill, and practice in the observation and delineation of human character. Cicero, as we are told by Plutarch in his biography, was excessively delighted by the compositions of the Eresian, and frequently quoted him in his Epistles; and the well known anecdote of Aristotle recorded by Aulus Gellius [lib. XIII.], wherein the master commends the suavity and ability of his pupil, seems to indicate that Theophrastus was, as has always been supposed, the writer of these acute and interesting sketches. With respect to the internal evidence derivable from the style and matter of the work itself, everything seems to favour the hypothesis which ascribes it to a period immediately succeeding the age of Aristotle. It may reasonably be supposed from the mimetic merits of the "Characters," that they were written at a time distinguished for excellence in that species of composition. What is meant by "mimetic excellence" will be hereafter explained. It is at present enough to observe, that it originated in the circumstances which produced the New Comedy, and was perfected by its authors. To the era of the New Comedy, therefore, we naturally assign compositions which so closely resemble its almost unique style and character. It may certainly be urged that of the New Comedy our conceptions are necessarily imperfect. The few fragments which have reached us, and the Latin imitations of Cæsar's "dimidiatus Menander," but feebly reflect the inimitable grace and beauty which won for the leader of the school the title of "The tenth Muse." Still all the circumstances of the time would induce us to believe, that the more grotesque and extravagant features of the Old Comedy had faded from the New, and that their place was supplied by delineations of character closely resembling these before us, not individual but generic; not satirical but imitative; not caricatures of existing personages, but representations of human life. From all this the obvious inference is, that the writer of these sketches lived at a period coincident with the elaboration of the New Comedy; and Theophrastus, as is well known, was the contemporary of Philemon and Menander. But the hypothesis which assigns the composition of the "Characters" to the era of the New Comedy is supported by internal evidence of another sort. Antipater, king of Macedon, died in Olymp. cxv. 3., and a war immediately broke out between Cassander and Polysperchon, to whom Antipater had intrusted the guardianship of the heir-apparent to the throne. Now, in the chapter IIɛpì 'Aλačovɛías, Antipater is spoken of as living, and reference is made to the contest between the two others in the chapter Περὶ Λογοποιΐας. It is surely most probable that the writer, when illustrating the avidity of the newsmonger for intelligence, would introduce the current rumours and gossip of the day. This seems to fix the date of the composition of the work somewhere in the cxvth Olympiad, a period when Theophrastus was at the height of his reputation. On the other hand, in support of the opinion which ascribes the authorship of the "Characters" to another age, or at any rate to another person, but one argument of any weight has been brought forward. In the Preface to the "Characters," Theophrastus speaks of himself as having reached his ninetyninth year, whereas Diogenes Laertius, in his biographical notices of the philosophers, asserts that he died at the age of eighty-five. Many editors have been content to rely for an answer to this objection upon the general vagueness of such statements in ancient authors, and the little reliance to be placed upon the numerals found in the great majority of MSS. Some, with Casaubon, would boldly alter the text, either in the Preface, or in Diogenes Laertius. To those who, with Ast, Hottinger, and ourselves, are convinced of the spuriousness of the so-called Preface, the discrepancy in the dates presents no difficulty. But whether the reader accept Present form of the work. this, or some other solution of the matter, will depend upon the value which he attaches to the arguments prefixed to the annotations on the controverted Preface in the present edition. Thus much with respect to the authorship and date of the work. There still, however, remains a question as to the form in which it has come down to us. Some few critics believe that the "Characters" have reached us as they were originally written. Others look upon them as having formed part of a much larger work; but, of these, one party maintain that this larger work delineated, as indeed the Preface promises, virtue and excellence, as well as weakness and imperfection; while a second, though they hold that, from the very nature of the case, the writer could only have selected nosological specimens, yet are inclined to believe that these specimens must have been both more numerous, and more elaborately finished than the portraits which we now possess. Some, again, have suggested that the various traits which make up each character, were extracted piecemeal from the other ethical works of our author by different persons, and at different times, and thus attempt to account for and excuse a certain abruptness, incoherence, and want of polish, which the book, as a whole, is supposed to exhibit. Hottinger leans to the opinion that, at present, we have only portions of two distinct epitomes, the first formed from a larger work, the second an abridgment of the first, constructed for some particular purpose, perhaps as a sort of school-book, and consequently suppressing much, and altering a little, of the text of its original. All these are mere hypotheses. Yet they may contain some admixture of truth; and without adopting the theory which regards these graphic shetches as so many "disjecta membra," culled from the voluminous body of our author's works, it is not, perhaps, too fanciful to conjecture, that the great historian of vegetable life may have also directed his discursive and observant genius to the more wide and diversified field of human life, and embodied the result of his observations in a series of literary portraits, resembling those lively French "Physiologies," with feeble imitations of which, in the shape of "Natural Histories," we have been of late somewhat overwhelmed. position of the "Cha They are unique. But this naturally conducts us to the next point upon Literary which it is necessary to speak—the nature, that is to say, of the "Characters" as a literary work, and the precise place racters.” which should be assigned to them in the Republic of Letters. The "Characters" of Theophrastus, then, if we except their acknowledged imitations, are the only productions of their class which a retrospect of ancient and modern literature discloses to our view. One Satyrus, indeed, who, like Theophrastus himself, was a Peripatetic, appears to have composed a book of a somewhat similar character. But if we may judge from the single specimen preserved by Athenæus, the work of Satyrus was of a more strictly philosophical and didactic nature than the "Characters," a distinction which will hereafter be more fully explained. The Roman Varro also composed a treatise, Περὶ Χαρακτήρων, with the existence of which we are only acquainted from the citations of the Grammarians. But Varro was somewhat of a pedant; nor is it probable that either in his genius, or in his writings, he bore a very close resemblance to Theophrastus. Be this as it may, the works of Satyrus and Varro have alike perished, and nothing remains behind them which can form an exception to the unique character of these pictures of ancient life. Were the Mimes of Sophron and Xenarchus yet in existence, they might, perhaps, furnish us with a parallel; as it is, we can only refer, by way of illustration, to a most lively and graphic Idyll of Theocritus, the "Adoniazusæ," or "Syracusan Women," and to the spirit, rather than to the exact language, of some among the immortal dialogues of Plato. In order to establish the claim of the "Characters" to be considered as a unique production, it is perhaps necessary to point out that they in no way resemble the ordinary biographies of history. These, of course, have reference to definite individuals, and must of necessity exhibit personal peculiarities, which can only belong to the subject of the intended portraiture. The present sketches, on the contrary, are Not biographical sketches. |