A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

1090 THEOPHRASTUS. THEOPHRASTUS.
owing to the scantiness of the statements which we the subsistence of space, he seems to have been
have, and what belongs to this subject can be disposed, in opposition to the Aristotelic definition,
merely indicated in this place. In the first place, to regard it as the mere arrangement and position
Theophrastus seems to have carried out still further (airLs and AonLs) of bodies (Simpl. 1. c. 149, b. 141;
the grammatical foundation of logic and rhetoric, Schneid. p. 213, f. 9, 8). Time he designated as
since in his book on the elements of speech (E', rq an accident of motion, without, as it seems, conrEP! TreoO XToU eo'ToLxeiT, 1. e' 7. irepl rcv'reo ceiving it, with Aristotle, as the numerical deterXAoyov o'roLXfELwv), respecting which again others ruination of motion. (Simpl. f. 87, b; Joh. 213. 4.)
had written, he distinguished the main parts of He departed more widely from his master in his
speech from the subordinate parts, and again, direct doctrine of motion, since on the one hand he
(KvpLa XetLs) from metaphorical expressions, and extended it over all categories, and did not limit it
treated of the affections (radOs) of speech (Simpl. to those laid down by Aristotle (Simpl. in Catey.
in Categ. 8, Basil.), and further distinguished a Schneid. p. 212; comp. Simpl. in Phys. 94, 201,202,
twofold reference of speech (-aXiers) - to things 1. Schneid. 214. -10); and on the other hand, while
(7rpac'yTa'ra), and to the hearers, and referred poetry he conceived it, with Aristotle, as an activity, not
and rhetoric to the latter (Ammon. de Interpr. 53; carrying its own end in itself (a&eX s), of that
Schol. in Arist. p. 108. 27). In what he taught which only exists potentially (Simpl. 1. c. and f. 94,
respecting judgment (E'v'rt 7repl Ka'cdoeoEws [cal 1. Schneid. 11), and therefore could not allow that
cbropcieows] - de affrmaiatone et negatione) he had the activity expended itself in motion, he also
treated at length on its oneness (Alex. in Anal. Pr. recognised no activity without motion (Simpl. in
f. 128, 124; Schol. inArist. p. 184. 24.183, b. 2; Categ. Schneid. 212. 2), and so was obliged to
BoS'th. de Interpr. pp. 291, 327), on the different refer aU activities of the soul to motion, the desires
kinds of negation (Ammon. in Arist. de Interpr. and affections to corporeal motion, judgment
128, b. 129, 134; Schol. in Arist. p. 121. 18), and (KpieeLs) and contemplation to spiritual motion.
on the difference between unconditioned and con- (Simpl. in Phys. 225; Schneid. 215. 13.) The
ditioned necessity (Alex. 1. c. f. 12. 6; Schol. in conceivableness of a spirit entirely independent of
Arist. p. 149. 44). In his doctrine of syllogisms organic activity, must therefore have appeared to
he brought forward the proof for the conversion him very doubtful; yet he appears to have conof universal affirmative judgments, differed from tented himself with developing his doubts and
Aristotle here and there in the laying down and difficulties on the point, without positively rejecting
arranging the modiof the syllogisms (Alex. I. c. 14, it (Themist. in Arist. de An. 89, b. 91, b; Schneid.
72, 73, 82. 22, b, 35; Boeth. deSyll. categ. ii. 594. 215. 15). Other Peripatetics, as Dicaearchus,
5, f. 603, 615), partly in the proof of them (Alex. Aristoxenus, and especially Straton, more unrei. c. 39, b), partly in the doctrine of mixture, i. e. servedly and unconditionally gave a sensualistic
of the influence of the modality of the premises turn to the Aristotelic doctrine. Theophrastus
upon the modality of the conclusion (Alex. 1. c. 39, seems, generally speaking, where the investigation
b. &c. 40, 42, 56, b. 82, 64, b. 51; Joh. Ph. xxxii, overstepped the limits of experience, to have shown
b. &c.). Then in two separate works he had more acuteness in the development of difficulties
treated of the reduction of arguments to the syllo- than in the solution of them, as is especially appagistic form (avry'iJvUwv? Aoyy es Ei'r oX't.Uara) rent in the fragment of his rnetaphysics. In a
and on the resolution of them (7repi avahaXews penetrating and unbiassed conception of phenomena,
rvhXo-yo'oc'. Alex. 115); further, of hypothetical in acuteness of reflection and combination respecting
conclusions (Alex. in Arist. Anal. Pr. 109, b. &c. them and within their limits, in compass and
131, b.; Joh. Phil. Ix. &c. lxxv.; Bokth. de Syll. certainty of experimental knowledge, he may have
hlypoth. p. 606). For the doctrine of proof, Galenus stood near Aristotle, if he did not come quite up to
quotes the second Analytic of Theophrastus, in him: the incessant endeavour of his great master
conjunction with that of Aristotle, as the best to refer phenomena to their ultimate grounds, his
treatises on that doctrine (de Hippocr. et Plat.Dogsn. profundity in unfolding the internal connections
ii. 2. p. 213, Lips. 253, Basil.) In different mo- between the latter, and between them and phenonographies he seems to have endeavoured to expand mena, were not possessed by Theophrastus. Hence
it into a general theory of science. To this too even in antiquity it was a subject of complaint that
may have belonged the proposition quoted from his Theophrastus had not expressed himself with preTopics, that the principia of opposites (rCV iEraVCWov) cision and consistency respecting the Deity, and
are themselves opposed, and cannot be deduced had understood thereby at one time Heaven, at
from one and the same higher genus. (Simpl. in another an (enlivening) breath (srvoya, Clem.
Categ. f. 5; Schol. p. 89. 15; comp. Alex. in Alex. Protrept. p. 44. b; Cic. de ANat. Deor. i. 13);
Metaph. p. 342. 30, Bonitz.) For the rest, some that he had not been able to comprehend a happiinconsiderable deviations from the Aristotelic defi- ness resting merely upon virtue (Cic. Acad. i. 10,
nitions are quoted from the Topica of Theophrastus. Tusc. v. 9), or, consequently, to hold fast by the
(Alex. in Top. 5, 68, 72, 25, 31.) With this unconditional value of morality, and, although
treatise, that upon ambiguous words or ideas (7repl blameless in his life, had subordinated moral reT'o 7'roeoaXcS,.. r. 7oAAxaXoCs. Alex. ib. 83, 189), quirements to the advantage at least of a friend.
which, without doubt, corresponded to the book E (A. Gell. N. A. i. 3. ~ 23), and had admitted in
of Aristotle's Metaphysics, seems to have been prosperity the existence of an influence injurious
closely connected. to them. (In particular, fault was found with his
Theophrastus introduced his Physics with the expression in the Callisthenes, vitacm regitfortuna
proof that all natural existence, being corporeal, non sapicntia, Cic. Tusc. iii. 10; comp. Alex.
that is composite, presupposes principia (Simpl. in Aphrod. de Aznina, ii. extr.) That in the definition
Phys. f. 1, 6, in Schneider v. 7), and before every- of pleasure, likewise, he did not coincide with
thing else, motion, as the basis of the changes Aristotle, seems to be indicated by the titles of
common to all (ib. 5, 6; Schncid. ib. 6). Denying two of his writings, one of which treated of pleasure