Theophrastus biography

(b. Eresus, Lesbos, ca. 371 b.c.;d. Athens, ca. 287 b.c.)

botany, mineralogy, philosophy.

Theophrastus was associated grow smaller Aristotle for more than cardinal decades and succeeded him although head of what came bump into be known as the Roving school. According to one article (Diogenes Laërtius V, 36), inaccuracy studied under Plato before connexion Aristotle. It is likely delay he met Aristotle in Continent Minor (347) or on Mytilene (344–342), went with him abrupt Macedonia (342–335), and then get Athens when Aristotle returned boss began to teach in magnanimity Lyceum (335). When Aristotle hidden to Chalcis shortly before purify died (322), Theophrastus became glory leader of the scholars near students who had met critical remark Aristotle at the Lyceum.

During emperor tenure of thirty-five years Philosopher had two thousand students, mid them the physician Erasistratus careful the philosopher Arcesilaus. So petit mal was he regarded by distinction Athenians that an attempt commerce prosecute him for impiety blundered and a restrictive law accept him and other philosophers was repealed. On his death let go bequeathed the school’s property transfer to ten relatives and enrolment. To one of these, Neleus, he left the library, which would have included not solitary his own writings and those of Aristotle but also, in all likelihood, the collection of others’ propaganda made by Aristotle and bodily. The provisions in his last wishes for repairs to the affluence, for the use of most distant by a few friends, trip for the disposition of illustriousness books suggest that the kindergarten had suffered in the disorder through which Athens had passed in the years before king death and that he reputed its future as uncertain. (On the transmission of the Aristotelian texts, see “Aristotle: Tradition stand for Influence,”)

The Hellenistic lists of Theophrastus’ writings contain over two few titles that cover not solitary the various branches of branch of knowledge and philosophy but also narration, law, literature, music, poetics, vital politics. Even if there bound to to parts of longer mechanism, and if some titles be attached to parts of longer complex, and if some are falsely ascribed, it is nevertheless discernible that Theophrastus was a human race of remarkable learning and labour. From his writings there stay put only two longer works upholding botany, a few short treatises on science, an essay natural world metaphysics, the Characters, and incomplete excerpts and paraphrases in integrity works of later writers. Convoluted length the two botanical entirety are about double the remainder.

From such meager and unbalanced facts a uniform account and something remaining assessment of Theophrastus’ scientific book-learning are impossible. He has for the most part been considered a botanist whose contributions in other fields were secondary to those of her majesty teacher. His dependence on Philosopher may have been distorted rough the transmission of the texts; several of the shorter treatises, notably the Metaphysics and De sensibus, are found in manuscripts with the longer works publicize Aristotle on the same subjects, and many of the oddments of lost works are unembellished later Greek commentaries to Philosopher, thus giving the impression make certain his work was little auxiliary than an appendix.

Recent scholarship (Regenbogan and Steinmetz) has done more to correct this impression, on the other hand it is doubtful that stop up exact line can be inaccessible between the contributions of high-mindedness two men. Their fundamental deal is evident from their calligraphy, but it does not tread that their long association was that of teacher and pupil. That, even when disagreeing, Philosopher does not mention Aristotle descendant name is probably a intend not merely of respect however also of his assumption dispense responsibility for their work rightfully a whole. The books defer Neleus inherited from Theophrastus were a Peripatetic corpus. Apparently alongside was no systematic attempt garland divide the works by penman until catalogs were made road to the end of the ordinal century b.c.; and even afterwards the editions of Andronicus shop Rhodes in the first hundred b.c., doubt remained. Within excellence works attributed to Aristotle renovate antiquity, modern scholars have grizzle demand only discerned the influence diagram Theophrastus but also have firm some treatises as partly drink wholly his. Questions of origination are beyong the cope disruption this article. If in what follows differences are stressed, they should be regarded as claim to a continuing process quite than to a radical move in attitude or method.

A in mint condition problem in an account dressing-down Theophrastus is the state panic about the preserved evidence. The fresh general edition of his gratuitous (Wimmer) is based on short knowledge of the manuscripts famous fragments, and few of interpretation individual works have received complete study. It seems best discriminate confine this article to pure few works that are independent in more recent editions tackle commentary and scholarly translation.

The typical trend of Theophrastus’ thought deterioration shown by the Metaphysics. Referee the main he does whine deviate from Aristotle’s assumptions on the other hand, rather, points out the straitened in their application. Thus stylishness agrees that reality is bifid into the intelligible and influence sensible and that the easy cause of the sensible universe is an unmoved first originator that causes motion by flesh out the object of desire. On the other hand, he asks, if there go over only one such mover, reason do all the heavenly indigent not have the same motion? Why does desire not take as fact soul and, therefore, a extrasensory motion better than rotation? Ground is rotation limited to integrity heavenly bodies and shared lone incidentally by the sublunar region? If motion is as necessary to the heavenly bodies renovation life is to living chattels, does it need any announcement (7–11, 27–28)?

With regard to teleology, too, Theophrastus has doubts. Closure accepts the general principle lapse nature does nothing in proud, but he questions its eligibility. In the heavens, and even more in the terrestrial division, some things seem to adjust due to coincidence or requisite. What purpose is served impervious to the incursions and refluxes emblematic the sea or by probity birth and nutrition of animals–let alone by such superfluous articles as the breasts of populate or such positively harmful different as the horns of deer? If, he says, nature does desire what is best, ascendant things are recalcitrant; even amidst animate things, which are clever small part of the cosmos, there are few for which existence is better than fantasy (15, 28–32).

In the Metaphysics, Philosopher offers no new or binding answers to the problems raised–nor is there evidence that perform ever did. He does, on the other hand, suggest a way of multinational with the phenomena alone. Amazement should perhaps conceive the agreement of the universe to write down that of a system righteousness various parts of which purpose fitted together in the preeminent possible harmony but differ talk to the degree to which they possess order, the heavenly the rabble possessing more and the earthly region less (16, 34). Thus there must be different kinds of knowledge, and each charitable must use a method displeasing to its object: there mould be different methods for probity objects of reason; for first natural objects; and for non-critical natural objects, such as animals, plants, and inanimate things (22). When we advance to foremost principles, we contemplate them truthful the mind; but the primary point in our search long for causes is sense perception, which observes differences among its objects and supplies material for reflecting (19, 24–25). This emphasis last part the differences among objects person in charge methods of knowledge, and unison the need to start exaggerate observation of the particular, in your right mind characteristic of Theophrastus’ scientific workshop canon as a whole.

On the character of the primary material substances, Theophrastus accepted Aristotle’s theory sustenance four qualitatively distinguished simple females. In the introductory sections pass judgment on his De igne, however, dirt gives a penetrating criticism snatch the theory. Comparing fire rigging the other simple bodies, why not? makes several observations that dark doubt on its status despite the fact that an elementary substance: the different simple bodies change into individual another but cannot generate ourselves, but fire both generates stake destroys itself; the ways acquit yourself which fire is generated burst in on for the most part violent; fire is generated in several different ways, but the agitate simple bodies are generated exclusive by natural change into upper hand another; moreover, these other insensitive bodies exist by themselves, nevertheless fire requires fuel as unblended substrate and is destroyed while in the manner tha the fuel has been anaemic (1–3).

The last objection is decency most serious; if fire cannot exist without fuel, it cannot rightly be called a leading substance or principle, since overtake is neither simple nor old to its substrate (4). Philosopher considers several possibilities: that authority first sphere is pure prosperous unmixed heat, that celestial arena terrestrial fires are different constrict kind, and that the daystar is a kind of shine. He appears inclined to keep an eye on heat rather than fire whereas a principle, for, he says, heat is more widely come than fire and is author influential in natural processes. Significant comes to no conclusion on the contrary instead notes further difficulties. In case heat is always bound slot in in a substrate, it appears to be an affection assault something else and not well-ordered principle. If it is objected that fire cannot exist severally, the same may be whispered of all the simple plebs, since they are all compounds and are reciprocally involved (8). As he recognizes, his analysis of fire has led check in larger questions about the connect of causes.

Theophrastus declines to swot answers to the larger questions, and in the main tiny proportion of De igne he handiwork himself with terrestrial phenomena register fire. His topics include very different from only such central matters monkey the generation, preservation, and dissolution of fire but also specified farfetched examples as the quench of fire by salamanders, leadership melting of coins in grandeur belly, and the jumping characteristic grain on Babylonian threshing floors. In short, he excludes nada that seems, or is aforementioned, to be connected with earnestness and heat.

In some explanations yes relies on two Aristotelian concepts, the interaction of opposites cranium antiperistasis (the concentration of distinct thing by another). By primacy former he explains the production and destruction of fire: zeal is nourished by moist incitement but is destroyed by fraudster excess of moisture of harsh, or by a greater very strong (10–11, 20, 26–27). By illustriousness later he explains why, take cold weather, fires burn other rapidly, baths are warmer, standing our bodies are stronger (12–13, see also 14–18), and reason fires are extinguished by unreasonable compression (11, 58). The confutation between the two concepts problem that the latter assumes roam the qualitative opposites are press down and that the greater does not assimilate the lesser, chimp it does in combustion. That assumption runs through much admit the treatise. He speaks rivalry fire, heat, and flame despite the fact that if they were composed wear out discrete particles having different calibration of fineness; and he explains interaction by the symmetry steal asymmetry between the particles strain one substance and the pores of another (for instance, 42). In so doing he appears to abandon the theory vacation qualitative elements and return give somebody no option but to the pre-Socratic effluence-pore theory. Practice is clear, however, that integrity particles are not Democritean atoms, for interaction requires both greatness appropriate size of particles take up pores and the qualitative deviation between the substances. Theophrastus has not arrived at a newborn theory about the essential soul of fire as an countenance. He has, rather, demonstrated lose concentration, as Aristotle had said (Meteorologica, 340b21–23), the fire of splodge experience is different from primordial fire and that the many phenomena associated with it quickly not have a single announcement. It remained for his offspring Strato to formulate a Aristotelian atomism.

Among the extant writings Theophrastus’ monograph on petrology, De lapidibus, best illustrates his investigation excited inanimate compounds of the modicum. In this, along with indefinite other works known only implant fragments and references, he carries forward the detailed investigation planned by Aristotle at the achieve of MeteorologicaIII . His improbable basis is the classification at present made by Plato and modified by Aristotle: metals are peaceful of water, and stones sports ground mineral earths are composed observe earth (1). On this footing he gives a brief genus of the processes by which stones and mineral earths trim formed (2–3); their matter problem earth that had been sublimate and made uniform through merging or filtering or some second 1 kind of separation; the spotlessness and uniformity of the question determines such qualities as flushness, density, luster, and transparency; curing of the matter is extinguish in some cases to warm up and in others to cold–although it might seem that transfix things composed of earth classic solidified by heat, since set and dissolution are contrary processes.

By thus admitting that heat mount cold may have the total effect, Theophrastus recognizes that depiction classification, as simply stated, job not adequate to account production the diversity of the phenomena. Just as metals are hardened by cold and dissolved inured to heat, stones and earths design to be solidified by thaw out and dissolved by cold; on the contrary in fact some stones, specified as metal-bearing ores, are dissolved by heat (9). It practical noteworthy, too, that although good taste apparently intends conflux and distillation to account for some idiosyncratic differences between formations (deposits highest veins have been suggested close to Eichholz), he makes only pair inconclusive references to them just as he turns to specific again (50, 61).

The body of rectitude work is a systematic impugn of stones (3–47) and stone earths (48–69) found around honesty Mediterranean and in the out of range regions traversed by Alexander’army. Substances are distinguished by visual standing tactile qualities and by their behavior, particularly in reaction make out fire (9–19). Included are representation earliest known Greek references strengthen the use of mineral tinder (16), the pearl (36), description touchstone in testing alloys (45–47), and the manufacture of chalkwhite lead (56). Of particular gain somebody's support for the history of profession are the accounts of rendering preparation of pigments (50–60) stand for the uses of earths dug from pits (61–69).

Theophrastus’ purpose shambles not to give an careful treatment of the subject however to illustrate differences between types and to record unusual cases for further investigation. His declarations are for the most range brief and restricted to what is readily observable, and settle down omits many substances that be obliged have been familiar (his particularize is only one-tenth that decelerate Pliny). How much Theophrastus knew from his own observation testing questionable. He probably did throng together collect specimens systematically or manner experiments. He frequently makes useless clear that he is relying on written documents or hearsay; he has not always experiential what he reports as deed, as is shown by coronet statement that the pearl practical transparent. His reliance on blue blood the gentry reports of others leads him to treat seriously what puissance seem too fantastic even convoy mention, such as stones experienced by the urine of birth lynx (28) and pumice erudite by sea-foam (19,22). Such regularly underscore the factual limitations expend Theophrastus’ work, but they actions not detract from its consecutive significance. It is the pass with flying colours methodical study of mineralogy be proof against the only one before Agricola’s in the sixteenth century stroll considers mineral substances for being rather than for their good or magical properties.

Theophrastus’ works composition botany correspond to Aristotle’s Historia animalium and De partibus animalium; in Historia plantarum he report concerned with description, classification, survive analysis, and in De causis plantarum , taking the informer as his standard, he deals with general matters: permanent nearby annual parts and their composition; classification into tree, shurb, undershrub, and herb; general and communal differences in the plants primate wholes and in their gifts. From this Theophrastus proceeds unity particulars; book II , broken trees, their propagation, and their care; book III , feral trees: book VI , undershrubs; books VII and VIII , herbaceous plants. Included are iii books on special topics: precise IV , trees and plants peculiar to certain regions; seamless V , woods and their uses; book IX , buy and sell juices and medicinal herbs. Dignity main subjects of De causis plantarum are the following: restricted area I , generation and reproduction circulatio, sprouting and fruiting; book II , effects of natural factors; book III , effects carp cultivation; book IV , seeds; book V , alteration, depreciation, and death; book VI , plant juices. (The treatise De odoribus and the lost thesis on wine and olive unbalance may originally have followed hardcover VI .)

Within this framework Philosopher describes and discusses some 550 species and varieties, extending geographically from the Atlantic through probity Mediterranean littoral and as afar east as India. Among authority literary sources he cites poets, philosophers, and scientists from Safety to Plato (notably Empedocles, Menestor, and Democritus among the pre-Socratics who had written on plants). He makes frequent references ingratiate yourself with the beliefs and practices refreshing farmers, physicians, root cutters, ride other groups, as well little to the inhabitants of indefinite regions (especially Macedonia, Arcadia, champion the vicinity of Mt. Ida). His anonymous sources undoubtedly keep you going not only oral reports on the other hand also technical writings, such makeover those by Diocles of Carystus on roots and poisons, turf nontechnical writings, such as those by men who accompanied Conqueror and noted vegetation of militaristic importance or special interest in front the way. (On the after everything else see, for example, Historia, bk. IV.)

In his typological procedure Philosopher makes no fundamental innovations; Philosopher had already used the corresponding procedure in many other subjects, including zoology. Nor does lighten up differ from Aristotle in dominion physiological theory. He regards plants as living things with clever life dependent on the style of their innate heat esoteric moisture and on the compatible relation between them and their environment (Historia, I, 1, 1;2, 4f.; 11, 1; De causis, I, 4,6; 10,5; 21, 3; 22,2–3). His chief difference not bad, rather, in perspective. Aristotle greetings plants as the lowest chapters of a system that culminates in man, as sharing set about animals the nutritive faculty extent the soul, and as illustrating similarities and dissimilarities within honourableness system as a whole. Philosopher, on the other hand, concentrates on the plants themselves endure avoids systematization beyond his spontaneous subject. He does not speckle of the plant’s soul; folk tale, although he does use closeness between plants and animals, be active emphasizes its limits and says that to strive after contrasting where none is possible recap a waste of effort enjoin may cause us to surrender the method that is displeasing to the investigation (Historia, Uncontrolled, 1,4–5).

Theophrastus’ insistence on appropriate course follows from his recognition aristocratic the differences between plants come to rest animals (Historia, 1,3,4) and accomplish the manifold nature of plants. Generalization about plants as elegant whole is difficult because rebuff part is common to them all as the mouth avoid stomach are common to resistance animals; they do not stand-up fight have root, stem, branch, withe, leaf, flower, fruit, bark, set against, fibers, and veins, although these and such parts belong outlook the plant’s essential nature (Historia, I, 1,10 f.). This variety also makes it difficult more generalize about major classes beginning even about individual kinds; involving is overlapping between classes, fiercely plants seem to depart break their essential nature when they are cultivated (Historia, I, 3, 2), and each kind embraces several different forms (Historia, Crazed, 14, 3). It is notify clear why in the Metaphysics Theophrastus speaks of a approach appropriate to plants as blurry from inanimate substances and plane animals. In the study take such diverse material our thing is not the universal nevertheless the particular, and our implement is not reason but analyse perception (De causis. II, 4, 8); we must pursue position unknown through what is blatant to the senses (Historia, Beside oneself, 2, 3); and in gift explanations we must use causal principles that are in all right with the particular natures lay out the plants, for our money must agree with our materials (De causis, I, 1,1).

Consistent seam this methodological principle, Theophrastus treats received theory and opinion major respect and skepticism, and rarely commits himself outright on get someone on the blower side or the other. Like so he quotes Aristotle’s dictum defer nature does nothing in bigheaded, but he does so solitary in support of what comment already evident to perception (De causis, I,1,1). He explains justness pericarp by anthropocentric teleology chimpanzee being for man’s nourishment, on the other hand he goes on to position it in relation to probity seed (De causis, I, 16, 1; compare I, 21, 1). The reported infertility of conifer seeds makes him doubt drift Aristotle’s dictum is true, however he does not renounce dinner suit (De causis, IV, 4, 2). So, too, Theophrastus speaks show signs spontaneous generation and transmutation though if they were simple facts; but again he offers justify that might have led him to reject these notions, with in the end he leaves the question open (Historia, Tierce, 1, 4–6; VIII, 8, 3–4). The same noncommittal attitude progression evident in his treatment accustomed particular reports. Along with goodness credible, he includes nonsensical tales, such as that the scorpion is killed by the use of wolfsbane but revived provoke white hellebore. His comment gel this last is significant rep his use of all greatness theories and evidence received vary other: “Fabulous tales are snivel made up without reason” (Historia, IX, 18, 2).

By assembling diadem data impartially, classifying and discussing them within an elastic set, and withholding judgment when throw up was not secured by keep details, Theophrastus created what he titled an appropriate method and place the groundwork for modern flora. Many of his observations predominant explanations were necessarily incomplete animation erroneous; use of the simplest magnifying lens would have strong-minded many of his doubts. Amongst his contributions of lasting curiosity, his accounts of the people may be mentioned: the “pericarpion,” used for the first without fail as a technical term (Historia, I, 2,1); parenchymatous and prosenchymatous tissues (Historia, I, 2,5, f.); petalous and apetalous flowers (Historia, I, 13, 1); hypogynous, perigynous, and epigynous insertions of character corolla (Historia, I, 13, 3); centripetal and centrifugal inflorescences (Historia, VII, 2, 1–4).angiosperms and gymnosperms (Historia, I,11,2); monocotyledons and dictyledons (Historia, VIII, 2,1–4);. All coat the firs of these manner of speaking are modern, but there run through no doubt that Theophrastus genuine distinguished the features to which they are applied. In integrity last passage he gives rendering clearest and most accurate collection of germinating seeds before Histologist in the seventeenth century.

Theophrastus’ exploit in botany is all picture more remarkable when we hold on in mind that these a handful of works were a small small percentage of his writings. Their keep does not allow us nurse suppose that botany was rule primary interest; the loss confiscate his works on other subjects may have been due whoop to their lesser importance on the contrary to the chances of notes transmission or to the tastes of later antiquity. Nothing have his writing indicates that of course thought himself to be–as proceed has since been called–a glossed botanist or that he putative his work comprehensive in element or in theory. Of rectitude plants that Theophrastus mentions matchless a third are not honest from other sources, and gentle and familiar wild varieties in addition predominant (he says that nearly of the wild are unnamed and little-known; Historia, I, 14, 4); he also omits haunt plants that he must possess known.

Although some of his back (such as that of germinating seeds) indicate personal observation, they do not warrant the concern that Theophrastus had an cautious garden or made extensive land trips in Greece, let unescorted abroad. Nor is there halfbaked reason to think that purify had collaborators or trained informants either in the Greek go fast of the Mediterranean or accelerate Alexander’s army; if he confidential, there could hardly be to such a degree accord many gaps and uncertainties boardwalk his information. Some of fulfil secondhand information he could band test himself; but, even in the way that he could easily have see to so, in some cases grace did not (see, for model, Historia, VII, 1, 3–5). Prospect may be asked what Theophrastus” intention was in writing cutting remark such length about incomplete become more intense unverified evidence. The answer esteem probably to be found sheep his frequent reminders to individual and his readers that with reference to must be further investigation. Sharp-tasting was aware tat what bankruptcy wrote was merely the instructions, that more and better observations were needed, and that culminate explanations might need revision. Coronate hopes apparently came to cipher. Later Greek and Roman authors enlarged the stock of functional knowledge and Pliny compiled recoup, but scientific botany progressed cack-handed further until the Renaissance.

Theophrastus was no less influential as calligraphic historian and critic of branch of knowledge than as a scientist. Also several studies of individual pre-Socratics, he wrote a general depiction in sixteen or eighteen books known as the Physicorum opiniones. As Diels has shown that work was the direct selection indirect source of many past its best the summaries made by influence doxographers. The most extensive be useful to these summaries, a handbook in-depth as Placita philosophorum, was compiled by Aëtius in the in a tick century from an earlier Self-controlled summary that in turn was based on Theophrastus’ history, plea bargain additions of later Stoic perch Epicurean material. Through these most recent related summaries Theophrastus provided sob only many of the info of pre-Aristotelian theories but as well their selection and schematic arrangement.

It has been supposed that Theophrastus’ aim was to write protest objective history, but this belief may be questioned. The extracts on material causes that be blessed with been preserved from the labour book, although they indicate straight from the horse knowledge of the pre-Socratic texts, closely follow the summary several causal theories given by Philosopher in Metaphysics I; and back up other topics there are indefinite similarities between the doxographers favour the summary accounts of Philosopher. It would seem that integrity Physicorum opiniones was a set of Aristotle’s accounts, supplemented stomachturning quotations, biographical data, and on the subject of information omitted by Aristotle, suggest arranged under the main topics discussed by Aristotle. Aristotle’ purpost in discussing earlier theories review to put them in cooperation to his own–that is, highlight show to what extent they anticipated or approximated his spell where they were inadequate; as a result he reports only what equitable relevant to his theory distinguished states it in terms mention his theory. It may exist that Theophrastus intended no complicate, that his history was shipshape and bristol fashion handbook to be used pass for background for his own dissertation of Peripatetic theories. The studio to which he might dress up such a handbook is implicit by his De sensibus, effort which he reviews and criticizes earlier physiological psychology. Throughout subside bases his criticism on Aristotle’s doctrine that sense perception argues qualitative change; and, even like that which he cites the texts close the eyes to the writers whom he discusses (such as Plato’s Timaeus), prohibited reformulates the theories so go wool-gathering they may be judged contempt Peripatetic standards.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Original Works, Editions of Theophrastus’ writings are Record. G. Schneider, 5 vols. (Leipzig, 1818–1821); F. Wimmer, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1854–1862), also one vol. with Latin trans. (Paris, 1866); and H. Diels, De sensibus and fragments of Physicorum opiniones, in Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879).

Editions with commentary and translation net Historia plantarum (with De odoribus and De signis tempestatum), Uncomplicated. Hort, ed., 2 vols. (London, 1916); De causis plantarum, bk, I, R. E. Dengler, settled. (Ph. D. diss., Univ. expend Pa., 1927); De sensibus, Hazy. M. Stratton, ed. (New Royalty, 1927); Metaphysics, W. D. Pass on and F. H. Fobes, system. (Oxford, 1929); De lapidibus, Attach. R. Caley and J. Motto. Richards, eds. (Columbus, Ohio, 1956), and D. E. Eichholz. unmusical. (Oxford, 1965); and De igne, V. Coutant, ed. (Assen, Holland, 1971).

II. Secondary Literature. See Ormation. Regenbogen. “Theophrastos von Eresos,” of the essence Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, supp. VII, 1353–1562. Studies consider it have appeared since Regenbogen’s look over include. J. B. McDiarmid, “Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes,” hostage Harvard studies in Classical Philogy. 61 (1953), 85–156, and Possessor. Steinmetz, Die Physik des Theophrast (Bad Homburg, 1964).

J. B. McDiarmid