Theophrastus

The Peripatetic philosopher Theophrastus of Eresus in some ways stands in both the Classical and Hellenistic worlds.2 Upon his arrival at Athens, he studied first with Plato, but subsequently transferred to Aristotle’s Lyceum, whose headship he assumed on Aristotle’s death. He was a prolific writer on a wide range of topics, but most of his work is not extant. For our purposes here, the failure of his writings on rhetoric to survive represents the greatest loss since he composed a considerable body of work on both the theoretical and practical aspects of rhetoric. We know this from references in other authors to his treatises on many issues related to rhetoric.3 Diogenes Laertius credits Theophrastus with about twenty works on rhetoric, in addition to several more on poetry (Lives of the Greek Philosophers 5.46-50). Because Theophrastus was a younger contemporary of Aristotle, whose own work on rhetoric does not entirely survive, it is not always clear whether or to what extent he follows Aristotle in his theoretical approach or in his treatments of the composition of speeches; according to Quintilian, he sometimes propounded views different from those of his master (3.8.62). Certainly, he learned much from Aristotle, and his perspective is in broad terms quite consistent with Aristotle’s discussions.

It can justifiably be said that the Peripatetic approach to rhetoric was a better response to the sophistic movement than Plato’s had been; given that rhetorical training was bound to persist, it was better to establish its rules than to rule out its establishment in the educational curriculum. Thus Aristotle laid down some basic parameters, which first reached posterity through the writings of his students, especially Theophrastus.4 Aristotle, for example, is credited with the division of speeches into the three basic types (epideictic, deliberative and judicial) and with the introduction of a training method that taught students to argue both sides of an issue, a technique employed primarily to increase awareness of opposing arguments and not designed to encourage rhetorical dexterity for its own sake, though that was an eventual result. While not ignoring these points, much of Theophrastus’ writing on rhetoric dealt with intricacies of technique. His works include treatises On the Art of

Rhetoric, On Kinds of Rhetorical Arts, On Example, On the Maxim, On Non-technical Proofs, On Judicial Speeches, On Praise, On Slander, On Statement (of the case) and Narration, On Style, and On Solecism. Consequently, he exercised much influence on the development of rhetoric in the Hellenistic world; with the authority of Aristotle behind him, Theophrastus set the agenda, though the Peripatetics did not always control the discussion or its outcome.

Theophrastus’ work is largely concerned with definition, specification, and the practical aspects of this craft. Of all his writings on rhetoric, the most frequently cited is a work On Style. In it, Theophrastus defines four ‘strengths’ (as he calls them) or ‘virtues’ (as they are later called) of style: correctness, clarity, appropriateness, ornamentation. On these aspects of a speech, which became almost universally accepted among later writers and thus represent his greatest contribution, he naturally adopts a Peripatetic approach, arguing for the desirability of a style that is neither too simple nor too grand.5 The target was the sophistic movement, as is clearly evident in the area of ornamentation, where Theophrastus counselled against the excessive use of figures and other techniques that called attention to the rhetoric rather than to the subject and argument of a speech. Instead, ornamentation was to be slight for slight themes, somewhat more grand, but not excessively, for grander themes. Judging from citations by later authors, Theophrastus regularly treated his topics in minute detail. One example will need to suffice: ‘The so-called beautiful words too make the style charming. Theophrastus defined them as follows: ‘‘Beauty in a word is that which is pleasant in regard to hearing or in regard to sight6, or that which suggests in thought great value’’ ’ (Demetrius, On Style 173). The passage goes on to list examples in each category mentioned, but some or all of these may derive from Demetrius rather than Theophrastus. Nevertheless, we can be sure that the philosopher included lists and discussions of specific words that were ‘beautiful’ for his different reasons. His practice elsewhere was most likely the same, that is, the statement of a principle or perspective, followed by relevant examples, usually drawn from the works of other authors, for this is the procedure regularly followed by other writers on rhetoric.

We cannot, or should not, leave Theophrastus without brief consideration of his best known work, the Characters. In it, the philosopher describes a series of characters, for example, the miser, the coward, the loquacious man, the garrulous man, the lover, the slanderer, and many others. Though the work may be linked in some way to the rise of New Comedy with its stock characters, one purpose, or even merely a partial impetus, might be rhetoric.7 An orator could, if he wished to characterize a defendant as a miser, draw upon Theophrastus’ description of just such a man, using in his speech some specific points outlined by the philosopher; he could, if circumstances warranted, employ a selection of elements from more than one character, to depict a cowardly, loquacious, slanderous miser, for example. Theophrastus’ attention to rhetoric and to the details of composing a speech suggests that his Characters was part of the same programme and thus a work intended primarily to aid orators. But the correctness of that view does not really matter (though it would be nice to know): whether composed as a rhetorical aid or not, the Characters provided orators with a handy reference guide to the types of human behaviour they might wish to include in their speeches. Thus, even in the composition of a work not addressed to orators, Theophrastus is a precursor to the development of oratory in the Hellenistic period.

Most likely, both his Characters and his works specifically on rhetoric were widely read and studied in the schools of the Hellenistic world.