Theophrastus, or Theophrastus, (ancient Greek Θεόφραστος, lat. Theophrastos Eresios; born c. 370 BC, in the city of Eres, the island of Lesbos - d. between 288 BC and 285 BC e., in Athens) - an ancient Greek philosopher, naturalist, music theorist.
Versatile scientist; is, along with Aristotle, the founder of botany and plant geography. Thanks to the historical part of his doctrine of nature, he acts as the founder of the history of philosophy (especially psychology and the theory of knowledge).
He studied in Athens with Plato, and then with Aristotle and became his closest friend, and in 323 BC. e. - successor as head of the Peripatetic school.
Theophrastus is called the "father of botany". The botanical works of Theophrastus can be considered as a compilation into a single system of knowledge of practitioners of agriculture, medicine and the work of scientists of the ancient world in this area. Theophrastus was the founder of botany as an independent science: along with a description of the use of plants in the economy and medicine, he considered theoretical issues. The influence of the works of Theophrastus on the subsequent development of botany for many centuries was enormous, since the scientists of the Ancient World did not rise above him either in understanding the nature of plants or in describing their forms. In accordance with his contemporary level of knowledge, certain provisions of Theophrastus were naive and not scientific. Scientists of that time did not yet have a high research technique, there were no scientific experiments. But with all this, the level of knowledge achieved by the "father of botany" was very significant.
He wrote two books about plants: The History of Plants (Old Greek Περὶ φυτῶν ἱστορίας, Lat. Historia plantarum) and Causes of Plants (Old Greek Περὶ φυτῶν αἰτιῶν, Lat. De causis plantar um), which give Fundamentals of plant classification and physiology, described about 500 plant species, and which were subjected to many comments and often reprinted. Despite the fact that Theophrastus in his "botanical" works does not adhere to any special methods, he introduced ideas into the study of plants that were completely free from the prejudices of that time and assumed, like a true naturalist, that nature acts according to its own purposes, and not for the purpose be useful to a person. He outlined with insight the main problems of scientific plant physiology. How are plants different from animals? What organs do plants have? What is the activity of the root, stem, leaves, fruits? Why do plants get sick? What effect do heat and cold, humidity and dryness, soil and climate have on the plant world? Can a plant arise by itself (spawn spontaneously)? Can one type of plant change into another? These are the questions that interested Theophrastus' mind; for the most part, these are the same questions that are still of interest to naturalists. In the very setting of them - the enormous merit of the Greek botanist. As for the answers, in that period of time, in the absence of the necessary factual material, it was impossible to give them with proper accuracy and scientific character.
Along with observations of a general nature, the "History of Plants" contains recommendations for the practical application of plants. In particular, Theophrastus accurately describes the technology of growing a special type of cane and making canes from it for aulos.
The most famous is his work “Ethical Characters” (ancient Greek Ἠθικοὶ χαρακτῆρες; Russian translation “On the Properties of Human Morals”, 1772, or “Characteristics”, St. Petersburg, 1888), a collection of 30 essays on human types, which depicts a flatterer , talker, braggart, arrogant, grumpy, incredulous, etc., and each is masterfully outlined by vivid situations in which this type manifests itself. So, when the collection of donations begins, the miser, without saying a word, leaves the meeting. Being the captain of the ship, he goes to bed on the helmsman's mattress, and on the feast of the Muses (when it was customary to send a reward to the teacher), he leaves the children at home. Often they talk about the mutual influence of the Characters of Theophrastus and the characters of the new Greek comedy. Undoubtedly his influence on all modern literature. It was by starting with translations of Theophrastus that the French moralist La Bruyère created his Characters, or Morals of Our Age (1688). From Theophrastus originates a literary portrait, an integral part of any European novel.
From the two-volume treatise On Music, a valuable fragment has been preserved (included by Porfiry in his commentary on Ptolemy's Harmonica), in which the philosopher, on the one hand, argues with the Pythagorean-Platonic presentation of music as another - sounding - "incarnation" of numbers. On the other hand, he considers the thesis of harmonics (and possibly Aristoxenus) to be of little importance, considering the melody as a sequence of discrete values - intervals (gaps between pitches). The nature of music, concludes Theophrastus, is not in interval movement and not in numbers, but in “the movement of the soul, which gets rid of evil through experience (ancient Greek διὰ τὰ πάθη). Without this movement, there would be no essence of music.”
Theophrastus also owns the (not extant) essay “On the Syllabus” (or “On Style”; Περὶ λέξεως), which, according to M. L. Gasparov, is almost higher in its significance for the entire ancient theory of oratory” Rhetoric" by Aristotle. It is repeatedly mentioned by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demetrius of Phaler and others.
FEDERAL AGENCY FOR EDUCATION
FGOUVPO "Chuvash State University named after I.N. Ulyanov"
Faculty of Philology
Department of General and Comparative-Historical Linguistics
Course work
Theophrastus' book "Characters" and its significance for ancient literature
Made by a student of the group
FF 11-09 Galliamova Venus
Scientific adviser -
Kankov Yu.S.
Cheboksary 2009
Introduction
1. Book of Theophrastus "Characters"
2. Criticism of Theophrastus
4. Note
Literature
Introduction
Theophrastus, or Theophrastus, or Tirtamos, or Tirtam(lat. Theophrastos Eresios, born c. 370 BC, Eres on Lesbos - mind between 288 BC and 285 BC, Athens) - an ancient Greek philosopher, naturalist, music theorist.
Versatile scientist; is, along with Aristotle, the founder of botany and plant geography. Thanks to the historical part of his doctrine of nature, he acts as the founder of the history of philosophy (especially psychology and the theory of knowledge).
A native of Eres on the island of Lesvos. He studied in Athens with Plato, and then with Aristotle and became his closest friend, and in 323 BC. e. - successor as head of the Peripatetic school.
He wrote (about 300 BC) two books on plants: "History of Plants" (lat. Historia plantarum) and "Causes of Plants" (lat. De causis plantarum), which give the basics of classification and physiology of plants, described about 500 plant species, and which have been subject to many comments and often republished. Despite the fact that Theophrastus in his "botanical" works does not adhere to any special methods, he introduced ideas into the study of plants that were completely free from the prejudices of that time and assumed, like a true naturalist, that nature acts according to its own purposes, and not for the purpose be useful to a person. With his characteristic foresight, he outlined the main problems of scientific plant physiology. How are plants different from animals? What organs do plants have? What is the activity of the root, stem, leaves, fruits? Why do plants get sick? What effect do heat and cold, humidity and dryness, soil and climate have on the plant world? Can a plant arise by itself (spawn spontaneously)? Can one type of plant change into another? These are the questions that interested Theophrastus' inquisitive mind; for the most part, these are the same questions that are still of interest to naturalists. In the very setting of them - the great merit of the great Greek botanist. As for the answers, in that period of time, in the absence of the necessary factual material, it was impossible to give them with proper accuracy and scientific character.
Along with observations of a general nature, the "History of Plants" contains recommendations for the practical application of plants. In particular, Theophrastus accurately describes the technology of growing a special type of cane and making canes from it for aulos.
The most famous is his essay "Ethical Characters" (Russian translation of "On the Properties of Human Morals", 1772, or "Characteristics", St. Petersburg, 1888), a collection of 30 essays on human types, which depicts a flatterer, talker, braggart, proud, grump , incredulous, etc., each masterfully depicted by vivid situations in which this type manifests itself.
1. Book of Theophrastus "characters"
Aristotle created his own philosophical school, called the Lyceum. This school was also called "peripatetic" (walking), because Aristotle spent his morning, esoteric, lectures, or, more precisely, conversations with his best students, walking along the shady alleys of Apollo's Grove. In the evenings he lectured to a wide circle of listeners within the walls of the lyceum. These were public (exoteric) courses. The school resembled a research institute with its charter, developed by Aristotle himself, with the study of both individual natural science problems and their general philosophical synthesis. The already sick scientist was forced to hand over the Lyceum into the hands of his student Theophrastus.
The huge legacy left by Aristotle would be incomplete without taking into account the small booklet of his student Theophrastus. This little book "Characters" continued the classification and typology of living beings by Aristotle into human types and had a curious continuation in modern times.
Man, as we know, was of particular interest to the Greeks. In the course of their own history, they portrayed him in different ways: from the hero dependent on the deities, but not the individuality of Homer, to the discovery of internal, mental properties, to the personality of Socrates.
In modern psychology, character is a personality warehouse, formed by individual peculiar and typological features and manifested in the peculiarities of the attitude (attitudes) to the surrounding social reality.
In the term "character" we now ... focus on the personal characteristics of the individual, which gives him the stamp of originality, exclusivity and acts as a living force of development. For the Greek, on the contrary, character is a "stamp" (for minting coins, which is never intended for one copy), a "type", a "frozen mask". That is why Theophrastus is not interested in "personality", but always in "type".
The book "Characters" consists of 30 small portraits of various kinds of people with certain characters. Here is the name of the first few sketches: "The Pretender", "The Flatterer", "The Empty Talker", "The Hillbilly", "Compliant", "Desperate", "Chatterbox", "Writer of Rumors". Usually, these sketches of characters by Theophrastus are interpreted as sketches of "living", "real", "life-true", etc. of people. Usually it is even believed that a real person is depicted here; and Theophrastus himself believed that he depicted precisely human behavior and the life of a “man”. This "man" is a concept, in general, rather vague. Homer also depicts not animals, but people. The beginning of Greek lyrics is also usually interpreted in textbooks as an appeal to a living person. Aristotle in his ethics also draws the character, behavior and words of living people. And now Theophrastus asserts the same thing, not to speak of the entire Neo-Attic comedy, which is also the depiction of a person, again, in his entire life situation. The point, however, is not that all Greek poets and playwrights depicted animals, not people, and only, they say, a comedian of the 3rd century. BC. Menander and Theophrastus began to depict people. The thing is that the man of Menander and Theophrastus is a man of everyday life, an ordinary man, or, in our opinion, simply speaking, a tradesman. And for the appearance of such everyday philistinism in the history of Greece, colossal shifts had to occur. The most important shift in the 4th-3rd centuries, that is, during the period of Theophrastus and Menander, was the death of the classical policy, in which all citizens, its constituents, were both internally and externally inextricably linked with their policy and with all its fate. The man of the classical polis was interested in and therefore lived not by his petty way of life, but by big polis ideas. When this classical polis, as a result of its unparalleled growth, began to go far beyond the narrow limits of local interests and the inevitable need arose for the creation of a huge state, which alone could control the growing slave-owning population, it was then that a class of small and free producers, who already gave all the fullness of political power to the state, and themselves were limited only by their petty interests. Therefore, under the guise of a "man", a "living man", a "real" man, Theophrastus appeared not just a man (people were always different), but a small-scale man who appeared on the historical arena as a result of the death of a thoroughly ideological classical polis with all its ideological citizens, that is, as a result of the socio-political catastrophe that led Greece from its polis-particular structure to the military-monarchist organizations of Hellenism. All this is largely noticeable even in Aristotle and even in Plato, who left the stage just in the years of the Macedonian conquests, that is, in the initial years of Hellenism in general. The aesthetics of Theophrastus in his characteristics, therefore, is a small-scale and petty-bourgeois aesthetics that arose as a result of a huge social revolution that went from the small slaveholding of the Greek classics to the very striking forms of large-scale slaveholding of the Hellenistic era.
The student of Aristotle Theophrastus consistently implements the intended path of psychognostics. He was the first to use the originally artisanal term "character" in a psychological context. The most famous treatise "characters" or "characteristics", it is believed that it was with him that the description of the characters of people began. These are rather concise sketches from nature, observations. Theophrastus depicts typical characters.
The treatise includes 30 (in more complete manuscripts 31) characteristics, where types of a flatterer, a fool, a coward, etc. are drawn. The depiction of each character begins with a definition that gives a moral assessment of the property; it is harmful, or simply unpleasant, then follows an illustration of the actions inherent in this particular type. All the characters in the treatise are divided into categories: some of them are the so-called eternal types, conveying something enduring in human nature (stingy, cowardly), others reflect the features of the social reality of Athens at the end of the 4th century. BC (for example, meanness). At the same time, along with similar political characters, several special types are given - representatives of the townspeople (desperation, vanity), as well as the type of a prosperous peasant (roughness). Theophrastus identifies types according to their dominant trait.
In antiquity, before the emergence of the science of man, man was a subject associated with the gods, he had a character, but did not have a personality, not being able to act independently - his consciousness is connected, his behavior is due to the divine plan. The properties of the subject reveal the hidden design of higher powers. During this period, there is still no concept of the inner life of the individual, his subjective world. And the gods themselves appear in the form of powers, but not personalities, they do not have personal qualities. For the first time, the sophists and Socrates begin to study the inner life of a person, "discover" the personality. Man is the "measure of all things". The most important thing is the free will of the individual. The moral value of the subject is in himself. Euripides depicts an individual with an independent will, not subject to any deity. The role of the individual and interest in him in science and literature came to the fore at the end of the 4th century. BC. during the era of Theophrastus.
Theophrastus continues, following the sophists and other philosophers, to observe the person as something objective, as a thing, as someone else's "I". This, according to the Greeks, is character. The object of research by Theophrastus is a private individual, an Athenian inhabitant, a "man of everyday life", belonging to the lower and middle strata of the slave system. Theophrastus gives clarity to his types, his images are bright. There is not a single positive feature in the treatise, it is a series of sketches in which carriers of one or another drawback are displayed. A person can and should choose the best among many ways of life. By finding the middle between the extremes, the individual tames his passions, achieves valor and becomes a "right" person, analyzing the relationship of character with actions and experiences. For Theophrastus, the "contemplative" life of a scientist-philosopher serves as an ideal norm. Filosov must reveal the vices of the real world. Theophrastus shows no pretensions to be anything more indifferent and outspoken critic. The characters shown by him do not stand at a moral height - these are ordinary people with an ordinary soul. Each of the characteristics is, as it were, a synopsis of dramatic scenes that depict the behavior of a certain type in different situations. Theophrastus cites predominantly pronounced characters, distinguished by some grotesque and exclusivity. He notices in a person among many features a constant, according to which an idea of the experiences of the individual is created. He groups human properties according to the main, stably dominant property and shows how this property is expressed in the manner of behavior. He parallels each property with a certain carrier - the type or character of a person, due to the predominance of one or another feature, for example, rudeness.
The studies of Theophrastus were prepared by the works of Aristotle. His ideas about "characters" are based on the same ethical assumptions about good and evil, virtue and the prophet as in Aristotle. Identity in the definitions of Aristotle and Theophrastus of certain features, for example, idle talk, cowardice.
Like Aristotle, Theophrastus describes only free-born Athenians and only male characters. There are no women or slaves in his sketches - neither one nor the other can serve as an ethical standard.
Analogy and continuity are also seen in the category of qualities under consideration - these are incapacities and generally not dianoetic, but precisely ethical properties. In the treatise of Theophrastus, the intellect is mentioned only once, while moral traits are taken with repetition. A direct list of the features being analyzed and their particular difference are similar.
Outlining the types, Theophrastus in a certain sense reproduces the lines of analysis of his teacher - about the dependence of human disposition on age.
However, along with the obvious similarities, there are some differences. Continuing and developing the ethical teaching of Aristotle, Theophrastus makes an attempt to create a typology of spiritual people, as a typology of vices. Aristotle included elements of classification in the development of the problem of affect. But the scheme of Theophrastus is actually recognized as typological, and it is believed that he owns one of the first attempts to classify character, although its obvious weaknesses are emphasized: the lack of a single basis for distinguishing types and the presence of repetitions.
A common understanding by Aristotle and Theophrastus of what human disposition is, in an identical interpretation of its nature.
According to the doctrine of virtues, human traits are manifested in the appearance of the subject. Theophrastus only formally depends on physiognomy. Naturalism of the 4th century puts forward the problem of character in the form of a complex of everyday features of an everyday person.
Theophrastus studies the actions and words of people in which the qualities of a given person are most pronounced. He observes human behavior in the immediate everyday environment. An individual reveals himself in everyday actions - in the way he wears clothes, etc. A special standard of actions in life is relevant to each property. If Aristotle outlines the way in which a person is able to form his character, Theophrastus in a series of typified images shows what comes out of this in specific social conditions. Aristotle explores virtue in the context of the social life of ancient society.
Theophrastus' student Menander, using Theophrastus' technique, already draws individual character traits.
The writings of Theophrastus under the generally accepted title "Characters" stand apart in all ancient Greek literature; it does not fit into any conventional genre canon. Hence such an abundance of contradictory, often mutually exclusive interpretations of the work. Until now, the study of "Characters" has gone (this trend continues) in two main directions: the essay was interpreted as scientific - philosophical and as a work of fiction. In accordance with the first provision, "Characters" are some part of one of Theophrastus' scientific treatises on ethics, in the second case they are considered as artistically executed illustrations that were part of one of Theophrastus' writings on poetic or rhetorical art. So, it turns out that with any given assumption, the genre form of "Characters" turns out to be dependent, because no matter what efforts researchers make to find suitable analogies, "Characters" remain either one large excerpt (or a hypomnematic, complementary part), or small excerpts. , equally belonging to one extensive work of the philosopher. In connection with the foregoing, the question arises of the degree of scientificity and artistry in the work of interest to us.
At the present time, hardly anyone would question the aesthetic intentions of the author of "Characters". And, however, we still often come across the opinion that the "Characters" could serve as artistically processed examples of individual provisions not only in Theophrastus' theoretical studies on literature (poetics and rhetoric), but also in his scientific and philosophical treatises. All the work of Theophrastus is usually considered against the background of the philosophical heritage of Aristotle. The relationship between the student and the teacher, the traditional view (coming back from antiquity) of Theophrastus as a follower of Stagirite, who developed and supplemented his teaching, allows not only to put the "Characters" in connection with some of Aristotle's writings, the problems of which are close to the latter, but also give almost the only an opportunity both to understand the general worldview of Theophrastus, and to understand the artistic and aesthetic principles underlying them. philosopher Theophrastus ancient literature
Returning to the dilemma - a work of fiction or a scientific treatise, we must first emphasize that not a single work of Aristotle, either in the field of ethics or even in the field of literary criticism, has parts that artistically illustrate one or another thought of the philosopher. There is a fundamental difference in the way the material is presented, in some respects common to Aristotle and Theophrastus. The first operates with categories of concepts, the latter with artistic images, one conceptually describes, the other depicts. At the same time, the thesis about excerpting "Characters" looks very doubtful. It is difficult to imagine even approximately the source from which the extraction could have been made. As for Ariston and the later tradition of moral exhortation literature, although the "Characters" were adapted by this author to his own ideological tasks, playing the role of inserts in his work, we can in no way ascribe one thing to Theophrastus's book - a moralizing tone. In this regard, the mechanical addition to the "Characters" in the Byzantine time of the general introduction and instructive endings is very indicative.
The reason for considering "Characters" as a scientific treatise (mainly ethical) is most of all given by the definitions that precede each chapter of the collection. At first glance, we are dealing with the most real scientific definitions of ethical concepts, such as vanity, superstition, shamelessness, talkativeness, stinginess, etc., with the subsequent transfer to a person as a carrier of a certain characteristic feature, which is close to the modern concept of "type ". But it is worth taking a closer look at the definitions, as they cause disappointment from the point of view of scientific systematics. Some of them really deeply, albeit briefly, characterize the behavioral phenomenon, for example, "conscience is the neglect of people's opinion for the sake of low self-interest" (IX); others serve only as an addition to the content of the illustrative section (II, VIII); others contradict the content of the main part (I, V, XIX, XXVII); the fourth (and most of them) are so superficial that they can hardly be called definitions. Here is an example of such definitions: "talkiness is incontinence of speech" (VII), "arrogance is impoliteness in conversation" (XV), "desperation is inveterateness in shameful deeds and speeches" (VI). The triviality of the expressed thoughts is striking, which presupposes the usual, well-known, current. For us, in this case, this is a very important sign of a common place, which indicates not the philosophical, but the rhetorical nature of the definitions.
Many introductions to the "Characters" are in contact with the definitions of human properties in the ethical works of Aristotle. However, analysis and comparison of the definitions of both philosophers show that their similarity is often far from complete. It is not uncommon for them to conflict with each other. This, as well as heterogeneity in the structure of definitions, allowed some researchers to make an assumption about the inauthenticity of the introductory parts to the "Characters". Meanwhile, there is no particular reason to doubt their authenticity. They go in line with the writer's general ideological guidelines, and their purpose is to serve as a support for the unfolding of the picture, which is realized in the particular provisions of the general, which is expressed by the definition. In essence, the definitions are a rhetorical thesis that requires further argumentation. Their monotonous form using the same stylistic means of expression is by no means a sign of a scholarly work. Theophrastos' definition, much more than the illustrative parts, betrays the rhetorical face of the entire work. The overwhelming majority of definitions contain the words "it seems", "it can be considered", "if someone wants to define", "it is not difficult to determine", etc.
The texts of the "Characters" themselves lay claim to scientific and philosophical rigor even less. It has been repeatedly noted that among them there are sketches that are neutral in their ethical coloring. Such are the "characters" of the Clueless (XIV), the Untidy (XIX), the Young One (XXVII). In addition, the sketches of Theophrastus carry a lot of funny things. Each derived type is comical in itself, only this comic is different: from irony and malicious mockery to satirical grotesque. The subject of the author's image is various vices in organic combination with the carriers of vicious qualities, so that the quality and the person are not thought of separately. Of course, in "characters" there is a distraction from a real person, but the gap between an abstract thought and a specific carrier of quality is so small that, say, in "friend of flights" (XXIX) it is not at all difficult to "recognize" the sycophant Aristogeiton. Theophrastosian method of analyzing human properties rests on a socially subjective basis. This analysis does not take place in absolute forms of thinking, but precisely on the basis of the logic of the probable and the accidental, according to which all propositions can only be relatively true, because they are built depending on the premises expressing the general opinion 9 . What has been said about the so-called definitions and the method of research itself, which is as close as possible to reality, give every reason to conclude at least the rhetorical orientation of Theophrastus' work. Meanwhile, in the article for the translation of "Characters" into Russian, we read: "Characters" as an ethological (moral) essay can belong to the field of ethics, poetics and even rhetoric.
Characterology, or ethology, dealt with special scientific disciplines - ethics and physiognomy. But at the same time, it is overlooked that rhetoric has paid the closest attention to characterology throughout the history of its development. Rhetorical art, born from practice, was looking for ways and means of a reliable image of a person. Already at the earliest stages, rhetoric provides examples of a systematized characterology in the works of Antiphon, Thrasymachus, Lysias. The well-traced tradition of the existence of rhetorical writings in the form of theoretical guides and practical examples from the time of the Sicilian rhetoricians up to Demosthenes and Aristotle makes the appearance of such a work as "Characters" quite understandable. A direct analogy to the collection of the philosopher, probably, could be the so-called "Preparations" of Lysias, where the customs of the old and the young, the poor and the rich were interpreted. It is noteworthy that this direction in the depiction of characters, coming from the Sicilians and Antiphon, is then continued by Anaximenes and Aristotle. The latter in his treatise "Rhetoric" makes a special digression into the field of characterology.
The rhetorical origin of the work is supported not only by the manuscript tradition, but also by the full title of the collection.
It is necessary to name one more element of "ethos", without which Aristotle does not think of an "ethical" image of a person. It is the correspondence of the image to the subject of the image.
If we now try to identify the most characteristic feature of Theophrastus' sketches, then we, apparently, will not be mistaken in pointing out the vitality of the characters presented by the author. Undoubtedly, Theophrastus, in accordance with the last requirement of Aristotle, had every reason to define his "Characters" as "ethical", that is, accurately reflecting reality. However, this is where the similarity between the aesthetic principles of the student and the teacher ends, and significant differences begin. With all the scrupulousness of the study of the "Characters", we will not find in them that most important, from the point of view of Aristotle, installation, according to which the character must be inherently motivated (to scrape) words and deeds; Aristotle's thesis "Man is never ignorant of what he does on purpose" is absolutely inapplicable to many of Theophrastus' "characters". It is difficult to see what motives underlie the behavior of Empty Talker (III), Obsequious (V), Clueless (XIV), Grouch (XVII), Clumsy (XII), Desperate (VI), Chatterbox (VII). But even this does not trace the strict logic of the representation of the "heroes" of Theophrastus' book. Some of them act quite consciously and are guided in their actions by selfish goals (XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXX). This inconsistency only proves that the Aristotelian principle of causality and expediency was not at all important for Theophrastus. Another fundamental difference is the breadth of coverage of the image object. If Aristotle strives to study the general, where the individual is its integral part, then Theophrastus focuses his attention on the individual without its connection with the general. Suffice it to say that he distinguishes four subtypes of the Miser (IX, X, XXII, XXX) and three - the Chatterbox (III, VII, VIII), which are not considered as special cases of one general phenomenon. Such a narrow specialization of types of human behavior could serve as a vivid example of an empirical and sensationalist perception of the world. "Characters" in the full sense are static, isolated and closed in themselves. For Theophrastus, it is as if there is no Aristotelian classification of human properties according to "kinds" and "states". If we assume that "characters" are "states" (the most plausible assumption), then under this concept do not fit, for example, "unconscience" (IX) and "cowardice" (XXV), which Aristotle lists among the affects. Theophrastus puts a completely different meaning into the concept of "village" (IV), which is broader than that of Aristotle; the same is the case with another "character" - "Supporter of the oligarchy" (XXVI). It is unlikely that these two "characters" were included in the collection due to a misunderstanding. They again show that in the ways of generalization Theophrastus followed a different principle than Aristotle.
Speaking about the essence of "characters", it should be emphasized that they have nothing in common either with the "stringing of individual small features", or with the "sum of mental properties", or with individualization. Theophrastus always (with the exception of a few cases) focuses his attention on one feature, which comes to the fore, hiding everything else behind it. There is no need to talk about any individualization or psychology here, because in a separate "character" there is never a combination of "incompatible". Apparently, the philosopher deliberately calls his work Character;, transferring the technical term for the impression on the coin to the sphere of human behavior. Thus, Theophrastus distinguished between the concepts of "character" and the Aristotelian "ethos" and achieved greater accuracy in determining the phenomenon he noticed.
Theophrastus was probably not satisfied with the traditional method of representing a person in rhetorical art, adopted and developed by Stagirite, which had a dichotomous structure and, due to the wide coverage of the subject of the image, suffered from uncertainty. Theophrastus's empirical approach opened up more favorable opportunities for the study of human qualities, but in essence it was only a registration of behavioral patterns. Its shortcomings are expressed primarily in the absence of any system whatsoever. We have already pointed out this on other occasions above. Now let's note that the statements about the compositional indistinctness of "Characters" are also not accidental. Indeed, it is difficult to talk about the composition of a work that has no single plot, no narrative, no narrative parts at all. But on the other hand, there is a single artistic structure and a single artistic principle of representation, which give the "Characters" integrity and completeness. This unity lies in the fact that the carrier of a particular quality is revealed through a situation where the quality always remains a constant, and the situation is a variable. Theophrastus finds an infinite number of situations or folded plots, almost any of which could serve to develop a broad narrative. Let's take one example at random: "... an absurd one is one who, approaching a busy person, asks him for advice. With a cheerful company, he bursts into his sweetheart when she is in a fever. He approaches the convicted person in the bail case, demanding that he vouch for him. When he intends to act as a witness, he appears when the matter has already been decided, "etc. (XII). These situations, which make up the content of "characters", are assembled completely freely, and only an associative connection lies at the basis of their construction.
Theophrastus draws his material from various sources, including literary ones, but we find the prototype of such genre scenes primarily in judicial and judicial-political speech, namely, in that section of it that the rhetoricians called evidence from the way of life. The most important and remarkable thing is the circumstance (which tells us much more than the material) that each picture is a kind of argument strictly subordinated to the thesis of the definition. As a result, we are faced with the fact of the logic of the rhetorical scheme. Only she, this logic, does not allow the "characters" to crumble into separate small observations, which then would no longer have any aesthetic value.
Quintilian (II, 4, 41) reports that during the time of Demetrius of Phaler, the custom appeared in Greece to speak on fictitious topics in imitation of political and judicial speech. He then adds that it is not known whether this kind of exercise was invented by Demetrius himself. An attempt to identify such exercises with what has been preserved from Demetrius has not yielded results. Therefore, it is natural to allow. that the initiative for such a rhetorical training of listeners did not come from Demetrius, but from his teacher and then head of the Lyceum Theophrastus, and that the "Characters", as O. Immish had already shown, are a practical model for exercises in one of the sections of rhetoric - characterology.
Colorful pictures of the everyday life of the Athenians serve only as a means and background for distinguishing a person from the mass of his kind. The entire work of Theophrastus is aimed at portraying a person as recognizable, and therefore creating a reliable and convincing image. Persuasiveness is the main requirement of rhetoric in depicting a character in a speech. From this it becomes clear that, in pursuing these goals, Theophrastus could give up both his rhetorical style and situations specific to the situation of the court and the assembly of the people. In accordance with the words of Quintilian in "Characters" we have fictasmaterias - fictitious themes, fictional material, although not contradicting reality, but outwardly not tied to any area of artistic creativity. This, on the one hand, gave the "Characters" universality, as evidenced by the way the characters are portrayed in the new Attic comedy, and on the other hand, it led to their alienation from the original soil of existence.
These "characters" of Theophrastus seem to be ready-made characters for some kind of comedy. Not the same, of course, as in Aristophanes, where caricatures of living persons and ideas were brought onto the stage and joked about, but such as is familiar to us from Fonvizin or Moliere and is usually called a "comedy of manners."
2. Criticism of Theophrastus
· It is unlikely that he could display all the characters that existed in that era, most of them; there are repetitions in the text and descriptions do not always follow definitions exactly
Lack of a single basis for distinguishing types
Theophrastus is far from the science of character
· Turning to someone else's "I", the property of individuality, Theophrastus does not show, he depersonalizes it, reducing it to a bright, but one simple form. This is a fair remark, but the task of Theophrastus did not include the description of individuality
Portraits are integral, but static, they are given in their external manifestations, without psychological analysis
· The work of Theophrastus is the result of deep attention to public life, the social environment, relationships and behavior of people.
Like Aristotle, Theophrastus depicts in his sketches only free-born Athenians and only male characters. Theophrastus makes an attempt to create a typology of the mental characteristics of people as a typology of vices.
For Theophrastus, a stable disposition is a system of mental properties, mainly of an ethical order, manifested in behavior.
The doctrine of character has a marked effect on philosophy. The faith of the Stoics in the strength of the soul before fate brought up respect for a strong temper. According to their teaching, character is a seal of originality that distinguishes the actions of one person from others, and expresses the specific attitude of the subject to the world, to himself and to his own kind. Courage, self-control, peace of mind, justice were considered the most essential character traits. They assigned the main role in the formation of character to tempering the spirit through long exercises in performing actions, as well as by observing the actions of heroes and thinking about them. From Seneca's point of view, everyone can and should develop a strong character.
3. The value of the book for ancient literature
Significance The book of Theophrastus "Characters" is of great importance for ancient literature.
The main thing is the ethical approach to the human types of Theophrastus, clearly distinguishing between good and evil. This, probably, determined the long life of his book, which, undoubtedly, was first used by Menander, who borrowed from the philosopher the method of depicting characters in his comedies. According to the lines, he collected the types of his characters, individualizing them and creating an artistic type. It is not for nothing that even the titles of his comedies reproduce chapters from Theophrastus's work: "Uncouth", "Suspicious", "Superstitious", "Flatterer". Then this book was studied in Byzantine schools, and in the 17th century. was translated into French by the famous thinker and writer La Bruyère. Apparently, it made such an indelible impression on the latter that he wrote a continuation of it, of course, on contemporary material and called it "Characters, or mores of our age." This, however, is a completely different book. . From Theophrastus originates a literary portrait, an integral part of any European antique novel.
Often they talk about the mutual influence of the Characters of Theophrastus and the characters of the new Greek comedy. Undoubtedly his influence on all ancient literature.
A valuable fragment has been preserved from the two-volume treatise "On Music" (included in Porfiry in his commentary on Ptolemy's "Harmonica"), in which the philosopher, on the one hand, argues with the Pythagorean-Platonic presentation of music as another - sounding - "incarnation" of numbers, with on the other hand, he considers the thesis of harmonics (and possibly Aristoxenus) to be of little importance, considering the melody as a sequence of discrete quantities - intervals (gaps between pitches). The nature of music, concludes Theophrastus, is not in interval movement and not in numbers, but in "the movement of the soul, which gets rid of evil through experience. Without this movement, there would be no essence of music."
The influence of the book of Theophrastus "Characters" on the Lycian school, created by Aristotle, is also important. The huge legacy left by Aristotle would be incomplete without taking into account the small booklet of his student. She continued the classification and typology of living beings by Aristotle into human types and had a curious continuation in modern times.
It is worth noting that it was from Theophrastus that all Greek poets and playwrights began to portray people, and not animals and nothing more. The thing is that the man of Menander and Theophrastus is a man of everyday life, an ordinary man, or, in our opinion, simply speaking, a tradesman. And for the appearance of such everyday philistinism in the history of Greece, colossal shifts had to occur. The most important shift in the 4th-3rd centuries, that is, during the period of Theophrastus and Menander, was the death of the classical policy, in which all citizens, its constituents, were both internally and externally inextricably linked with their policy and with all its fate.
Prior to the appearance of this book, the term "characters" was not used in a psychological context; earlier it was used as a craft term. It is believed that it was with Theophrastus that the description of the characters of people in literature began.
Previously, philosophers did not depict a person as a person. Only since the time of Socrates is a person depicted as a person, his inner life is studied. Eurypitus depicts an individual with an independent will. The role of the individual and interest in him in science and literature came to the fore at the end of the 4th century. BC. in the era of Theophrastus, after writing the book "Characters".
4. Note
In the manuscripts of "Characters" by Theophrastus, a "Preface" by an unknown author, apparently from the Byzantine era, has been preserved. Some of the "Characters" are accompanied by moralizing epilogues, composed also by some Byzantine. Therefore, the "Preface" and the epilogues are not included in the text, as they do not belong to Theophrastus, and are given in the notes.
Foreword
When in the past I already had to reflect on this subject, I often asked myself with surprise (and, perhaps, I will continue to wonder): why is this in our Hellas, despite the same climate and the same conditions of education for all Hellenes, there is such a difference in the characters of people. After all, Polycles, I have been observing human nature for a long time: I lived for 99 years, and I had to communicate with many people of the most varied nature. After I have carefully compared the virtuous and the vicious, I felt it necessary to describe how both behave in life. I will introduce you to the different types of characters that these people have and tell you how they control their actions. I believe, Polyclus, that my sons, thanks to these notes (which I will bequeath to them), will become better and, having found instructive examples in them, will want to live and associate only with the most respectable people, so as not to be inferior to them. Now I will move on to the very topic of my notes, and you listen carefully and decide whether what I say is correct. First, I will describe people who are attached to irony, and I will do without an introduction and lengthy explanations. I'll start with irony and give its definition. Then I will describe the ironist, what he is and how he manifests himself. Then I will also try to clarify, according to my plan, one by one the other spiritual properties.
The "Preface" is written in a pompous and sometimes naive tone, which differs sharply from Theophrastus's easy and artless stylistic manner. In addition, it contains several gross blunders and oversights (for example, about the uniformity of the climate of Hellas and about the same conditions of education in this country), which are impossible for the era of Theophrastus. The author of the Preface reports that he lived for 99 years, which also does not correspond to the age of Theophrastus, who, according to Diogenes Laertius, is up to 85 years old. Who is Polycles, to whom the "Preface" is addressed, is unknown.
The "Characters" of Theophrastus is the most famous work of the philosopher that has come down to us. What does the word "character" mean? "Character" - a Greek word, translated as "scratching on hard material", or a tool for branding, chasing. We can say that character is something that is given to a person from birth, on the one hand, but, on the other hand, a person’s character is formed in the first years of his life. Thus, just as something else can be scratched or written on hard material, so the character can be slightly changed.
In his work, Theophrastus not only describes certain characters in great detail, but even gives samples of phrases by which they can be recognized: amazed. " Or: "You are talking as if about another person: he told me something completely different", "It's strange to me", "Tell someone else", "I'm at a loss: should you not believe or blame him?", " Think about it though: aren't you too gullible?" Thus, we have before us an extremely detailed study.
From time to time, a different understanding of some characters from ours is seen in the text: irony, for example, which is now a harmless literary trope, is interpreted by Theophrastus almost as duplicity: “He does not tell anything about his affairs: he says that he is only thinking and has not decided anything yet, as if he had just arrived, that it was already late, that he was unwell. And sometimes - on the contrary, the words have practically not changed their meaning to this day (in the description of flattery, for example). Theophrastus not only describes the most frequent and striking types of people, but also gives advice on how best to behave with them: "And if you endure his idle talk, then he will never leave him alone."
Uncouthness according to Theophrastus is not only rudeness, but also a good attitude towards the lower class, which does not correspond to social status: "... he does not trust friends and relatives, on the contrary, he consults with slaves on the most important matters; he retells everything to day laborers working in his field, what was going on in the assembly." Compliance, depicted as a negative concept, corresponds to elementary modern politeness: "Coming to visit for dinner, he asks to invite the master's children to the table as well, and when they appear, he declares that they, like two figs, look like a father. Then he draws the children to him , kisses and sits next to her, "and also simple neatness:" He cuts his hair every now and then, his teeth are always white, still unworn, he changes outer clothes, rubs with incense.
An unscrupulous person in Theophrastus is one who uses someone else's kindness.
Rudeness in Theophrastus is depicted in a peculiar way - modern people act exactly as he says about rude people, but at the same time no one considers them rude "Stumbling on a stone in the street, he is ready to shower curses on this stone." From this passage it can be seen that for the Greeks, personal art was the most important part of life, like religion: “He cannot stand waiting for someone for a long time, and he will never want to sing, or recite, or dance. He is able to neglect even prayer to the gods ."
Uncleanliness is depicted as the opposite of obsequiousness (in the part where it is said about cleanliness): "Thick hair grows from his armpits and far on his sides, like a wild beast. And his teeth are black and corroded, so it is disgusting to communicate with him."
Heraldry and bragging are very similar. Few differ. The ability to distinguish such subtle shades is a feature of a very developed culture.
Cowardice according to F. is often associated with excessive superstitiousness: “And as soon as the waves begin to rise, he asks if there is an uninitiated person in the mysteries among the sailors. weather; and tells his neighbor that he had an ominous dream."
Opsimatia - and also some other lines of behavior condemned by Theophrastus, see above (uncouthness) - an example of the fact that the Greek had to behave in strict accordance with age and social status.
Theophrastus in his work is interested exclusively in negative characters and human shortcomings.
With the development of society, the accumulation of scientific knowledge and social experience, the doctrine of character was enriched with new ideas. It became obvious that any person is endowed with character, regardless of his belonging to the social stratum. Now, it seems to me, it seems impossible to describe all types of characters.
Literature
1. Theophrastus. Characters. - L.: Nauka, 1974. -63 p.
2. A.F. Losev. History of ancient aesthetics Aristotle and late classics, volume IV .- M .: "Art", 1975
3. Journal "History of the Ancient World". - M .: Nauka, 1986. - 156-162 p.
4. Theophrastus. Characters.- M.: Nauka, 2007.
5. www.wikipedia.ru
6. www.litpsy.ru
Theophrastus
Characters
Theophrastus
Characters
(1) Irony in a broad sense is a pretense associated with self-deprecation in actions and speeches, and an ironist is what kind of person. (2) When he comes to his enemies, he is ready to chat with them, showing the appearance that he does not have any enmity towards them. To his face he praises those whom he surreptitiously attacks, and expresses condolences if they have lost the lawsuit. He even justifies those who speak ill of him and accuse him. (3) With offended and irritated people, he speaks calmly, and if someone persistently seeks a meeting with him, he orders to come later. (4) He does not tell anything about his affairs: he says that he is only thinking over and has not yet decided anything, he pretends that he has just arrived, that it is already late, that he is not well. (5) If someone asks him for a loan or collects a pool [...] and if he brings something to the market, he says that he does not sell, and if he does not sell, then, on the contrary, he announces that he sells; whatever he hears, he pretends not to have heard anything; having agreed on something, he declares that he does not remember; then he says that he will think more, then - that he still does not know; then - that he was surprised by what he heard, then - that he himself had already judged so. (6) Usually it is expressed in this way: "I can not believe", "I do not comprehend this", "I am amazed." Or: “You are talking as if about another person: he told me something completely different”, “It’s strange to me”, “Tell someone else”, “I’m at a loss: should you not believe or blame him?”, “Think about it all the same : Aren't you too gullible?".
II. Flattery
(1) Flattery can be defined as unworthy treatment that benefits the flatterer. And that's what a flatterer is. (2) Walking with someone, he says to his companion: “Pay attention to how everyone looks at you and marvels. After all, no one in our city is looked at like you are! Yesterday you were praised under the Portico. more than thirty people. And when it came to who is the most noble, then everyone (and I, above all) agreed on your name. " (3) Continuing in this spirit, the flatterer removes the fluffs from his cloak, and if a straw gets into his beard from the wind, he pulls it out and says with a laugh: “Look! We haven’t seen each other for two days, and already in the beard you are full of gray hair, although for your age your hair is as black as anyone else." (4) As soon as the companion opens his mouth, the flatterer tells everyone else to be silent, and if he sings, he praises, and at the end of the song shouts: "Bravo!" And if the companion makes a flat joke, the flatterer laughs, plugging his mouth with a cloak, as if he really cannot help laughing. (5) He tells the passers-by to stop and wait until "himself" has passed. (6) Having bought apples and pears, he treats the children in front of his father and kisses them with the words: "Glorious father chicks." (7) Buying boots with him, the flatterer remarks: "Your foot is much more elegant than these shoes." (8) When he goes to visit one of his friends, he runs ahead with the words: “They are coming to you!”, And then, returning, announces: “I have already announced your arrival.” (9) Moreover, he is even able, without taking a breath, to carry purchases from the women's market. (10) The first of the guests, he praises the master's wine and says: "Yes, and you know a lot about food!" Then, after tasting something from the table, he repeats: "What a glorious piece!". He pesters the owner with questions: is he not cold, is it possible to throw something on him and - without waiting for an answer - wraps him up. With the owner, the flatterer whispers, and during a conversation with others, he looks back at him. (11) In the theater, the flatterer himself puts a pillow for him, having taken it from the slave. (12). And his house, according to the flatterer, is beautifully built, and the land is perfectly cultivated, and the portrait is similar.
III. idle talk
(1) Idle talk is a fondness for tiresomely long and thoughtless speeches. This is what an empty man is. (2) Sitting down next to a stranger, he begins to praise his own wife. Then he tells what dream he had last night, then lists in detail the dishes that he ate at dinner. (3) Further - more. He starts talking about the fact that people have now gone much worse than before, and wheat is cheap on the market, and how many foreigners have come in, and the sea is already navigable from Dionysius; and if Zeus sends more rain, then the bread will get better and in a year he will cultivate the field; and how hard life has become, and that Damippus put the biggest torch on the mysteries, and how many columns are in the Odeon, and that “yesterday I threw up,” and “what a day it is,” and that there are mysteries in the boedromion, in the pianepsion of Apaturia, and in the poseon - Rural Dionysia. (4) And if you endure his idle talk, then he will not leave him alone.
IV. uncouthness
(1) Rustic roughness can perhaps be defined as bad manners associated with obscenity. And what an uncouth person. (2) After drinking kykeon, he goes to the assembly of the people and [...] (3) declares that myrrh smells no better than wild mint. (4) Wears oversized boots (5) and speaks in a loud voice; (6) does not trust friends and relatives, on the contrary, consults with slaves on the most important matters; day laborers working in his field, retells everything that happened in the people's assembly. (7) He sits down, pulling up his cloak above his knees, so that his nakedness is visible. (8) In the streets of the city, nothing surprises or strikes him, and only when he sees a bull, a donkey or a goat, he stops and carefully examines. (9) Taking something out of the pantry, he will immediately eat and take a sip of undiluted wine. (10) First, he furtively crushes the baker, and then with it he grinds flour for all his household and for himself. (11) He eats breakfast on the go, feeding the cattle. (12) At a knock, he himself opens the front door, and then, having called the dog, pats it in the face, saying: "That's who guards my estate and house!" (13) When receiving a coin from someone, he says that it is too worn out, and demands another in return. (14) If he had to lend someone a plow, a basket, a sickle or a bag, then he gets up at night and demands things back, because the memory of them does not allow him to sleep. (15) When he descends into the city, he asks the first person he meets how much sheepskins and salted fish [...]. He celebrates the new moon and then announces that he wants to get a haircut in the city and pick up salted fish from Archias in passing. (16) In the bath he sings (17) and nailed his boots.
V. Compliance
(1) Compliance, more precisely defined, is the clumsy striving at all costs to arouse a feeling of pleasure. And what an obliging person. (2) He already from afar greets the one he meets, calls him "most respected" and profuses pleasantries; grasping tightly, holds with both hands and does not let go. Then, after spending a little time, he asks when he will see him again, and, finally, leaves with new outpourings of feelings. (3) Invited to arbitrate, he tries to please both parties in order to appear impartial. (4) He also tells foreigners that they judge more fairly than his fellow citizens. (5) Having come to visit for dinner, he asks to invite the master's children to the table as well, and when they appear, he declares that they, like two figs, look like their father. Then he draws the children to him, kisses and sits next to him. With some, he himself begins to play, saying: "A bag, an ax", while others allow him to wallow on his belly, no matter how much they put pressure on him. (6) He cuts his hair every now and then, his teeth are always white, not yet worn, he changes his outer clothes, rubs himself with incense. 7 In the marketplace, he often goes to the tables of the money-changers; of the gymnasiums, he is only in those where the ephebes exercise. In the theater, during the performance, he sits next to the strategists. (8) He does not buy anything for himself in the market, but sends parcels to his hospitables in Byzantium, Laconian dogs to Cyzicus, and honey from Hymettus to Rhodes; and he trumpets it all over the city. (9) He also flaunts the fact that he keeps a monkey at home, he buys a titira, Sicilian pigeons, gazelle grandmothers, pot-bellied Furian lekythos, bent Laconian staffs, a canopy with figures of Persians woven on it. He also has a small sandy patio for gymnastic exercises and a ball court. (10) And he goes around the city, offering his platform for performances to sophists, swordsmen and musicians. He himself comes last, so that one of those gathered said: "Here is the owner of the palestra."
100 r first order bonus
Choose the type of work Graduation work Term paper Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Candidate's thesis Laboratory work Help on-line
Ask for a price
This experience of describing human characters by a philosopher seems to be unique in two respects. First, it refers to people who lived before our era. Secondly, the foregoing is evidence of a diversity that is difficult to account for and systematize, and which biologists call "staggering." The characters in fact highlight the weaknesses of people of an ethical nature and manifested in their everyday life in such a way that the direct connection with labor is “behind the scenes”.
The author of "Characters" Theophrastus (or Theophrastus) (371-287 BC) lived at a turning point in the history of the ancient world, when the formation of the Hellenic monarchies, the heirs of Alexander the Great, replaced the polis system. He is a contemporary and student of Plato, Aristotle.
Theophrastus described thirty characters of contemporaries even before the emergence of the sciences of man, when man was the main theme of Greek literature and fine arts. It was a period when the role of man in science and literature comes to the fore.
The Greek word "character" means "stamp", "type", "frozen mask", i.e., according to modern ideas, it is, as it were, a synonym for the word "person". In the definition of characters, there is also a discrepancy with the modern meaning of words (marked with an "*"). Here is a list of the characters described by Theophrastus (with abbreviation):
1. Irony* (ironic) is a pretense associated with self-deprecation in actions and speeches.
2. Flattery - defined as unworthy treatment, beneficial to the flatterer.
3. idle talk- addiction to annoyingly long and thoughtless speeches.
4. Roughness - defined as bad manners associated with obscenity.
5. obsequiousness- this is a clumsy desire at all costs to cause a feeling of pleasure in another person.
6. desperation- this is a commitment to shameful deeds and speeches.
7. talkativeness- intemperance in speech.
8. Vesting* - this is a fabrication of false stories and news, which the messenger wants to give faith.
9. Unconscience- this is the neglect of good fame for the sake of shameful self-interest.
10. pettiness(krokhobor) is petty greed.
11. shamelessness- obvious and obscene mischief.
12. faux pas- the inability to choose the right moment, causing trouble to the people with whom he communicates.
13. Fussiness- Excessive zeal in speeches and actions out of good intentions.
14. Stupidity- this is mental lethargy, manifested in speeches and deeds.
15. Coarseness- this is the sharpness when getting around, manifested in speeches.
16. Superstition is the fear of divine power.
17. Grouchiness- this is dissatisfaction inopportunely with everything that is offered to you.
18. incredulity- this is some kind of tendency to suspect everyone of dishonesty.
19. uncleanliness- this is carelessness about your body, unpleasant to others.
20. importunity- behavior is unpleasant, although harmless to others.
21. Vanity- low desire for honor.
22. stinginess(skared) is a base fear of expenses.
23. bragging(bakhwal) - a claim to virtues that do not exist in reality.
24. Arrogance- this is some kind of contempt for all other people, except for themselves.
25. Cowardice- this is a kind of spiritual weakness, expressed in the inability to resist fear.
26. Allegiance to the oligarchy- this is the desire for dominance, closely related to self-interest.
27. Opsimatia- appropriately defined as diligence beyond age.
28. wickedness- this is an unfriendly disposition, manifested in speeches.
29. meanness It is an addiction to vice. He calls the scoundrel a man free from prejudice.
30. Underhandedness- this is the desire for shameful self-interest.
The man in the era of Theophrastus and the man of our time differ only in the measure of historically determined features. In their deepest essence, people of different eras are strikingly similar. The development of knowledge about a person only refines the details. In modern psychology, character is a personality warehouse, formed by individual and typological traits and manifested in features:
a) behavior, including labor behavior and
b) attitudes and attitudes towards people, towards the surrounding reality.
In other words, today the term "character" is used to designate a concept with an emphasis on the personal characteristics of the individual acting as a living force of development, his uniqueness, exclusivity.
The Greeks of the era of Theophrastus considered “character” as something integral, but, firstly, static, and secondly, revealed in sketches, external signs of behavior in a social environment.
"Characters" of Theophrastus is a series of 30 sketches depicting typical carriers of any shortcomings and sets of spiritual qualities, manifested in communication and actions. Although, it is obvious that Theophrastus' ideas about a person through his character are connected with the mental disposition of a person, his temper. These representations are also associated with ethical prerequisites and physical attributes.
In ancient times, this was the subject of ethics - the doctrine of the mental warehouse and another doctrine - physiognomy - the science of the character and behavior of a person depending on his appearance, that is, on the physical characteristics of a person (ibid., p. 65).
The highest good is revealed in valor and in the possession of goods. Eudemonia is the best form of life, the opposite of the worst form generated by vices (ibid., p. 69). Human life is defined by the highest value, that is, the good as a kind of norm.
According to Theophrastus, the ideal norm is the "contemplative" life of the scientist-philosopher, which he himself led. The real world for him remains a world of evil and everything “base”, and “most people are vicious, since their properties are congenital defects” ( there, p. 70).
The subject of research by Theophrastus is a private, ordinary person, a petty Athenian man in the street. The sketches of people given to him are also a description of how people live. An objectively understood human personality is someone else's "I", it is a character, a motionless plastic appearance, a mask. The face lives, but the mask remains (ibid., p. 71).
Of the 30 characters, one can probably single out groups, for example, on the basis of transient and enduring - as eternal types (miser, flatterer, coward, newsman) or by belonging to the political elite. Or single out representatives of Athenian snobbery (typically Athenian character); the type of prosperous peasants is also distinguished (ibid., p. 74).
The question of the diversity of people's characters surprised Theophrastus' contemporaries, and they did not find an answer: "why is it in our Hellas, despite the same climate and the same conditions of education for all Hellenes, there is such a difference in the characters of people" (ibid., p. 84).
One can judge the human potential, which at that time was the forerunner of the labor force of the age of industrialization. It is significant that today sociologists understand that the human race, other things being equal, has changed little, if at all.
the wickedness of the day, in the theatre, with its plays on world themes, in tribal gatherings. But in the 5th century all forms of everyday life were forms of public life: a bathhouse is not just a place for washing, but an arena for physical education, which has political and civil significance, gymnasiums and palaestra are public meetings where training in physical and mental strength takes place; the theater is a springboard for posing the most pressing problems for society. Every wealthy citizen was obliged to bear state duties; he was obliged to participate in the staging of theatrical performances, in organizing festivities, in building and equipping the state fleet, and so on. Personal life was saturated with public content; the street was a place for meetings and news, dinner at home was a traditional meeting that discussed all the most relevant topics over a cup of wine. The most "treats", going to visit, receiving guests - all this was a mandatory institution legalized by custom and religion and a public service, if you like. In this turbulent flow of political life, a special place was occupied by the famous “agora *”, which means in Greek both the square and the market. This is the central part of Athens. This is the center of the political, commercial, intellectual life of the Greeks of the 5th century. This is the place where schools and palestras, money-changing offices, banks, shops and workshops, restaurants and coffee houses are located. They gather at the barber's * and talk about political topics; go to the perfume shop to talk about the theatre. Speeches are made right in the agora*, and an experienced political orator gathers crowds of free citizens around him. Here the outcomes of major trials and decisions of the people's assemblies are prepared; The agora is the place where public opinion is organized. Political and party passions are rehearsed here.
At the time of Theophrastus, the political apogee of Athens is behind. Menander, friend and disciple of Theophrastus, the famous author of Neo-Attic comedies, depicts room tragedies that end well and safely; he is interested in human character and attaches great importance to it, but he takes it, so to speak, in everyday life, in the manifestation of narrow-minded, intimate passions, such as love, lust, shame, jealousy, etc. The political comedy of Aristophanes is no more. The tragedy with world themes has faded away. A new kind of drama is born: it is a comedy of typical characters, taken from the side of intimate affects.
You can't find a large political square either. The agora* turns into a marketplace rather than a square. There are even more shops and workshops than there used to be; the changing tables are planted more densely. Trade in foodstuffs mainly; a special women's market serves the interests of women; in a shoe shop they try on shoes, and next to them, ready-made dresses of various prices are laid out on a special table. Thoroughbred horses, fresh vegetables and groceries, fragrant ointments, slaves and maids are also sold here. Around are taverns, barbers, cooks, brothels and gambling dens where they play dice. In the morning, a lot of people are teeming here. Middle-income people come with an escort slave walking behind; rubbing around them
