66 has been supposed that some of the words which he uses belong to a later period than the seventh century; so that he may possibly be the same person who is addressed by the title Protospatharius" by Photius (Epist. 123, 193, pp. 164, 292, ed. Lond. 1651) in the ninth. He appears to have embraced in some degree the Peripatetic philosophy; but he was certainly a Christian, and expresses himself on all possible occasions like a man of great piety in his physiological work especially he everywhere points out with admiration the wisdom, power, and goodness of God as displayed in the formation of the human body. lished without the name of Theophilus, under the III. A short treatise Περὶ Διαχωρημάτων, De Excrementis Alvinis, was first published by Guidot in Greek with a Latin translation by himself, at the end of his edition of the "De Urinis;" and the Greek text alone is republished by Ideler in his "Phys. et Med. Graeci Min.” IV. A Commentary on the "Aphorisms" of Hippocrates, which is sometimes attributed to a person named Philothcus, is noticed under that name, p. 331. V. A short treatise Пepl Zovyμov, De Pulsibus, was first published by F. Z. Ermerins in his "Anecdota Medica Graeca" (Lugd. Bat. 1840, 8vo.), with a Latin translation by the editor, various readings, and a few notes. It appears to be quite different from the work on the same subject by Philaretus, which has been sometimes attributed to Theophilus [PHILARETUS]. (See Penny Cyclop. art. Theophilus, and the references there given, from which work the present article has been abridged.) [W. A. G.] THEO PHILUS, an artist in metal, was the maker of the celebrated iron helmet of Alexander, which glittered like polished silver, and the neckchain of which was studded with precious stones. (Plut. Alex. 32.) Plutarch does not expressly tell us that the helmet was chased, but it can hardly be supposed that its magnificence consisted only in its polish; and therefore we do not hesitate to place Theophilus among the most distinguished of the Grecian caelatores. (Comp. Dict. of Antiq. s. v. Caclatura, 2d ed.; R. Rochette, Lettre à M. Schorn, p. 418, 2d ed.) [P. S.] Five works are attributed to him, of which the longest and most interesting is an anatomical and physiological treatise in five books, entitled Пepl Ts Toû 'AvepάTOU KаTασкеvnя, De Corporis Humani Fabrica. It contains very little original matter, as it is almost entirely abridged from Galen's great work, "De Usu Partium Corporis Humani," from which however Theophilus now and then differs, and which he sometimes appears to have misunderstood. In the fifth book he has inserted large extracts from Hippocrates "De Genitura," and "De Natura Pueri." He recommends in several places the dissection of animals, but he does not appear ever to have examined a human body: in one passage he advises the student to dissect an ape, or else a bear, or, if neither of these animals can be procured, to take whatever he can get, "but by all means," adds he, "let him dissect something." (v. 11. § 3.) The work was first published in a Latin translation by J. P. Crassus, Venet. 1536, 8vo., together with Hippocrates "De Medicamentis Purgantibus." This translation was several times reprinted, and is inserted by H. Stephens in his "Medicae Artis Principes," Paris, 1567, fol. The MS. which Crassus used is probably lost, as none of those which are now known to exist agrees with his translation. The original text was first published by Guil. Morell, without Latin translation, preface, or notes, Paris, 1555, 8vo., from a MS. at Paris, which appears to be more defective than that used by Crassus, though even that was not quite complete Morell's edition is now become scarce, and was inserted by Fabricius in the twelfth vol. of his "Bibliotheca Graeca," together with the Latin THEOPHRASTUS (eóppaσTos), the Greek translation by Crassus. Two long passages which philosopher, was a native of Eresus in Lesbos. were missing in the fourth and fifth books were (Strabo, xiii. p. 618; Diog. Laërt. v. 36, &c.) published from a MS. at Venice by Andr. Mus- Before he left his native city the bent of his mind toxydes and Demetr. Schinas in their collection, was directed towards philosophy by Leucippus or entitled Συλλογὴ ̓Αποσπασμάτων 'Ανεκδότων | Alcippus, a man of whom we know nothing 'Eλanvikov, Venet. 1817. 8vo. The last and further. Leaving Eresus, he betook himself to most complete edition is that by Dr. Greenhill, Athens, where he attached himself at first to Plato, Oxon. 1842, 8vo., containing a corrected text, the but afterwards to Aristotle. (Diog. Laërt. 1. c.) Latin version by Crassus, various readings, notes, The story that the latter changed the name of this, and indices. his favourite pupil, from Tyrtamus to Theophrastus II. His treatise Пeрl Ouрwv, De Urinis, in like (for the purpose, as is stated, of avoiding the camanner contains little or nothing that is original, cophony, and of indicating the fluent and graceful but is a good compendium of what was known on address of the young man ; Strabo, l. c.; Diog. the subject by the ancients, and was highly Laërt. v. 38, ib. Menag.), is scarcely credible. Nor esteemed in the Middle Ages. It first appeared in can we place more reliance on the accounts that a Latin translation by Pontius (or Ponticus) Viru- this change of name took place at a later period. nius (or Virmius) in several early editions of the (He is already called Theophrastus in Aristotle's collection known by the name of the "Articella." will; see Diog. Laërt. v. 12, &c.) The authorities It was first published in a separate form in a new who would lead us to suppose this express themLatin translation by Albanus Torinus, Basil. 1533, selves very indistinctly. (Cic. Orat. 19; Siquidem 8vo., together with the treatise "De Pulsibus," | et Theophrastus divinitate loquendi nomen invenit ; which version was reprinted in 1535, Argent. 8vo., Quintil. Inst. Orat. xi. 1, in Theophrasto tam est and is inserted by H. Stephens in his "Medicae eloquendi nitor ille divinus ut ex eo nomen quoque Artis Principes." The Greek text was first pub- | traxisse dicatur.) It is much more likely that the proper name itself, which occurs elsewhere (Steph. Thesaur. Ling. Graec. ed. nov. Paris), suggested attempts to connect it with the eloquence which so eminently distinguished the Eresian. To prove the love of Aristotle for Theophrastus we do not need to betake ourselves to the above story, or to the doubtful expression of the former with respect to the latter, that "he needed the rein, not the spur," an expression which Plato is also said to have made use of with respect to Aristotle (Diog. Laërt. v. 39, ib. Menag.); it is proved in a much more indubitable manner by the will of the Stagirite, and by the confidence which led him, when removing to Chalcis, to designate Theophrastus as his successor in the presidency of the Lyceum (Diog. Laërt. v. 36; comp. A. Gell. Noct. Att. xiii. 5). It is not unlikely, moreover, that Theophrastus had been the disciple of Aristotle during the residence of the latter in Stageira, while engaged in the education of Alexander: at all events Theophrastus, in his will, mentions an estate that he possessed at Stageira (Diog. Laërt. v. 52), and was on terms of the most intimate friendship with Callisthenes, the fellow-pupil of Alexander (Diog. Laërt. v. 44, ib. Menag.). Two thousand disciples are said to have gathered round Theophrastus, and among them such men as the comic poet Menander. (Diog. Laërt. v. 37, 36.) Highly esteemed by the kings Philippus, Cassander, and Ptolemaeus, he was not the less the object of the regard of the Athenian people, as was decisively shown when Agonis ventured to bring an impeachment against him, on the ground of impiety (l. c. 37; comp. Aelian, V. H. iv. 19). Nevertheless, when, according to the law of Sophocles (Ol. 118. 3), the philosophers were banished from Athens, Theophrastus also left the city, until Philo, a disciple of Aristotle, in the very next year, brought Sophocles to punishment, and procured the repeal of the law. (Diog. Laërt. v. 38, ib. Menag.; comp. C. G. Zumpt, Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen, &c., Berlin, 1843, p. 17.) Whether Theophrastus succeeded Aristotle without opposition, and also came into possession of the house and garden where the former taught in the Lyceum (not far from the present royal palace in Athens), is uncertain. In the will of Aristotle no express directions were left on this point. Still there is nothing at variance therewith in the statement that Theophrastus, after the death of Aristotle, with the assistance of Demetrius Phalereus, obtained a garden of his own. (The words of Diogenes Laërtius, v. 39, are very obscure; the kal in the words λέγεται δ ̓ αὐτὸν καὶ κῆπον σχεῖν μετὰ τὴν Αριστοτέλους τελευτήν, Δημητρίου τοῦ Φαληρέως тоûто σνμпрážavтos, appears rather to refer to a previous possession than to exclude it.) That the executor of the will of Aristotle instituted a sale of the estate, respecting which no directions had been left in the will, and that Demetrius interposed, in order to secure a permanent possession for the head of the school, we cannot, with Zumpt (1. c. p. 8), conclude from the above words. The garden, provided with houses, colonnades, walks, &c., whether it was exclusively the private property of Theophrastus, or was, at least, inherited in part by him from Aristotle, is made over by the former in his will to Strato and his other friends, provided they had a mind to philosophize together, as a common and inalienable possession (Diog. Laert. v. 51, &c.). A similar testamentary dis position of the property was made by Strato and Lycon, the succeeding heads of the school. (Diog. Laërt. v. 61, &c., 70.) Theophrastus reached an advanced age; whether that of eighty-five years (Diog. Laërt. v. 40) or more (Hieronymus, Epist. ad Nepotian, even speaks of 107 years), we leave undecided. But the statement contained in the letter to Polycles, prefixed to his Characteres, according to which this book was composed in the ninety-ninth year of the author, although Tzetzes (Chil. ix. 941) already read it so, may very well rest on a clerical error (comp. Casaubon. ad Theophr. Charact. Proleg. p. 85); and if Theophrastus was the head of the school for thirty-five years (Diog. Laërt. v. 36, 58), he would, even had he only reached his hundredth year, have been older than Aristotle. If he reached the age of eighty-seven, he was ten years younger, and was born Ol. 101. 3. Theophrastus is said to have closed-his life, which was devoted to restless activity (Diog. Laërt. v. 36; comp. Suid.), with the complaint respecting the short duration of human existence, that it ended just when the insight into its problems was beginning. (This complaint, expressed in different forms, we read in Cicero, Tase. iii. 28; Hieron. l. c.; Diog. Laërt. v. 41.) The whole people took part in his funeral obsequies. (Diog. Laert. l. c.) His faithful affection for Aristotle, which he had transferred to Nicomachus, the son of the latter and his own disciple, expresses itself in the directions contained in his will respecting the preparation and preservation of the statues or busts of the Stagirite and his son (Diog. Laërt. v. 51, 52); and still more in the way in which he exerted himself to carry out the philosophical endeavours of his teacher, to throw light upon the difficulties contained in his books, to fill up the gaps in them, and, with respect to individual dogmas, to amend them. II. The preceding statement finds its confirmation in the list of the writings of the Eresian given us, though with his usual haste, by Diogenes Laërtius, but probably borrowed from authorities like Hermippus and Andronicus (Schol. at the end of the Metaphysics of Theophrastus), and the statements respecting them contained in other writers, which Menage has already, at least in part, collected in his notes. Thus Theophrastus, like Aristotle, had composed a first and second Analytic (Diog. Laërt. v. 42, ib. Menag.), and, at least in the case of the former, had connected his treatise with that of his great predecessor, in the manner indicated above (see below, section III.). He had also written books on Topics (Diog. Laërt. v. 42, 45, 50), and on the confutation of fallacies (ib. 42, 45) ; the former again, at all events, with a careful regard to the Topica of Aristotle. The work of Theophrastus "On Affirmation and Denial" (TEрì KaтapáσEWS kaì àñopáσews, Diog. Laërt. v. 44) seems to have corresponded to that of Aristotle "On Judgment " (Teplˇépunveías). To the books of Aristotle on the "Principles of Natural Philosophy " (Physica Auscultatio), on Heaven, and on Meteorological Phenomena, Theophrastus had had regard in corresponding works. (Diog. Laërt. v. 42, 50, 47.) Further, he had written on the Warm and the Cold (Diog. Laërt. v. 44, ib. Menag.), on Water, Fire (Diog. Laërt. v. 45), the Sea (ib.), on Coagulation and Melting (mepì nýčews kal Th§ews), on various phenomena of organic and spiritual life (Diog. Laërt. v. 45, ib. Menag., 43, 46, 49, 43, 44); on the Soul and Sensuous Perception (ib. 46), not without regard to the corresponding works of Aristotle, as may at least in part be demonstrated. In like manner we find mention of monographies of Theophrastus on the older Greek physiologians Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Archelaus (Diog. Laërt. v. 42, 43), Diogenes of Apollonia, Democritus (ib. 43), which were not unfrequently made use of by Simplicius; and also on Xenocrates (ib. 47), against the Academics (49), and a sketch of the political doctrine of Plato (ib. 43), which shows that the Eresian followed his master likewise in the critico-historical department of inquiry. That he also included general history within the circle of his scientific investigation, we see from the quotations in Plutarch's lives of Lycurgus, Solon, Aristides, Pericles, Nicias, Alcibiades, Lysander, Agesilaus, and Demosthenes, which were probably borrowed from the work on Lives (περὶ βίων γ', Diog. Laërt. v. 42). But his principal endeavours were directed to the supplementation and continuation of the labours of Aristotle in the domain of natural history. This is testified not only by a number of treatises on individual subjects of zoology, of which, besides the titles, but few fragments remain, but also by his books on Stones and Metals, and his works on the History, and on the Parts of Plants, which have come down to us entire. In politics, also, he seems to have trodden in the footsteps of Aristotle. Besides his books on the State, we find quoted various treatises on Education (ib. 42, 50), on Royalty (ib. 47, 45), on the Best State, on Political Morals, and particularly his works on the Laws, one of which, containing a recapitulation of the laws of various barbaric as well as Grecian states (Nóμшv катà σтоιxεîov кd, Diog. Laërt. v. 44, ib. Menag.), was intended to form a pendant to Aristotle's delineation of Politics, and must have stood in close relation to it. (Cic. de Fin. v. 4.) Of the books of Theophrastus on oratory and poetry, almost all that we know is, that in them also Aristotle was not passed by without reference. (Cic. de Invent. i. 35.) Theophrastus, without doubt, departed farther from his master in his ethical writings (ib. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50), as also in his metaphysical investigations respecting motion, the soul, and the Deity. (b. 47, 48.) Besides the writings belonging to the abovementioned branches of science, Theophrastus was the author of others, partly of a miscellaneous kind, as, for instance, several collections of problems, out of which some things at least have passed into the Problems which have come down to us under the name of Aristotle (Diog. Laërt. v. 45, 47, 48; comp. Plin. H. N. xxviii. 6; Arist. Probl. xxxiii. 12), and commentaries (Diog. Laërt. v. 48, 49; comp. 43), partly dialogues (Basil. Magn. Epist. 167), to which probably belonged the 'Epwrikós (Diog. Laërt. v. 43; Athen. xii. 2, xiii. 2), Megacles (Diog. Laërt. 47), Callisthenes (Teрl Tévous, Diog. Laërt. v. 44; Cic. Tusc. iii. 10; Alex. Aphrod. de Anima ii. extr.), and Meyapıkós (Diog. Laërt. v. 44), and letters (Diog. Laërt. v. 46, 50), partly books on mathematical sciences and their history (ib. 42, 46, 48, 50). Besides the two great works on botany (repi PUTŵr loтopia, in ten books, written about Ol. 118; see Schneider, Theoph. Opp. iv. p. 586; and altia quσiká, in six books), we only possess some VOL. III. more or less ample fragments of works by Theophrastus, or extracts from them, among which the ethical characters, that is, delineations of character, and the treatise on sensuous perception and its objects (περὶ αἰσθήσεως [καὶ αἰσθητῶν]) are the most considerable, the first important as a contribution to the ethical history of that time, the latter for a knowledge of the doctrines of the more ancient Greek philosophers respecting the subject indicated. With the latter class of works we may connect the fragments on smells (Tepì ỏσμŵv), on fatigue (Epì кówv), on giddiness (repl ixíyywv), on sweat (περὶ ἱδρώτων), on swooning (περὶ λειποuxías), on palsy (Teрl Tapaλúσews), and on honey (TEрl μÉXITOS). To physics, in the narrower sense of the word, belong the still extant sections on fire (rep voós), on the winds (repl véuwv), on the signs of waters, winds, and storms (Tepi onμelwv ὑδάτων καὶ πνευμάτων καὶ χειμώνων καὶ εὐδιῶν, probably out of the fourth book of the Meteorology of Theophrastus: Teрì μeтaρoiwv: see Plut. Quaest. Gr. vii.; comp. Schneider, iv. p. 719, &c.) To the zoology belong six other sections. Also the treatise on stones (Tepl Aiowy, written Ol. 116. 2, see Schneider, l. c. iv. p. 585), and on metaphysics (Tŵv μetà тà Quoiká), are only fragments, and there is no reason for assigning the latter to some other author because it is not noticed in Hermippus and Andronicus, especially as Nicolaus (Damascenus) had already mentioned it (see the scholia at the end of the book). But throughout the text of these fragments and extracts is so corrupt that the well-known story of the fate of the books of Aristotle and Theophrastus [ARISTOTELES] might very well admit of application to them. The same is the case with the books on colours, on indivisible lines, and on Xenophanes, Gorgias, and Melissus, which may with greater right be assigned to Theophrastus than to his master, among whose works we now find them. (Respecting the first of these books -πeрl xрwμάτwv — see Schneider, l. c. iv p. 864; respecting the second, Diog. Laërt. v. 42, ib. Menag.) Much superior to the older editions of Theophrastus (Aldina, 1498, Basileensis, 1541, Camotiana, Venet. 1552, that of Daniel Heinsius, 1613, &c.) is that by J. G. Schneider (Theophrasti Eresii quae supersunt opera, Lips. 1818-21. 5 vols.), which, however, still needs a careful revision, as the piecemeal manner in which the critical apparatus came to his hands, and his own ill health compelled the editor to append supplements and corrections, twice or thrice, to the text and commentary. Fried. Wimmer has published a new and much improved edition of the history of plants, as the first volume of the entire works of Theophrastus. (Theophrasti opera quae supersunt omnia emendata edidit cum apparatu critico Fr. Wimmer, Tomus primus historiam plantarum continens, Vratislaviae, 1842. 8vo.) For the explanation of the history of plants considerable contributions were made before Schneider by Bodaeus a Stapel (Amstelod. 1644, fol.) and J. Stackhouse. (Theophr. Eres. de historia plantarum libri X.graece cum syllabo generum et specierum glossario et notis, curante Joh. Stackhouse, Oxon. 1813. 2 vols. 8vo.) III. How far Theophrastus attached himself to the Aristotelic doctrines, how he defined them more closely, or conceived them in a different form, and what additional structures of doctrine he formed upon them, can be determined but very partially, 4 A owing to the scantiness of the statements which we have, and what belongs to this subject can be merely indicated in this place. In the first place, Theophrastus seems to have carried out still further the grammatical foundation of logic and rhetoric, since in his book on the elements of speech (év T περὶ τοῦ λόγου στοιχείῳ, l. ἐν τῷ περὶ τῶν τοῦ λóYOU σTOIXElwv), respecting which again others had written, he distinguished the main parts of speech from the subordinate parts, and again, direct (kupía λégis) from metaphorical expressions, and treated of the affections (Tάon) of speech (Simpl. in Categ. 8, Basil.), and further distinguished a twofold reference of speech (oxious) to things (Tрáyμara), and to the hearers, and referred poetry and rhetoric to the latter (Ammon. de Interpr. 53; Schol. in Arist. p. 108. 27). In what he taught respecting judgment (ev T TEρl Kaтapάσews [kal añоpáσews] — de affirmatione et negatione) he had treated at length on its oneness (Alex. in Anal. Pr. f. 128, 124; Schol. in Arist. p. 184. 24. 183, b. 2; Boëth. de Interpr. pp. 291, 327), on the different kinds of negation (Ammon. in Arist. de Interpr. 128, b. 129, 134; Schol. in Arist. p. 121. 18), and on the difference between unconditioned and conditioned necessity (Alex. l. c. f. 12. 6; Schol. in Arist. p. 149. 44). In his doctrine of syllogisms he brought forward the proof for the conversion of universal affirmative judgments, differed from Aristotle here and there in the laying down and arranging the modi of the syllogisms (Alex. l. c. 14, 72, 73, 82. 22, b, 35; Boëth. de Syll. categ. ii. 594. 5, f. 603, 615), partly in the proof of them (Alex. 1. c. 39, b), partly in the doctrine of mixture, i. e. of the influence of the modality of the premises upon the modality of the conclusion (Alex. l. c. 39, b. &c. 40, 42, 56, b. 82, 64, b. 51; Joh. Ph. xxxii, b. &c.). Then in two separate works he had treated of the reduction of arguments to the syllogistic form (avnyμévwv λóywv els тà σxhuara) and on the resolution of them (Epì avaλúσews ovλλoyioμŵv. Alex. 115); further, of hypothetical conclusions (Alex. in Arist. Anal. Pr. 109, b. &c. 131, b. Joh. Phil. lx. &c. lxxv.; Boëth. de Syll. hypoth. p. 606). For the doctrine of proof, Galenus quotes the second Analytic of Theophrastus, in conjunction with that of Aristotle, as the best treatises on that doctrine (de Hippocr. et Plat.Dogm. ii. 2. p. 213, Lips. 253, Basil.) In different monographies he seems to have endeavoured to expand it into a general theory of science. To this too may have belonged the proposition quoted from his Topics, that the principia of opposites (Tŵv évavτíwv) are themselves opposed, and cannot be deduced from one and the same higher genus. (Simpl. in Categ. f. 5; Schol. p. 89. 15; comp. Alex. in Metaph. p. 342. 30, Bonitz.) For the rest, some inconsiderable deviations from the Aristotelic definitions are quoted from the Topica of Theophrastus. (Alex. in Top. 5, 68, 72, 25, 31.) With this treatise, that upon ambiguous words or ideas (Tep TоÛ поσαXWS, T. т. πоλλаxŵs. Alex. ib. 83, 189), which, without doubt, corresponded to the book E of Aristotle's Metaphysics, seems to have been closely connected. Theophrastus introduced his Physics with the proof that all natural existence, being corporeal, that is composite, presupposes principia (Simpl. in Phys. f. 1, 6, in Schneider v. 7), and before everything else, motion, as the basis of the changes common to all (ib. 5, 6; Schneid. ib. 6). Denying | the subsistence of space, he seems to have been disposed, in opposition to the Aristotelic definition, to regard it as the mere arrangement and position (Tágis and Séois) of bodies (Simpl. l. c. 149, b. 141; Schneid. p. 213, f. 9, 8). Time he designated as an accident of motion, without, as it seems, conceiving it, with Aristotle, as the numerical determination of motion. (Simpl. f. 87, b; Joh. 213. 4.) He departed more widely from his master in his doctrine of motion, since on the one hand he extended it over all categories, and did not limit it to those laid down by Aristotle (Simpl. in Categ. Schneid. p. 212; comp. Simpl. in Phys. 94, 201,202, 1. Schneid. 214. 10); and on the other hand, while he conceived it, with Aristotle, as an activity, not carrying its own end in itself (areλns), of that which only exists potentially (Simpl. l. c. and f. 94, 1. Schneid. 11), and therefore could not allow that the activity expended itself in motion, he also recognised no activity without motion (Simpl. in Categ. Schneid. 212. 2), and so was obliged to refer all activities of the soul to motion, the desires and affections to corporeal motion, judgment (piσeis) and contemplation to spiritual motion. (Simpl. in Phys. 225; Schneid. 215. 13.) The conceivableness of a spirit entirely independent of organic activity, must therefore have appeared to him very doubtful; yet he appears to have contented himself with developing his doubts and difficulties on the point, without positively rejecting it (Themist. in Arist. de An. 89, b. 91, b; Schneid. 215. 15). Other Peripatetics, as Dicaearchus, Aristoxenus, and especially Straton, more unreservedly and unconditionally gave a sensualistic turn to the Aristotelic doctrine. Theophrastus seems, generally speaking, where the investigation overstepped the limits of experience, to have shown more acuteness in the development of difficulties than in the solution of them, as is especially apparent in the fragment of his metaphysics. In a penetrating and unbiassed conception of phenomena, in acuteness of reflection and combination respecting them and within their limits, in compass and certainty of experimental knowledge, he may have stood near Aristotle, if he did not come quite up to him: the incessant endeavour of his great master to refer phenomena to their ultimate grounds, his profundity in unfolding the internal connections between the latter, and between them and phenomena, were not possessed by Theophrastus. Hence even in antiquity it was a subject of complaint that Theophrastus had not expressed himself with precision and consistency respecting the Deity, and had understood thereby at one time Heaven, at another an (enlivening) breath (revua, Clem. Alex. Protrept. p. 44. b; Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 13); that he had not been able to comprehend a happiness resting merely upon virtue (Cic. Acad. i. 10, Tusc. v. 9), or, consequently, to hold fast by the unconditional value of morality, and, although blameless in his life, had subordinated moral re quirements to the advantage at least of a friend. (A. Gell. N. 4. i. 3. § 23), and had admitted in prosperity the existence of an influence injurious to them. (In particular, fault was found with his expression in the Callisthenes, vitam regit fortuna non sapientia, Cic. Tusc. iii. 10; comp. Alex. Aphrod. de Anima, ii. extr.) That in the definition of pleasure, likewise, he did not coincide with Aristotle, seems to be indicated by the titles of two of his writings, one of which treated of pleasure generally, the other of pleasure, as Aristotle had defined it (Diog. Laërt. v. 44, πepl ǹdovñs ws 'ApiσTOTEANS); and although, like his teacher, he preferred contemplative (theoretic), to active (practical) life (Cic. ad Att. ii. 16), he was at the same time disposed to set the latter free from the fetters of family life, &c. in a manner of which the former would not have approved (Hieron. adv. Jovinian. i, 189, Bened.) Respecting Theophrastus's treatment of botany in his two chief works, see J. G. Schneider, de Auctoritate, Integritate, Argumento, Ordine, Methodo et Pretio Librorum, de Historia et Causis Plantarum" (Theophr.Opp. v. p. 227–264.) Comp. R. Sprengel, Geschichte der Botanik, vol. i. p. 52, &c. There is no complete edition of Theophylact's works. The edition of A. Schottus, with a Latin Version by Kimedoncius, Antverp. 1598, 1599, 8vo., comprising all his then known works, does not contain the History, but only the Epitome of it by Photius. The account of embassies in this edition is no distinct work, but a collection of extracts from the History. The History was first published, from a MS. in the library of Maximilian of Bavaria, with a Latin version, by Jac. Pontanus, Ingolst. 1604, 4to.; revised, and with a Glossary of the low Greek words, by C. Annib. Fabrotti, Paris, 1648, fol.; reprinted in the Venice collection of Byzantine historians, 1729, fol.: it has also been [CH. A. B.] edited by Imm. Bekker, in the Corpus Script. Hist. THEOPHYLACTUS (@eopуλάктos). 1. SI- Byzant. Bonn, 1834, 8vo. The Letters were pubMOCATTA (δ Σιμοκάττης, Σιμόκαττος, Σιμοκάτης, lished in the Epistolae Graecae of Aldus, 1499,4to. οι Σιμοκάτος, for all these forms of the name are and of Cujacius, 1606, fol., and, in Latin only, by found), was an Egyptian by descent, but a Locrian Haller, Cracov. 1509, 4to. The Quaestiones Phyby birth; and flourished at Constantinople, where sicae were published, with the similar work of he held some public offices (anò èαрxwv кal àνтi- | Cassius Iatrosophista, by Rivinus, Lips. 1653, 4to. Ypapeús, Phot.) under Heraclius, about A. D. 610 The Letters and Physical Questions were published -629, though it is evident that he was writing together, Lugd. Bat. 1596, 12mo., with the works before this period, probably in retirement. His of Cassius Iatrosophista; again, with the Quaestiones chief work was a history of the reign of the em- of Cassius, and the Letters of Julian, Gallus, Basil, peror Maurice, in eight books, from the death of and Gregory of Nazianzus, by Bonaventura VulTiberius II. and the accession of Maurice, in A. D. canius, Lugd. Bat. 1597, 12mo.; and, lastly, with 582, down to the murder of Maurice and his the Latin version of Kimedoncius, and critical notes, children by Phocas in A. D. 602. There are various by Boissonade, Paris, 1835, 8vo. There is a indications in the work itself, that Theophylact French translation of the Quaestiones Physicae, by was living and writing in retirement during the F. Morel, Paris, 1603, 12mo. (Cave, Hist. Litt. reign of Phocas, and it seems probable that he had s. a. 611, p. 575; Hankius, de Byzant. Rer. Scriptor. been personally acquainted with Maurice. Thus, pt. i. pp. 186-194; Vossius, de Hist. Graec. pp. he contrasts the depressed state of literature under 329, 330, ed. Westermann; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. Phocas with the favour it enjoyed under Heraclius, vol. vii. pp. 582-586; Schröckh, Christliche in a Dialogue between Philosophy and History, Kirchengeschichte, vol. xix. pp. 92-94; Hoffmann, which is prefixed to his work. After the death of Lex. Bibliogr. Script. Graec.) Phocas in A. D. 610, he read in public from an elevated position the passage of his history describing the death of Maurice, and the people were moved to tears by the recital. This statement, which we have on the authority of Theophylact himself (viii. 12) proves that his work was partly written during the reign of Phocas; while on the other hand, he mentions in the same chapter the conclusion of the Persian war, by the death of Chosroes II. in A. D. 628, so that the work could not have been completed till that year or the next, in which Theophylact appears to have died. The history of Theophylact, which is known by the Latin title of Historiae Mauricii Tiberii Imperatoris His Commentaries upon the Gospels, the Acts, Libri VIII., seems to be the same work which is the Epistles of Paul, and the Minor Prophets, are quoted by Eustathius (ad Dionys. Perieg. 730) by founded on the commentaries of Chrysostom, and the title of ἱστορία οἰκουμενή, which seems to refer are of considerable value. He also wrote a treatise to the fact, that it was not confined to the affairs on royal education (Παιδεία Βασιλική, Institutio of Constantinople, but contained notices of events Regia) for the use of the prince Constantinus occurring in all parts of the known world. Besides Porphyrogennetus,the son of Michael VII.; seventythe work itself, we have an epitome of it by five Letters; some Homilies and Orations, and a Photius (Bibl. Cod. 65), who relates some par- few other small treatises. A splendid edition of all ticulars respecting the author, and characterises his his works in Greek and Latin was published by style very minutely, as being not destitute of grace, J. F. Bernard Maria de Rubeis, Venet. 1754but often frigid and puerile through the frequent 1763, 4 vols. folio, with a Preliminary Dissertation, occurrence of figures and allegorical turns of ex-containing all that is known of the life and writings pression, and tiresome from the interruptions of moral reflections inserted out of season. The other works of Theophylact are (2) Eighty-five Letters, consisting of the three classes of Morales, twentynine in number, Rusticae, twenty-eight, and Amatoriae, twenty-eight; and (3) Problems in Physics ('Anopíaι Þvσikai, Quaestiones Physicae), respecting the nature of animals, and especially of man. 2. ARCHBISHOP OF BULGARIA, flourished about A.D. 1070 and onwards, and is celebrated for his commentaries on the Scriptures, and some other works. There are scarcely any particulars of his life worth recording. He appears to have been a native of Constantinople, and a deacon in the principal church there, and to have been appointed to the archbishopric of Bulgaria, the chief city of which was Acris, between A. D. 1070 and 1077. Here he suffered much from the uncivilised state of the people of his province, and tried in vain to lay down his office. He appears to have lived down to A. D. 1112, or later. of Theophylact, with an elaborate analysis of his works and his opinions. (See also Cave, Hist. Litt. s. a. 1077, p. 153; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. pp. 586-598; Schröckh, Christ. Kirchengeschichte, vol. xxviii. pp. 313, foll.; for an account of several editions of portions of his works, see Hoffmann, Lexicon Bibliogr. Script. Graec.) A few other unimportant persons of the name |