• 1  The OCT edition runs only 46 pages, and that includes a rather full apparatus of variant rea­dings (...)
• 2  The list of abbreviations and the bibliography are explicitly said to be selective. At the head of (...)

1Theophrastus’ Characters has been a favorite with classicists and non-classicists for generations or rather centuries. There are thirty sketches of bizarre and often offensive behavior. The tone is light-hearted and the presentation brief1. Much has already been written on the Characters, but the topic has not been exhausted, so that Professor Diggle’s book is most welcome. It begins with a wide-ranging introduction. The topics covered include : (1) Theophrastus and the world in which he lived ; (2) the nature and purpose of the Characters ; (3) the date of the Characters ; (4) the transmission of the text from the Hellenistic period (papyri of the first century B.C.) to the sixteenth century of our era (late manuscripts) ; (5) a survey of selected editions and commentaries from 1527 to the present day. There follows the Greek text of the Characters together with an apparatus of variant readings and a facing translation. After that comes the com­mentary followed by end material. The latter includes : (1) a list of abbreviations ; (2) a bibliography ; (3) indices. The last includes (i) a list of Greek words occur­ring in the text of the Characters ; (ii) a list of passages from ancient works that are cited in the introduction and the commentary ; (iii) a list of subjects men­tioned or discussed in the introduction and the commentary ; (iv) a list of Greek words that receive attention in the introduction and commentary2.

• 3  D. makes use not only of the iota adscript but also of the lunate sigma and a capital omega that r (...)

2In many places, the text of the Characters is difficult or simply corrupt. D. describes the manuscript tradition as probably the most corrupt « in all of Greek literature » (p. 20). It is either a philologist’s joy or a nightmare. D. has clearly enjoyed working through the text, accepting previous conjectures, rejecting others and making conjectures of his own. We have, then, a new text. By way of illustration, I compare D.’s text of the dissembler (the εἴρων, sketch 1) with that of Jeffrey Rusten, D.’s immediate predecessor as editor of the Characters (1993). In 25 lines, there are 11 places where D. departs from Rusten. In line 4, D. marks οὐ μισεῖν as corrupt ; R. deletes the words from the text. Again in line 4, D. prints λάθραι with an iota adscript3 ; R. omits the iota. In line 5, D. resists adding a supplement to explain τούτοις ; R. does not. In line 7, D. follows Dar­varis and supplies γελᾶν at the end of its phrase ; R. places it at the beginning. Again in line 7, D. marks as corrupt the phrase πρὸς τοὺς ἀδικουμένους καὶ ἀγανακτοῦντας ; R. does not. In line 11, D. prints his own conjecture γίγ­νεσθαι and deletes only αὐτόν ; R. deletes four words. In line 12, D. marks a lacuna but resists printing a supplement ; R. adds a supplement. In line 16, D. prints οὕτω without a final sigma ; R. prints the sigma. In line 19, D. marks λέγει ἑαυτὸν ἕτερον γεγονέναι as corrupt ; R. emends two words. In line 21, D. prints ὁπότερον which was conjectured by Cobet ; R. prints ὅπως. In line 23, D. follows Ussing and prints the emendation ἔστι τοῦ εἴρωνος ; D. emends with ἔστι τῶν εἰρώνων.

• 4  Many scholars as well as the editors of the CUP may find the font size appropriate to a com­mentar (...)

3D. discusses his text in a detailed commentary. The spurious preface is trea­ted first, after which each of the character sketches is subjected to an exhaustive analysis. There is an introductory note on the etymology and meaning of the character’s name. After that the definition of the character is discussed (D. deems all the definitions spurious). The body of the sketch is then analyzed at length. Whenever a moralizing epilogue concludes a sketch, it too is commented upon (all are deemed spurious). The idea of following up a new edition of the text with a lengthy commentary is not new. Navarre’s edition (1921) is accom­panied by a commentary (1924) that runs 211 pages. End-material (indices of words, names, etc.) adds another 28 pages for a total of 239. The edition of Steinmetz (1960) is accompanied by a commentary (1962) of 351 pages, plus another 26 pages of end-material for a total of 377 pages. D.’s edition and com­mentary are bound within a single cover (hence, both 2004), but the format is essentially the same. In length, however, his work sets a new standard. The com­mentary is 364 pages long, and the end-material adds another 78 pages for a total of 442 pages. Moreover, the font used in printing the commentary is com­paratively small, so that more information is conveyed per page than in the commentaries of Navarre and Steinmetz4.

• 5  Theophrastus may also use a final phrase to add punch. My favorite example is the conclu­sion of t (...)
• 6  It is likely that 696 FHS&G is concerned with narration in oratory. For discussion, see my comment (...)
• 7  The name « Theophrastus » was not uncommon in Athens. The story of the name change may have been c (...)
• 8  Regarding Cicero and Quintilian, see my commentary to the rhetorical and poetic fragments of Theop (...)
• 9  For a succinct statement of this view, see the introduction to my edition of On Sweat in W. Forten (...)
• 10  D. p. 171 cites Aristotle, Rhetoric, I, 13, 1374b4.

4It is clear that D. is a judicious editor. If I have a worry, it concerns D.’s enthusiasm for Theophrastus as a stylist. In the introduction, he cites the ancient tradition, according to which Theophrastus acquired his name from the divine quality of his speech (Diogenes Laertius, V, 38 = 1.30-1 FHS&G). He also calls attention to the fact that Cicero describes Theophrastus’ style as sweet (Academics, I, 33 = 497 ; Brutus, 121 = 52A) and that Quintilian praises its bril­liance (X, 1, 83 = app. 5B). In addition, D. cites passages in the Characters that are said to be simple, limpid and telling in detail (p. 19-25). He concludes that whenever the text of the Characters is inelegant and obscure, we should be suspi­cious of the textual tradition (p. 25). I agree with D. that there are passages in the Characters that show a careful attention to style. He calls attention to a sen­tence in the sketch of the Late Learner (27, 9), in which a telling detail is reser­ved for the final word, δικάζεσθαι, « goes to court » (p. 22). The placement is indeed intentional and effective5. D. also points to concise expression that leaves something to be inferred by the reader or listener. One of his examples is that of the man from the country who is said to answer the door himself, to call his dog, and to grab it by the snout (4, 9). The reader or listener infers that the dog can bark and bite and will do so if the country man releases his grip (p. 21-22). Not saying everything is, of course, essential to concise expression, and when clarity is not impeded, it may contribute to good style. But that is not all, for as Theophrastus noted in one of his rhetorical treatises, when a listener sup­plies something, he is pleased with himself and feels goodwill toward the spea­ker for permitting him to exercise his intelligence (Demetrius, On Style, 222 = 696 FHS&G)6. What makes me uneasy is not D.’s analysis of passages that exhibit an attractive style. Rather, I am not certain that Theophrastus was inter­ested in maintaining such a style throughout the Characters. The story of Theo­phrastus’ name change is almost certainly a fiction7, and when Cicero speaks of the sweetness of Theophrastus’ lan­guage, he is probably thinking of the exoteric works, i.e., the dialogues of Theophrastus. Quintilian may be following Cicero and therefore is not an independent witness8. Be that as it may, the esoteric works, i.e., the treatises that formed the basis of Theophrastus’ lectures within the Peripatos, are not especially appealing, and on occasion they present a text that is irritatingly opaque but not necessarily corrupt. A good example is the work On Sweat. Scholars may condemn the textual tradition and emend freely, but I suspect that in many places Theophrastus has simply expressed himself elliptically, knowing that he can add what is needed during lecture9. Assuming that the Characters was not written for publication (I return to this point below), we should, I think, expect a certain measure of inelegance. And when emending the text, we must ask ourselves whether choosing the elegant and/or striking remedy is always the correct way to go. I offer a puzzle case already introduced above. In the sketch of the dissembler (1), we read : καὶ συγγνώμην δὲ ἔχειν τοῖς αὑτὸν κακῶς λέγουσι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ λεγομένοις <γελᾶν> (lines 5-7). D. says that the second phrase calls for a supplement like γελᾶν, for without it « the phrase is feebly repetitive and needs a colourful verb to give it point » (p. 171). D. is certainly correct that the second phrase as trans­mitted is weak, and that γελᾶν adds color. Moreover, placing γελᾶν last gives the supplement punch. But the text makes sense without the supplement. As D. notes, συγγνώμην ἔχειν can take ἐπί10. So should we add a supplement to improve the received text ? And if we add γελᾶν, should we place it at the end of the second clause ? Or might we create balanced clauses (as against chiasmus) by placing it at the head of the second phrase, which is what Rusten does ? And then there is the suggestion of Steinmetz : namely, that πᾶσι be supplied after ἐπί. That does provide a measure of intensification to the second phrase. I leave the matter undecided.

• 11  I agree with D. against Rusten that μαλακισθῆναι is used of illness and not cowardice, irresolutio (...)
• 12  Rusten’s translation, « The business is a mystery to me », is closer to the Greek, but I wonder wh (...)
• 13  D.’s analysis of a « masterly sentence » can itself be masterly. I cite what he says about the lat (...)

5A similar worry applies to the translation. D. appreciates attractive prose and sometimes offers a translation that is an improvement on the Greek text. Staying with the sketch of the dissembler (1), I cite D.’s translation of καὶ ἐπαινεῖν παρόντας οἷς ἐπέθετο λάθραι (line 4) : « When he has attacked people behind their back he praises them to their face » (p. 65). Here D. intro­duces two common metaphors, « behind the back » and « to one’s face », which make the English sentence considerably more vivid than the Greek one. So too, when D. translates μαλακισθῆναι (lines 11-12) with « fell ill »11, he adds motion and hence a certain liveliness to the notion of becoming sick. Again, translating παράδοξόν μοι τὸ πρᾶγμα (line 20) with « It beggars belief » creates a picture that is not present in the Greek12. Moreover leaving μοι untranslated makes the expression more concise, while placing « beggars » next to « belief » helps the listener hear the alliteration. Concise expression is noticeable in other parts of the translation as well. Consider the two phrases already mentioned in the preceding paragraph : καὶ συγγνώμην δὲ ἔχειν τοῖς αὑτὸν κακῶς λέγουσι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς καθ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ λεγομένοις <γελᾶν> (lines 5-7). The translation « He speaks to those who speak abusively about him and <laughs> at their abuse » shortens the second phrase, which seems unnecessarily repetitive. As a result the idea is conveyed more quickly and with greater effect. The same may be said of the sentence fragment ὡς οὐ πωλεῖ καὶ μὴ πωλῶν φῆσαι πωλεῖν (lines 12-13). D. translates « that he has nothing for sale, and when he has nothing for sale he says that he has. » Not translating the third and final occurrence of πωλεῖν minimizes the repetition and brings home the point with greater speed. I do not want to push this analysis further. If D. aims to produce a readable translation that will appeal to a general audience, he does well to improve on the Greek when it seems clumsy. But if the book is intended for the professional scholar, I am uncertain. To be sure, scholars like readable prose13, but equally they may be interested in a translation that not only captures the meaning of the Greek text but also reflects its style, at least most of the time.

• 14  See S. White, « Opuscula and Opera in the Catalogue of Theophrastus’ Works » in W. Fortenbaugh and (...)
• 15  See, e.g., Theophrastus, On Sweat, 1, 4 Fortenbaugh (above, note 9), p. 24 with discussion on p. 6 (...)

6I turn now to some matters discussed in the introduction. Regarding the title of Theophrastus’ book, D. reports that the principle manuscripts (ABV) have Characters, while the catalogue of Theophrastean works preserved by Diogenes Laertius, V, 47-48 (1.201, 241 FHS&G) has Ethical Characters. D. declares the latter the « true title » and offers a reasonable argument. The Greek word charak­ter means stamp like the imprint on a coin. It can also refer to the features that distinguish a race of people and to the style of a speech. Hence, in the absence of the qualifier « ethical », the title is « both misleading and incomplete » (p. 4-5). With that conclusion I have no quarrel. What worries me is calling Ethical Characters the « true » title. First, it is not certain that either title goes back to Theophrastus himself. Not only was the practice of assigning titles not well esta­blished at the end of the fourth century14, but also those Theophras­tean trea­tises that do survive are marked by vague cross references. Had Theophrastus assigned fixed titles, they would have made referencing easy and accurate15. Moreover, D. seems inclined to follow Pasquali, who suggested that the thirty sketches were originally intended to add « a few moments of light entertain­ment » during lectures on ethics within the Peripatos (p. 15). If that view is correct (perhaps widened to include lectures on comedy and rhetoric), then the sketches may have been kept in a readily available place without title. After the death of Theophrastus, the executors of his estate or a select group of pupils may have assigned a title while organizing his lecture notes. In addition, it is worth noting that a century after Theophrastus, another Peripatetic, Satyrus of Callatis, wrote a work that seems to have carried the title On Characters. From what we know of the work, it was concerned with the habitual behavior of certain types of persons. But the title does not include the word « ethical » or an equivalent. Rather, « characters » appears without qualification.

• 16  It is often said that Diogenes’ catalogue is made up of four lists, but it is, I think, clear that (...)
• 17  Regarding the title On Slander, see my commentary to the rhetorical and poetic fragments of Theoph (...)

7Having referred to the catalogue of Theophrastean writings found in Diogenes Laertius, I want to consider briefly a place where D. seems to misuse the catalogue. I am thinking of his argument against a second book of character sketches in which virtuous characters were described. D. is quite correct to reject the idea of a second book and the arguments that have been advanced in favor of such a book. But his handling of one of these arguments seems to me faulty. The argument is that Diogenes’ catalogue mentions Ethical Characters twice. One mention will have referred to a work on vicious characters and the other to a work on virtuous characters. D.’s counter argument is that Diogenes’ « catalogue is made up of four or five different lists, so that several titles appear more than once » (18-19)16. That does seem to be the case. Take the treatise On Slander. The title occurs in three lists (D.L. V, 46 = 1.189 FHS&G ; V, 49 = 1.252 ; V, 50 = 1.275) and on each occasion almost certainly refers to the same work. Assuming that Diogenes’ catalogue reflects the holdings of the library in Alexandria, it is reasonable to imagine that the several lists represent separate purchases by the library, three of which happened to contain a copy of On Slander17. However, Ethical Characters is a different case, for both occurrences of the title fall within the second list (D.L. V, 47 = 1.201 FHS&G ; V, 48 = 1.241). Hence, the existence of several lists cannot explain a second mention of the title. But that said, let me be clear : I am not suggesting that a title occur­ring twice in the same list must refer to two different works or quite separate parts of the same work. On the contrary, it may be that a single purchase by the library in Alexandria included two copies of the Characters. The library wanted the collection in question (it contained all but one of the rhetorical treatises) and was prepared to buy a second copy of the Characters in order to obtain the col­lection. In addition, the two copies may not have been perfectly identical. Some sketches or parts of sketches may have been missing from one or the other, so that a fuller edition of the characters would be possible by combining the two copies. This is, of course, speculation, but it is consistent with the fact that the two occurrences of the title are found within a single list.

• 18  I am not saying that D. never cites the Eudemian Ethics and never takes notice of the fact that in (...)
• 19  « Die Charaktere Theophrasts, Verhaltens Regelmässigkeiten und aristotelische Laster », Rheinische (...)
• 20  D.’s view has been reported above.
• 21  « Theophrast über den komischen Charakter », Rheinisches Museum, 124 (1981), p. 245-260, reprinted (...)
• 22  « Theophrastus, the Characters and Rhetoric », in W. Fortenbaugh & D.C. Mirhady (ed.), Peripatetic (...)

9D.’s survey of antecedents is selective and rightly so. Not every similarity is important enough to justify explicit mention. But that said, I want to call atten­tion to one omission that strikes me as unfortunate : namely, passing over Aris­totle’s Eudemian Ethics. This work is different from the Nicomachean Ethics in that it dissociates social dispositions from moral choice (prohairesis, 1234a25), and that invites comparison with the Characters, for there Theophrastus’ focus is lar­gely on behavioral regularities apart from the beliefs and motives that underlie and explain what an individual does18. This is a matter of emphasis, but it is, I think, an important emphasis, and one that makes the Characters especially inter­esting19. For whatever the original purpose of the Characters may have been20, the sketches contained therein can make a serious contribution to ethical instruction. By calling attention to the way in which certain traits of character are manifested in behavioral patterns, they suggest that the Nicomachean analysis in terms of choice has significant limitations, especially in regard to unattractive traits like obsequiousness and self-will. Moreover, focusing on behavioral reg­ularities apart from underlying beliefs and motives can play a significant role in the formation of comic plots and in the depiction of character in rhetorical nar­rative. Theophrastus appears to have understood that better than Aristotle, and he may have found the Characters a helpful tool when offering instruction in poetics21 and rhetoric22 as well as ethics.

• 23  Theophrastus’ sketch of the coward actually presents two scenes : one at sea (25, 2) and one on la (...)
• 24  (1) Lyco : new edition of the fragments by Peter Stork et al. ( = SFOD) in W.W. Forten­baugh & S.  (...)

10Sketching character did not disappear from the Peripatos with the death of Theophrastus. D. makes the point by reference to three Peripatetics whose works are more fragmentary than those of Theophrastus. (1) Lyco of Troas, the fourth head of the school, composed a sketch of the drunkard that has survived in Latin translation (fr. 12 SFOD). It depicts a single scene, which reminds us of Theophrastus’ handling of the coward23, but its rhetorical style is not Theo­phrastean. (2) Aristo of Ceos, who was probably Lyco’s successor as head of the school, wrote sketches of the self-willed man, the self-assured man, the know-it-all, and the ironical man. The sketches are preserved in a papyrus of Philodemus and resemble those of Theophrastus in construction and content. (3) Satyrus of Callatis described spendthrifts in his work On Characters. The use of the plural is not Theophrastean and neither is the rhetorical style. It may be a matter of coin­cidence but also a mark of increased interest in the Hellenistic Peripatos that D.’s work has appeared almost simultane­ously with new editions of the frag­ments of Lyco, Aristo and Satyrus together with commentary on the fragments, including those that relate to the Characters of Theophrastus24.