{"_index":"sire","_type":"_doc","_id":"991","_score":null,"_source":{"id":991,"authors_free":[{"id":1492,"entry_id":991,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":251,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"McDiarmid, John B.","free_first_name":"John B.","free_last_name":"McDiarmid","norm_person":{"id":251,"first_name":"John B.","last_name":"McDiarmid","full_name":"McDiarmid, John B.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1200165888","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes","main_title":{"title":"Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes"},"abstract":"In sum, the fragments considered disclose no evidence that Theophrastus employed his knowledge of the Presocratics in such a way as to exercise independent judgment about them. Despite his apparent investigation of the original texts, his accounts are in all essentials simply repetitions of some of the interpretations that he found in Aristotle and have, therefore, the same deficiencies. Further, by his method of selection and adaptation, he has frequently misrepresented his source and has exaggerated the faults present in it. It must be concluded that, with regard to the Presocratic causes at least, he is a thoroughly biased witness and is even less trustworthy than Aristotle. [conclusion p. 133]","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/EubtCOWFaqns9Pq","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":251,"full_name":"McDiarmid, John B.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":991,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Harvard Studies in Classical Philology","volume":"61","issue":"","pages":"85-156"}},"sort":["Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes"]}