| Title | Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1953 |
| Journal | Harvard Studies in Classical Philology |
| Volume | 61 |
| Pages | 85-156 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | McDiarmid, John B. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The most important ancient writing on the history of European thought was the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.1 In this work of sixteen or eighteen books Theophrastus gave for the first time a systematic treatment of earlier views on the main problems of science and philosophy. Its influence in antiquity is attested by the frequency and respect with which it was referred to by later ancient writers. But its unique position was not fully appreciated by modern scholars until Usener2 collected the fragments of it and Diels scrutinized these fragments in relation to the large body of other doxographical writings. Diels proved that these writings, far from being isolated and independent, were virtually all derived directly or indirectly from the Physical Opinions.3 This fact has been of great consequence for the evaluation of both the doxographers and Theo- phrastus. Statements of such writers as Aetius have been invested with the full authority of Theophrastus, and, on the other hand, this authority has seemingly been enhanced by the very number of the doxographers who accepted it. When a report has been traced back to the Physical Opinions, scholars have been satisfied that it has been traced to an "unimpeachable source" and that it "must have been based on direct acquaintance" with the original Presocratic writing. [p. 85] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fhUUw8OxTbUV8FH |
{"_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":"The most important ancient writing on the history of European \r\nthought was the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.1 In this \r\nwork of sixteen or eighteen books Theophrastus gave for the first \r\ntime a systematic treatment of earlier views on the main problems of \r\nscience and philosophy. Its influence in antiquity is attested by the \r\nfrequency and respect with which it was referred to by later ancient \r\nwriters. But its unique position was not fully appreciated by modern \r\nscholars until Usener2 collected the fragments of it and Diels \r\nscrutinized these fragments in relation to the large body of other \r\ndoxographical writings. Diels proved that these writings, far from \r\nbeing isolated and independent, were virtually all derived directly or \r\nindirectly from the Physical Opinions.3 This fact has been of great \r\nconsequence for the evaluation of both the doxographers and Theo- \r\nphrastus. Statements of such writers as Aetius have been invested \r\nwith the full authority of Theophrastus, and, on the other hand, this \r\nauthority has seemingly been enhanced by the very number of the \r\ndoxographers who accepted it. When a report has been traced back \r\nto the Physical Opinions, scholars have been satisfied that it has been \r\ntraced to an \"unimpeachable source\" and that it \"must have been \r\nbased on direct acquaintance\" with the original Presocratic writing. [p. 85]","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fhUUw8OxTbUV8FH","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":[1953]}
| Title | Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 1953 |
| Journal | Harvard Studies in Classical Philology |
| Volume | 61 |
| Pages | 85-156 |
| Categories | no categories |
| Author(s) | McDiarmid, John B. |
| Editor(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
The most important ancient writing on the history of European thought was the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.1 In this work of sixteen or eighteen books Theophrastus gave for the first time a systematic treatment of earlier views on the main problems of science and philosophy. Its influence in antiquity is attested by the frequency and respect with which it was referred to by later ancient writers. But its unique position was not fully appreciated by modern scholars until Usener2 collected the fragments of it and Diels scrutinized these fragments in relation to the large body of other doxographical writings. Diels proved that these writings, far from being isolated and independent, were virtually all derived directly or indirectly from the Physical Opinions.3 This fact has been of great consequence for the evaluation of both the doxographers and Theo- phrastus. Statements of such writers as Aetius have been invested with the full authority of Theophrastus, and, on the other hand, this authority has seemingly been enhanced by the very number of the doxographers who accepted it. When a report has been traced back to the Physical Opinions, scholars have been satisfied that it has been traced to an "unimpeachable source" and that it "must have been based on direct acquaintance" with the original Presocratic writing. [p. 85] |
| Online Resources | https://uni-koeln.sciebo.de/s/fhUUw8OxTbUV8FH |
{"_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":"The most important ancient writing on the history of European \r\nthought was the Physical Opinions of Theophrastus.1 In this \r\nwork of sixteen or eighteen books Theophrastus gave for the first \r\ntime a systematic treatment of earlier views on the main problems of \r\nscience and philosophy. Its influence in antiquity is attested by the \r\nfrequency and respect with which it was referred to by later ancient \r\nwriters. But its unique position was not fully appreciated by modern \r\nscholars until Usener2 collected the fragments of it and Diels \r\nscrutinized these fragments in relation to the large body of other \r\ndoxographical writings. Diels proved that these writings, far from \r\nbeing isolated and independent, were virtually all derived directly or \r\nindirectly from the Physical Opinions.3 This fact has been of great \r\nconsequence for the evaluation of both the doxographers and Theo- \r\nphrastus. Statements of such writers as Aetius have been invested \r\nwith the full authority of Theophrastus, and, on the other hand, this \r\nauthority has seemingly been enhanced by the very number of the \r\ndoxographers who accepted it. When a report has been traced back \r\nto the Physical Opinions, scholars have been satisfied that it has been \r\ntraced to an \"unimpeachable source\" and that it \"must have been \r\nbased on direct acquaintance\" with the original Presocratic writing. [p. 85]","btype":3,"date":"1953","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/fhUUw8OxTbUV8FH","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"]}