Theophrastus as Ecologist

Author(s): J. Donald Hughes

Source: Environmental Review: ER , Winter, 1985, Vol. 9, No. 4, Special Issue: Roots of
Ecological Thought (Winter, 1985), pp. 296-306
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of Forest History Society and
American Society for Environmental History

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3984460

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3984460?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Forest History Society , American Society for Environmental History and Oxford University
Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Environmental
Review: ER

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Theophrastus as Ecologist
J. Donald Hughes
University of Denver

Ecology, considered as a systematic discipline, is a young science. It

was recognized as a separate field of inquiry only in the second half of
the nineteenth century. But it can look back for precedents to the ancient
Greeks, who moved to bring order out of chaos in so many realms of ra-
tional inquiry. The word "ecology" (oikologia) does not occur in Greek
literature. But Theophrastus of Eresus followed his teacher, Aristotle, in
giving attention to the relation between an organism and its environment
and, in so doing, pursued investigations that properly can be called
ecological. I
Theophrastus observed that a plant flourishes best in a "favorable
place" or "proper country" (oikeios topos),2 which modern ecologists
might term its niche. Aristotle had made a similar point in regard to
animals. The Greek word used here to characterize a harmonious rela-
tionship between an organism and its environment is oikeios, which is of
course an adjectival form of oikos (house, domicile, habitat), the first of
the two elements combined in "ecology." It is probable that the classically
educated nineteenth-century German scientists who coined the latter word
did so under the influence of the relevant passages in Aristotle and
Theophrastus.3
It is undeniable that sustained treatment of ecological questions can
be found in the botanical writings of Theophrastus, namely the De Historia
Plantarum4 and the first five books of the De Causis Plantarum.5
Elucidating comments also exist in his other surviving texts, particularly
the Metaphysics6 and the De Ventis.'
In order to place Theophrastus' ecological observations in context,
it is necessary to say something about his natural philosophy. Aristotle
had said that nature does nothing in vain and always aims at what is best.8 297
Theophrastus prominently quoted both statements and agreed with them,
adding, "Anything which is contrary to nature is dangerous."9 He is deeply
concerned with the distinction between the natural and the unnatural. But
how can anything in nature be unnatural? Theophrastus, while admitting
the point of this question, answered it by viewing nature in three different
aspects. First, there is the nature of the plant itself, which aims at its own
particular telos or purpose. This he called "the tendency of the plant's
nature," which biological scientists today would term "genotype." Then
there is the nature of the environment within which the plant exists, and
which may act for or against the plant's telos. Finally, there is human
agency, which may have a goal quite at variance with both the plant and
the tnvironment. 'I What is natural for the plant is not necessarily provid-
ed by the climate and human tendance, so one may speak of freezing,
say, or pollarding, as unnatural occurrences for a tree.

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 kf-

: ' g i#.;: i!;.

'IF

| * t; itlFr it! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1l 1l!;zr. oti r'I

; !

296

THEOPHRASTos.

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Here Theophrastus parted company with Aristotle. The master had
said that all living things have a final cause, which is the service of the
higher, rational nature. In other words, they exist to serve human beings. "
But Theophrastus, in his Metaphysics, argued that "We must try to find
a certain limit ... both to final causation and to the impulse to the better.
For this is the beginning of the inquiry about the universe, that is, of the
effort to determine the conditions on which real things depend and the
relations in which they stand to one another."I'2 So he maintained that
the nature of each living thing always aims at assimilating the intake to
its own goal, and the goal of a plant is not to feed us or give us wood,
but to produce fruit containing seed for the perpetuation of its species,
that is, to produce offspring similar to itself.'3 Aristotle would not have
denied this, of course, but would have made it a subsidiary cause in his
hierarchical organization of nature. For Theophrastus it is the whole point.
When Theophrastus looked at the relation between a plant and its
environment, he observed that the nature of the plant may or may not
find the nature of the place favorable. A plant seeks, so to speak, an en-
vironment where it may fulfill its purpose best. That place is the oikeios
topos or oikeia chora mentioned above. Each plant has a certain innate
fitness for, or symmetry with, a particular kind of location, and this dif-
fers with the species. "Trees ... seek their appropriate localities; ... for
some the preferred locality is dry, for others well-watered or wintry or
sunny or shady: in a word, some favor the mountain, some the
swamp... "I He distinguished among plants adapted to conditions of
aridity (xerophytes), moisture (hydrophytes), and salinity (halophytes),
and to various types of soil.
In order to understand Theophrastus' idea as to why particular species
prefer particular environments, it is necessary to consider his descriptive
method in general. He proceeded by establishing sets of two opposing
characteristics, e.g. male and female, cold and hot, wild and domestic,
etc. The method is typical of the Peripatetic school and derived from
Aristotle, who used it in his zoological classification. Perhaps it can be
suggested that Theophrastus also used it in arriving at the descriptions
of human personality types in his Characters. The method is also reminis-
cent of the medical doctrine of humors derived by the physician Hip-
298 pocrates from the theory of four elements advanced by Empedocles, which
saw the human body and psyche as composed of two sets of opposing
characteristics, hot and cold, wet and dry. Theophrastus, like Aristotle,
avoided the reductionistic application of the doctrine of humors - his
sets of characteristics are many more than two - but he was influenced
by it. This is most evident from the place he gave to the discussion of
the hot/cold and wet/dry pairs:

First come moisture and warmth: for every plant, like every
animal, has a certain amount of moisture and warmth which
essentially belong to it; and, if these fall short, age and decay,
while, if they fail altogether, death and withering ensue.'5

The earlier botanist, Menestor, had maintained that hot plants are
best able to survive in cold countries, and vice versa." Theophrastus
countered this with his observation, based on actually tasting and feeling

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
them, that hot plants do, in fact, come from hot countries. In a similar
way, an American might notice that chili peppers come from sunny Mex-
ico. But Theophrastus' generalization from this is of the greatest impor-
tance, since it led him to the assertion that the nature of the plant mat-
ches the nature of the environment in which it grows best. This he ap-
plied to all the relevant characteristics. Dry trees, he said, like dry coun-
try, and moist trees like moist country."' His list of other characteristics
seems a strange mixture of genotypes and phenotypes. Among the more
important are: male/female; black/white; domestic/wild; natural/un-
natural; open/dense; rough/soft; deciduous/evergreen; fruitless/fruitbear-
ing; flowering/flowerless; ready/stubborn, that is, how easily the seeds
sprout; and strong/weak, that is, how true the progeny remain to the type
of the parent.

M-4~-

P?NES O8 THE COAST oF ELAS. 299

Among the varying factors which comprise "place" or "country,"

i.e., environment, Theophrastus included soil, moisture, temperature, ex-
posure, winds, and elevation. Each of these affects the occurrence, growth,
and appearance of plants. It should be noted, however, that Theophrastus
was not advancing a theory of environmental determinism, in which ex-
ternal factors completely control the expression of characteristics in an
organism, but the interaction of environmental factors with the plants'
inherent tendencies. "For the general explanation that the countries are
responsible for many irregularities ..,. while true, needs to be supplemented
by a consideration of the special powers and distinctions of the plant."'18
Still, the locality determines which of several potential characteristics of
a plant will appear. For example, some trees prefer the mountains,

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 But even on the mountains all trees grow fairer and are more
vigorous when they have secured a suitable position; and, to
speak generally, those which grow on the level parts of the
mountains are specially fair and vigorous; next to these come
those which grow on the lower parts and in the hollows; while
those that grow on the heights are of the poorest quality, ex-
cept any that are naturally cold-loving. But even these show
some variation in different positions."

In general, trees produce the best wood if they grow in northern exposures,
an observation that seems to have a point under Mediterranean condi-
tions if not elsewhere. But different species prefer different kinds of loca-
tions; firs like the shade and pines the sun; thus he distinguished between
shade-tolerant and shade-intolerant trees. Our author assigned a wide varie-
ty of effects to locality, including habit and rapidity of growth, occur-
rence of knots and quality of the wood generally, time of flowering and
fruiting, production of seed, tendency to run true to type, shedding of
leaves, and of course the survival of the tree itself. A tree can most pro-
fitably be studied in the locality most appropriate to it, where it grows
naturally and shows its complete development.20 Thus he recognized the
importance of observing plants in undisturbed ecosystems. The fir, for
example, is seen at its best in its congenial home, Macedonia.
Theophrastus' observations on differing environments were, however,
not limited to larger regions such as countries. He was aware also of dif-
ferences from one small district to another, that is, the phenomenon known
to ecologists as microhabitats. These, he recorded, are particularly
nQticeable in montane terrain:

On great mountains, such as Parnassus, Cyllene, the Pierian

and the Mysian Olympus, and such regions anywhere else, all
kinds grow, because of the diversity of positions afforded them.
For such mountains offer positions which are marshy, wet, dry,
deep-soiled, or rocky; they have also their meadow land here
and there, and in fact almost every variety of soil; again they
300 present positions which lie low and are sheltered, as well as
others which are lofty and exposed to wind; so that they can
bear all sorts, even those which belong to the plains.2'

He understood the effects of mountain topography on the winds, including

the foehn or fallwind, and had observed orographic rainfall, both of which
affect microclimates.22 He knew how the elevation of high peaks produc-
ed low, stunted growth in trees, in some species before others. As an il-
lustration of the preference of plants for particular locations, he mentioned
the occurrence of a flood in one district, which destroyed all the trees,
but afterwards the same species sprang up in the same places.23
Theophrastus also observed that certain plants which prefer a nar-
row range of environmental conditions have a limited distribution and
tend to be isolated on mountains and islands: "Most mountains have cer-
tain peculiar products, whether trees, shrubs, or other woody plants."24

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Some mountains ... do not thus bear all things, but have a more
special vegetation to a great extent if not entirely; for instance
the range of Ida in Crete; for there the cypress grows; or the
hills of Cilicia and Syria, on which the Syrian cedar grows, or
certain parts of Syria, where the terebinth grows. For it is the
differences of soil which give a special character to the
vegetation.25

He adds that on Mt. Ida in Asia Minor there are three trees which grow
nowhere else; the Alexandrian laurel, a kind of fig, and the currant grape
vine (it should be mentioned that the ancients considered the vine to be
a tree). The Colutea tree grew only on the Lipari islands, a volcanic group.26
He further observed that rivers often have plants unique to themselves.
The phenomenon of adaptation to a particular environment was
known to him; he called it "mutation according to the place" (metaballein
kata tous topous).2I Of course he did not understand the genetic mechanism
involved when he said that "the region keeps taking away from the nature
of the plant,"28 but his acute observation of the fact that such changes
are noticed in the third year after the introduction of a strain of annuals
into a new environment may well reflect the fact that, in hybrid crosses,
it is the third generation that exhibits variation.2'
Thus far the discussion has been of what is called "species ecology,"
that is, the relationship of a particular kind of organism to its environ-
ment. It must be admitted at the outset that the major portion of
Theophrastus' ecological comments were of this type. But he also in-
vestigated the effects that plants exercise upon one another when they grow
in groups, and thus took a step in the direction of the concept of the
ecosystem.
Theophrastus classified plants into four groups by habit of growth:
namely, trees (dendra), shrubs (thamnoi), sub-schrubs (phrygana), and
herbs (poaw). Although he did not extend this classification to plant com-
munities, it is possible to see in it a rudimentary but workable scheme for
Mediterranean associations; that is: forest, maquis, garigue, and grassland.
Theophrastus did not consider plants in isolation, but studied the ef-
fects they exercise upon one another. Plants growing close together, he
noted, may have either negative or positive effects on each other. The olive
301
and myrtle, or the pine and bay, like to grow together, but the almond
is almost always a "bad neighbor."30 He described the spread of weeds.
Trees growing close together in a forest, he observed, compete with each
other for food, water and sunlight, and become tall, slender, erect and
knotless, while those growing far apart have the opposite characteristics.
The fir grows in height only until it reaches above the shadow of neighbor-
ing trees. A few plants injure others by odors, as the cabbage does the
vine. Trees may destroy others by robbing them of nourishment and
hindering them in other ways. Ivy lives in dependence on supporting trees
and will kill them when it grows on them.3'
This introduces the concepts of symbiosis and parasitism, which he
comprehended without completely distinguishing them. Knowing Aristo-
tle's examples of animal symbiosis, he added some in which animals help
plants. For example, the jay buries acorns which may sprout and birds
spread mistletoe seeds in their excrement.32 Then, plants aid other plants,

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 as when decomposing evergreen leaves help seeds to sprout.33 He
understood that legumes enrich the soil for other plants. He knew that
mistletoe is a separate plant, not a "change of nature" in its host, and
that it "lives by taking the food that belongs to the tree."34
Diseases he divided into those which arise from the plant itself, and
those that come from outside. In both cases, he believed, the environ-
ment plays a crucial role in their onset. Unsure whether to call death from
disease a natural or unnatural occurrence, he placed it in a third category.35
Insects, he pointed out, are often species-specific or limited to certain
regions, and some plants have odors that repel them from themselves and
other nearby plants.
The effects of human intervention on plants and the environment were
by no means neglected by Theophrastus. Intensely interested in the pro-
blems of cultivation, plantation, and acclimatization, Theophrastus used
the wild/cultivated dichotomy as one of his most important sets of descrip-
tive characteristics. It is at least likely that he performed experiments of
his own like those of Harpalus, whom he mentions, who tried to get ex-
otic plants to grow in Babylon.36 Perhaps from these instances of trial
and error, he generalized that if plants, are planted "as their nature re-
quires" (kataphysin), they will succeed, but if "against their nature" (para
physin), they will fail.37 Beyond that, he had observed plantations of forest
trees in the mountains enough to advise that there the trees be planted
at closer intervals than on the plain, since there they tend to have a slenderer
habit of growth both in branches and in the roots, which do not spread
so far. Fir, pine, and holly are naturally wild plants which tend to
deteriorate under intense cultivation. Indeed, he suggested that one save
the best land for cereals and plant trees on second best land, since they
do better there anyway.38 He remarked about the ornamental plantations
of cedars in Phoenicia, where these trees had grown to great size in the
parks (paradises) of the Persian king and his nobles.39 He advised careful
note of the local environment, including its soil and weather, before
deciding to plant there. Indeed, since it is only the climate proper to a
plant that brings everything that is in the plant's nature to completion,
he concluded that "locality is more important than cultivation and
tendance."40 Returning to his idea that each plant has its own natural goal,
he said that unaided growth is natural, and therefore exhibits more clear-
302 ly the telos of the tree.4' It is mankind, alone among all living things, to
which the term "cultivated" is perhaps strictly appropriate.42
Theophrastus also recorded anthropogenic changes in climate due to
drainage and deforestation, which affect the ecology of entire regions.
He remarked that in

the country around Larisa in Thessaly, where formerly, when

there was much standing water and the plain was a lake, the
air was thicker and the country warmer; but now that the water
has been drained away and prevented from collecting, the coun-
try has become colder and freezing more common. In proof
the fact is cited that formerly there were fine tall olive trees
in the city itself and elsewhere in the country, whereas now they
are found nowhere, and that the vines were never frozen before
but often freeze now.43

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
In the mountains of Crete, there was extensive removal of forests, which
allowed the winds free play and produced a general infertility so severe
that agriculture became impossible." Around Philippi, both deforesta-
tion and drainage had occurred, and in this case the result was a climate
with less freezing, presumably because the trees formerly had trapped the
cold air near the ground, whereas afterwards the winds could disperse it.45
So widespread effects of human agency on the natural environment were
recognized as early as the fourth century B.C. Attempts to control these
effects were also known. Wise administrators limited timber harvest;
Theophrastus said that in Cyprus, "the kings used not to cut the
trees ... because they took care of them and managed them." 46He also
recorded regulations setting a maximum permissible harvest of silphium,
a wild plant of economic importance in Cyrene.47

V~~~

SfLPH I U At

303
All told, Theophrastus impresses us by his rationality and good sense,
his wish to depend on observations and to crit'icize the reports which he
received. His practical attitude may be discerned in his rejoinder to those
who advised him to plant and fell trees by the moon and the zodiacal signs:
"One should not in fact be governed by the celestial conditions and revolu-
tion rather than by the trees and slips and seeds. "41
If he failed as a consistent ecologist, it was in concentrating his at
tention on individual species. Unlike modern ecologists, he did not em-
phasize the complex net of relationships in biotic commun'ities. Seldom
making quantitative statements, he never grasped the importance of the
growth and decline of populations. This i's especially unfortunate because
Aristotle had observed reproductive potential and population crashes
among r dns4 Neither had Theophrastus observed natural succession.
In larger termns, he had less to say about the existence and life of the largest
ecosystem, the biosphere, than Plato did.50

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 But it is nonetheless true that his philosophical stance was more con-
genial to ecological discovery than was either Plato's or Aristotle's, em-
phasizing as it did efficient causes, not final causes. He accorded to plants
an autonomous purpose, not dependent upon their place in the human
scheme of things. His viewpoint was consistently ecological in the sense
that he always discussed a form of life in the context of its relationships
to the environment; to sunshine, soil, climate, water, cultivation, and other
plants and animals. More than half of his writings deal with this kind of
ecological observations. In many cases he anticipated terms that would
become part of the lexicon of scientific ecology. Many of his ideas have
to be corrected in the light of more recent works; many others have so
far withstood the test of time. But it is hard to criticize him too severely,
because he was one of the first to set out on the journey of inquiry that
we call ecology. And among those who did this, he is the one who travel-
ed furthest. If any ancient writer deserves the title, "Father of Ecology,"
it is he.5'

1--~~~

ENDNOTES:

1. For verification of the seemingly sweeping statement that oikologia does not occur in ancient G
304 literature, I am indebted to Theodore F. Brunner, the director of Thesaurus Liguae Graecae at the Un
sity of California, Irvine, who conducted for me a computer search for the morpheme oikolog th
the entire TLG data bank. At the time of the search, the TLG data bank contained more than 50 mi
words of Greek text covering the period from Homer to A.D. 600, including virtually all the majo
most of the minor extant texts from that period.
For the suggestion that Theophrastus was a forerunner in ecological studies, I am indebted to A
Holch, "The Ecology of Theophrastus," MS, Denver, CO: University of Denver, 1958. Unfortun
Holch did not live to complete his essay. Another who made much the same suggestion in the c
of a more general article emphasizing Theophrastus is Heinrich Rubner, "Griechischer Geist
Forstliches Wissen," Aligemeine Forst-und Jagdzeitung 136 (Frankfurt am Main, June, 1965, N
135-144, vide p. 142, translated and published in this issue of Environmental Review. Aristotle's ec
has been competently researched by Anthony Preus, Science and Philosophy in Aristotle's Biol
Works (Hildesheim: Georg Ohms, 1975).

2. Theophrastus, De Causis Plantarum 1.9.3, 1.16.11, 2.3.7, 2.7.1, 3.6.6-7, etc.

3. Oecologie was apparently first used by Ernst Haeckel, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, 2
(Berlin, 1866). Haeckel was familiar with the classical texts and could easily have had in mind this
of oikeios. See Donald Worster, Nature's Economy: The Roots of Ecology (San Francisco: Sierra
Books, 1977), pp. 191-94.

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
4. The Greek text and English translation used here are those of the translator Arthur Hort in
Theophrastus, Enquiry into Plants, 2 vols. (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard-Heinemann, 1916). This
work is hereinafter abbreviated as H.

5. The Greek text and English translation used here are those of the translators Benedict Einarson and
George K.K. Link in Theophrastus, De Causis Plantarum, 3 vols. (Loeb Classical Library, Harvard-
Heinemann, 1976-). Only the rirst volume has appeared, and the author was graciously allowed to con-
sult the entire work in manuscript by the late Professor Einarson. This work is hereinafter abbreviated as C.

6. The Greek text and English translation used here are those of the translators W.D. Ross and F.H.
Forbes in Theophrastus, Metaphysics (Oxford, 1929. Reprint. Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967). This work
is hereinafter abbreviated as M.

7. The Greek text and English translation used here are those of the translators Victor Coutant and Val
L. Eichenlaub in Theophrastus, De Ventis (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975).
This work is hereinafter abbreviated as DV.

8. Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium 1.23 (73 1aS); De Generatione et Corruptione 2.10 (336 b 27-28).

9. C 1.1.1; 1.16.11; 6.4.2; De Sensu 32; H 4.14.6.

10. C 5.1.1.

I1. Aristotle, Politics 1.5 (1254 b 18-19), 1.8 (1256b 15-26).

12. M 9.32-34. There is a good discussion of Theophrastus' teleology in Clarence J. Glacken, Traces
on the Rhodian Shore (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), p. 51.

13. H 1.2.2 and especially C 1.16.3: "The end of all plants is the generation of like."

14. C 2.7.1.

15. H 1.2.4-5.

16. C 1.21.5-6.

17. C 3.6.8.

18. C 6.18.6.

19. H 3.3.2.

20. C 2.7.1, 3.6.7.

21. H 3.2.5.

22. H 3.2.5.

23. H 3.1.2.
305
24. H 3.18.1.

25. H 3.2.6.

26. H 3.17.2,4.

27. C 2.13.1.

28. C 2.13.5.

29. C 1.9.3.

30. C 3.10.4-6.

31. H 3.18.9, 4.16.5-6; C 2.18.4.

32. C 2.17.8.

33. C 2.18.1.

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 34. C 5.4.5; 2.17.4.

35. C 5.11.1.

36. H 4.4.1.

37. H 2.5.7.

38. H 1.3.6; C 1.18.1.

39. H 5.8.1.

40. H 2.2.8.

41. C 1.16.10-11.

42. H 1.3.6.

43. C 5.14.2-3.

44. DV 13.

45. C 5.14.5.

46. H 5.8. 1.

47. H 6.3.2.

48. C 3.2.5.

49. Aristotle, Historia Animalium 6.36 (580 b 10-29).

50. Plato, Timaeus 30 D.

51. See J. Donald Hughes, Ecology in Ancient Civilizations (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 1975), pp. 64-66; and "Early Greek and Roman Environmentalists," in Lester J. Bilsky, ed.,
Historical Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social Change (Port Washington, NY: National University
Publications, Kennikat Press, 1980), pp. 55-56.

306

This content downloaded from

83.212.248.199 on Thu, 20 Jul 2023 07:45:58 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms