PART IV
Life Sciences
Chapter 16
Greek and Roman Botany
M. Eleanor Irwin
1. Introduction
Botany, the study of plants, began in Greece with the recognition of plants which had
a practical use and therefore needed names. Along with names came attention to similarities and differences to ensure that the correct plant was used and that those who
needed particular plants were able to find and grow them. Physicians, root cutters, and
pharmacists prescribed, gathered, and prepared plants for medical use. Farmers passed
on what they had learned about growing food plants. Those active in such industries as
woodworking, dyeing, perfume making, and wreath‐making had their own reasons for
knowing about plants. So the study of plants often had economic implications. And even
when the study was scientific, the needs of medicine, agriculture, and other occupations
were always present.
There are three important writers whose works on Greek and Roman botany survive:
Theophrastus, Dioscorides, and Pliny the Elder. The first two wrote in Greek, the third in
Latin. Although Dioscorides and Pliny were contemporaries, they show no indication that
they knew one another’s work. Both Pliny and Dioscorides had a continuing influence
on botany in western Europe because they remained available to readers of Latin, with
Dioscorides in a Latin translation. Medicinal plants were excerpted from Pliny’s Natural
History in Medicina Plinii (“Pliny’s Medicine”), and the plants in Dioscorides’ work were
rearranged in alphabetical order in some manuscripts. In contrast, Theophrastus’ work,
not translated into Latin until the fifteenth century, was unknown in western Europe until
the Renaissance (Morton 1986, 95).
In order to appreciate the work of each of these authors, we need to know the context
in which they were working. It is possible to sketch what was generally known about
plants when each author was writing. Thus we can assess both the written and oral sources
which they consulted and evaluate their contributions and reputations as botanists.
A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, First Edition.
edited by Georgia L. Irby.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2016 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
266
M. Eleanor Irwin
2. Naming Plants in Greece
Theophrastus named about 500 plants in his Enquiry into Plants (Historia Plantarum
[HP]) and Causes of Plants (Causae Plantarum [CP]). As he himself acknowledged,
there were also nameless wild plants about which few people knew (HP 1.14.4) as well
as foreign plants which had no Greek names. Modern botanists estimate more than
5,000 plants native to Greece (Strid and Tan 1997, 18–19), far more than ancient
botanists included. (In this comparison between ancient and modern botanists, we must
factor in the geographical differences between modern Greece and the ancient Greek
world, which extended beyond present‐day Greece to settlements along the coast of
present‐day Turkey and the Black Sea as well as Egypt, North Africa, and the western
Mediterranean.)
Theophrastus did not invent these names, nor did he assign names to nameless plants,
but he adopted names already in general use. The Linnaean system of nomenclature
uses a genus and species name which places a plant in a family and distinguishes it from
other plants. The Rosa gallica, for example, is a particular species of rose, distinguishable from all other roses, and its placement in the family Rosaceae allows us to discover
related plants, like raspberry (Rubus idaeus), stone fruits (species Prunus), and flowering
plants (species Spirea).
Theophrastus employed names in common use with the result that the same name can
be used for different species, sometimes with an additional adjective, for example, black
violet (melan ion) and white violet (leucon ion), black being our violet Viola odorata,
and white our stock Matthiola incana (HP 6.6.7). Theophrastus knew of three kinds of
all‐heal (panaces: HP 9.11.1), named for a healer: Asclepias’ all‐heal, Heracles’ all‐heal,
and Chiron’s all‐heal, identified by Thiselton‐Dyer (Hort 1926, 468) as Ferula nodosa,
Opopanax hispidus, and Inula helenium, respectively. In Theophrastus’ experience, the
same plant might have different local names, for example, narkissos (our narcissus), which
is also called leirion, a name also used for the lily (HP 6.8.3).
Much effort has been expended on identifying Greek plants, beginning with Wimmer’s
index derived from Sprengel and Fraas in his edition of Theophrastus (Paris, 1866, 531–547),
Thiselton‐Dyer’s identifications in Hort’s translation of Theophrastus (1926, 437–485),
Andrews’ revision of the index in the Loeb translation of Pliny (Jones 7.485–550), and
Aufmesser’s book on plants in Dioscorides (2000) as well as the plant entries in A Greek
English Lexicon, to which Thiselton‐Dyer and D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson contributed
(Liddell‐Scott‐Jones [LSJ], ninth edition, 1925–1940).
Identification is made more difficult by refinements in modern botanical nomenclature
and shifts from one genus to another, as well as uncertainty from lack of information
in the ancient sources. There is some continuity between ancient Greek and modern botanical nomenclature (krokos/crocus, narkissos/narcissus), though there are false
friends where the Greek name has been transferred from a Greek plant to one not native
to Greece. For example, Asclepias in Greek is defined (LSJ, s.v. asklepias) as swallow‐wort,
white hellebore, and laurel but is now the scientific name given to the genus of the North
American native milkweed.
Homer named fifty plants in his poems (Forster 1936). One of the most memorable
of these botanical passages is the comparison of a dying warrior to a poppy in a garden,
its head “weighed down with seed and spring rains” (Iliad 8.306–307). Odysseus gives
Greek and Roman Botany
267
a rudimentary description of moly, an unfamiliar magical plant “with a black root and
a flower like milk,” which Hermes uprooted and gave to him (Odyssey 10.304–305).
Homer’s landscapes are settings for human or divine action: fertility is suggested when
Earth makes crocus, hyacinth, and grass grow in response to the love‐making of Zeus
and Hera on the peaks of Mount Ida (Iliad 14.347–349), and mortality is implied when
Menelaus’ killing of Euphorbus is compared to the wind uprooting an olive tree in
bloom (Iliad 17.53–60).
Hesiod in Works and Days was more concerned with what to do and when to do it
than with plants, though he used plants as markers for seasons: the heat of summer
when the golden thistle blooms (scolymus: Works and Days 582) and the beginning of
navigation “when the leaf of a fig tree is as large as a cow’s hoof print” (Works and Days
678–679).
Herodotus named 60 trees and plants. His interest is mostly in the availability of
plants or their lack: as when he reported that the Assyrians grew neither vines nor
olive trees and instead got oil from sesame seeds and wine from dates (1.193). He
admired the many‐petalled roses in the garden of Midas of Gordias (8.138.2), which
Forster (1942, 62) singles out as the only plant Herodotus mentioned purely for its
attractiveness.
Xenophon in his Anabasis similarly reported various products used as substitutes
for oil, wine, and flour. He also observed plants which presented dangers to his troops
like those which were the source of honey in the country of the Macronians (4.8.20).
He not only wrote about the wooded parks (paradeisoi) owned by Persian royalty and
nobles, but he also recreated one on land near Olympia (5.3.7–13).
As travelers like Herodotus and Xenophon brought back accounts of unfamiliar plants,
Greeks became aware that different plants grew in (and needed) different climates,
whether this meant temperature, rainfall, or altitude. This practical knowledge had an
impact on Greek colonization as sites were chosen where olive trees and vines would
grow (Irwin 2003).
3. Theophrastus and the Beginning of Scientific Botany
Born at Eresus on the island of Lesbos in the Aegean about 371 bce, Theophrastus began
his studies on Lesbos with Alcippus and then, in his early twenties, became a student of
Plato’s at Athens (Diogenes Laërtius 5.2.36; Mejer, 19). After Plato’s death, he became
Aristotle’s student and then colleague, accompanying him first to Assus and Mytilene,
and then to Macedonia, where Aristotle had been invited to tutor the young Alexander.
Theophrastus eventually succeeded Aristotle as head of the Lyceum in Athens.
Our chief source for Theophrastus’ life, the third century ce writer Diogenes Laërtius
(5.2.36–57), had access to written material which has not survived. In his biography, we
learn that Theophrastus’ lectures were well attended and that he continually revised his
lectures, presumably based on questions and discussions with his audience (from a letter
to Phaenias, his fellow countryman: Diogenes Laërtius 5.2.37). This gives us an insight
into the way Theophrastus worked, composing works in progress, with many additions
and revisions. In his will, Theophrastus bequeathed property in Athens for the common
use of his students and colleagues. Non‐Athenians were not ordinarily allowed to own
property in Athens, but through the support of one of his former students, Demetrius
268
M. Eleanor Irwin
of Phaleron, Theophrastus had been able to acquire a tract of land (Diogenes Laërtius
5.2.39) large enough to have houses adjoining it and walks planted with shade trees.
Here Theophrastus wished to be buried, and it is reasonable to imagine that Theophrastus
observed and tested his ideas about plants here.
Philosophical and Scientific Questions about Plants
before Theophrastus
Natural philosophers before Theophrastus were interested in botanical questions about
how plants grew and why different plants behaved as they did. Theophrastus read these
early Greek philosophers, including Democritus, Empedocles, and Anaxagoras, and he
considered the questions they raised about plants, even when he disagreed with their
answers.
Theophrastus weighed the opinions of these early writers with his own observations. Seeds carried food to nourish a plant; thus, Empedocles’ description of seeds
as eggs seems appropriate (CP 1.7.1). Democritus declared that straight trees with
thin roots lived shorter lives than crooked trees with thick roots, an idea Theophrastus
refuted by a comparison of the length of life in various trees and inspection of their
roots (CP 2.11.7–9). Anaxagoras asserted that air contained the seeds of everything
and that these seeds were carried down in rain and generated (Matter; Motion and
Energy); Theophrastus countered that there is growth when rivers change course
and streams burst their banks. Thus, moisture helps in the generation of seeds in the
ground (CP 1.5.2). In a discussion of savors, Theophrastus summarized Plato’s
argument in Timaeus (65c1–6, CP 6.1.4) and disagreed politely with the Pythagorean
Menestor, who thought that there were an infinite number of tastes and smells
(CP 6.3.5).
Theophrastus’ Methods of Gathering Information
Theophrastus observed plants on Lesbos, the Troad, Macedonia, Euboea, and Athens,
and he gathered information from various sources, naming Thrasyas of Mantinea and his
student Alexias (HP 9.16.8, 17) as well as Eudemus of Chios (HP 9.17, 18) on medicinal plants. Although he did not name Diocles of Carystus, Theophrastus may have used
Diocles’ (lost) Rhizotomicon for HP 9. Theophrastus referred to Cleidemus for the best
time to sow (CP 3.23.1), Hippon for the difference between wild and cultivated forms
of a plant (HP 1.3.5, 3.2.2), and Androtion as an authority on olives, myrtles, and pomegranates (HP 2.7.2, 3; CP 3.10.4). Satyrus, who collected plant samples in Arcadia, may
have been a source for plants in the Peloponnese (HP 3.12.4). Theophrastus received
reports from those accompanying Alexander on his expedition to the east, including
Androsthenes (CP 2.5.5), who wrote his observations of plants along the Persian Gulf
and on the island of Tylos (Bahrain). In addition to these named sources, Theophrastus
included what he learned in a particular location, for example, “the people on Mount Ida
say” (HP 3.12.3), “the people in Macedonia say” (HP 3.12.2), and other locations as
well, but more frequently he simply recorded that “they say” (phasi, without an expressed
subject).
Greek and Roman Botany
269
Theophrastus’ Work on Plants
Theophrastus’ surviving botanical works are HP in nine books, CP in six books, a book
On Odors, and a sizeable fragment from On Honey. (His surviving work on Weather
Signs is not directly related to plants but would certainly be of interest to botanists.)
Diogenes Laërtius records that Theophrastus wrote other books on botany: one book
On Wine and Olive Oil, five On Juices, and one On Fruits. The titles of these books show
how important economic questions were in the development of botany as Theophrastus
discussed plants which produced odors for perfume, vines for wine, and olive trees for
oil as well as fruits.
Theophrastus’ Methodology
Theophrastus constantly revised and augmented his work while retaining a clear structure and direction to his argument. Aristotle’s influence is evident in the questions
that Theophrastus raised about plants, even to the title of one of his works (History of
Plants corresponding to Aristotle’s History of Animals. Our English “history” comes
from Herodotus’ historiai as the title for his work, but “enquiry” or “investigation”
would better represent the meaning.) Theophrastus dealt with the parts of plants in
HP (cf. Aristotle’s PA) and plant generation in CP (cf. Aristotle’s GA). An On Plants
attributed to Aristotle is generally thought to be spurious, extant in a corrupt text
translated from Latin back into Greek.
Theophrastus defined plants by their differences from animals: plants, unlike animals,
are rooted (mostly) and do not move, they take in nourishment but do not excrete a
residue as animals do, and they are not perceptive as animals are (Lloyd 1996, 41–43,
67). When Theophrastus considered the definition of a plant and its parts, he found that
while generally a plant has roots, a stem, branches, and twigs, there are exceptions. For
example, some plants (like mushrooms) have no root, some have no stem. Plants also
have parts which may become detached or die, like flowers, fruits, leaves, while the rest
of the plant continues. Stems and leaves have component parts named by analogy with
animals: flesh, veins, fiber, core (heart or marrow), and muscle, the last of which
Theophrastus says is continuous, long, easily split, and unnamed. Theophrastus must
have examined and dissected many different plants, not limiting himself to the external
but looking at component parts of stems (trunks), leaves, and flowers. Roots are generally
not visible above ground, so to describe roots he must have examined uprooted plants.
Theophrastus defined botanical differences adopted by botanists and still in use. Some
of the most obvious are distinctions between annual plants, which produce seed at the
end of their growing season; biennials like celery, which produce seed in the second
season of growth; and perennials, which can survive and bear seed for many seasons (HP
1.2.2). And he noted distinctions between plants with enclosed seeds (angiosperms) and
those with naked seeds (gymnosperms: HP 1.11.10).
Theophrastus arranged plants into four forms (eidos): trees (dendron), shrubs (thamnos),
undershrubs (phryganon), and herbaceous plants (poa). He used these divisions to
organize his work, though he recognized that climate, cultivation, prunings, and location
may make a shrub a tree or vice versa (HP 1.3.1–3). He described trees first (HP 2–5),
then other forms (HP 6–8), and, finally, medicinal plants separately in HP 9.
270
M. Eleanor Irwin
By observing the variety in which root, stem, branch, as well as leaf, flower, and fruit
appear, Theophrastus provided terms by which any plant may be described, and he
laid the groundwork to produce the plant entries that later botanists assembled. His
terminology also ensured that his students and informants could give him a satisfactory
description of plants that he had not seen.
A closer examination of Theophrastus’ descriptions of leaves shows how comprehensive his observations were (HP 1.10). As a general division, a plant may be evergreen,
that is, always in leaf, or deciduous, though some are evergreen only in certain climates
or situations. (Fig trees and vines are evergreen in southern Egypt but lose their leaves
in Greece: HP 1.3.5.) The leaf may be attached to the stem, branch, twig, or root, either
directly to the plant (sessile) or by an intermediate stem (petiolate). The leaf may be
round, oblong, lobed, or hollow. The edge may be smooth or serrated, and leaves may
be single or divided.
After his introductory section of classification and terminology, Theophrastus proceeded to consider trees: cultivated trees and their propagation (HP 2), wild trees
(HP 3), and trees and other forms native to different regions (HP 4). The inclusion of
trees in Egypt, Libya, and Asia, and to the north of Greece shows that Theophrastus was
gathering material on plants from a wide area, in some cases with the assistance of informants rather than from personal inspection. Unfamiliar trees not native to Greece are
compared to similar Greek trees. For example, the Egyptian persea is like the pear tree,
but the fruit has a stone like the plum (HP 4.2.5). The banyan tree (Ficus benghalensis),
reported by those who accompanied Alexander, was compared in its various parts to the
Greek fig tree (HP 4.4.4).
Theophrastus included aquatic plants in his study. He gathered information about plants
growing in or near the shore of the Mediterranean, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Persian
Gulf, as well as in and by rivers, marshes, and lakes, especially in Egypt. Theophrastus gave
a detailed account of the plants of the lake near Orchomenus (now Lake Copais), which
varied in depth and sometimes drained completely. It interested him that some water
plants in this lake were completely submerged, whereas others were only partly submerged.
Theophrastus’ interest in Lake Copais, not far from Athens, suggests that he may have
spent time in the area.
At the end of HP 4, Theophrastus discussed diseases, pests, and weather which
affect plants, often giving specific examples from eyewitness accounts: the damage
done by caterpillars in Miletus, the premature dropping of olives in Tarentum, plants
losing leaves in a frost and leafing out again in Philippi, and the Olympian wind in
Chalcis.
HP 5, given to trees used for timber, covers when to cut, the differences in trees, and
uses of various kinds of trees. Here Theophrastus’ frequent use of “they say” shows his
reliance on tree cutters and carpenters. In HP 6–7, he considered wild and cultivated
undershrubs, plants used for garlands, and cultivated and wild potherbs. His calendar
of bloom (HP 6.8.1–4) is a reminder of the importance of wreaths for Greek cult and
celebration. In HP 8, proceeding to cereal plants, Theophrastus discussed planting,
the importance of soil and climate, and the tasks of the farmer: for example, manuring
and irrigating (Greek and Roman Agriculture; “Ecology” in the Ancient Mediterranean). HP 9 deals with medicinal plants: sap in plants whose juices are collected and
used for medicine as well as spices and aroma (HP 9.1–7) and roots, especially those
used for medicine (HP 9.8–20).
Greek and Roman Botany
271
Causes of Plants
In CP, Theophrastus began with the plant’s distinctive nature: generation, sprouting,
flowering, and fruiting (CP 1). He next discussed external occurrences: weather, soil,
and water, and their effect on plants (CP 2). In CP 3–4, contemplating how human
action (agriculture) may help plants, he began with a consideration of plants that do
not prosper under cultivation. In CP 5, he examined the causes of disease and death in
plants and (again) how human action may contribute. CP 6 discusses plants from which
flavors and odors are obtained. Theophrastus noted that while the goal of a plant is to
produce seed, the intent of the farmer is to produce food, and for this the farmer works
to provide the appropriate soil and air for the plant.
Theophrastus’ Reputation and Legacy
It would be hard to exaggerate Theophrastus’ accomplishments in botany. For example,
Greene (1909/1983, 140–142) attributes seventeen botanical discoveries to Theophrastus,
many ignored until Linnaeus and later botanists. In addition to providing a vocabulary
for identifying parts of plants, Theophrastus divided plants into flowering and flowerless,
monocotyledon and dicotyledon, and angiosperm and gymnosperm. He investigated how
plants take in food, the effects of climate on plants and how “art,” that is, agriculture, may
increase a plant’s life-span and fruitfulness.
HP was made available in English in the Loeb Classical Library (Hort 1916, 1926)
with an index of plants by Thiselton‐Dyer included in the second volume. Amigues has
recently completed her text and French translation of HP (1988–2006). CP did not
receive the same attention from translators. Apart from Dengler’s translation and commentary on CP 1 (1927), translations remained hidden away in typescript until Einarson
and Link’s Loeb translations (1976, lxvi).
Project Theophrastus began under the direction of William Fortenbaugh in 1979
with the intention of collecting, editing, and translating the fragments of Theophrastus.
The botanical fragments were published in 1992 and a number of articles in RUSCH
have addressed botanical matters (Van Ophuijsen and van Raalte).
4. After Theophrastus
In the centuries between Theophrastus’ death and the writings of Dioscorides and
Pliny, there are a few figures of interest in botany. It is regrettable that On Plants by
Theophrastus’ student Phaenias has not survived. To judge by places where Athenaeus
in the Deipnosophists (“Learned Banqueters”) made reference to both Phaenias and
Theophrastus on the same plant, Phaenias followed Theophrastus and expanded on his
material (e.g., 1.31f–32a wine, 2.54f chickpeas, 2.61e–f mushrooms and truffles, 2.64d
hyacinth bulbs, 2.70d cactus, and 9. 371d carrot).
Crateuas, physician to King Mithridates VI of Pontus (120–63 bce), made a significant advance when he commissioned illustrations of the plants, whose medicinal uses
he was describing, for his Rhizotomicon (Singer 1927, 5). Although his work does not
survive, his continued influence is evident from quotations incorporated into a sixth‐
century ce manuscript of Dioscorides (Codex Vindobonensis), and it has been argued that
272
M. Eleanor Irwin
the best of the illustrations in this manuscript were copied from Crateuas (Singer 1927,
17). Pliny said that Crateuas (and two other writers, Dionysius and Metrodorus) added
illustrations of plants to their work. However, Pliny (NH 25.4) was critical of the illustrations because of the difficulty in producing colors true to nature, the inaccuracy of the
artists in their depictions, and of illustrations showing plants at one season only, while a
plant changes its appearance from season to season. In spite of Pliny’s caveat, the style of
illustrating botanical texts has been a useful tool in identifying plants. In particular, the
concern about a plant’s changing appearance with the seasons is overcome by showing
bud, flower, and seed. Crateuas was a source for both Dioscorides and Pliny.
Two poets during this period displayed an interest in botany in different ways. Nicander
of Colophon borrowed material for his poems on medicinal plants and poisons (Theriaca
and Alexipharmaca) from the Alexipharmaca of Apollodorus (third century bce), who in
turn had used material from the Rhizotomicon of Diocles of Carystus. Gow and Scholfield
are critical of the botanical information in Nicander (1953/1977, 8, 23–25) and of
the illustrated manuscript with labeled drawings (appendix 1, 222–223). Nicander also
composed a poem on farming, Georgica, the longest fragment of which treats gardens
and flowers (f74: Gow and Scholfield 209). The descriptions are either too general
to be of use (e.g., campion [lychnis: fragment 74.36] has flowers of “dazzling hue”) or
oblique (e.g., cyclamen is “modest:” fragment 74.71, where Gow and Scholfield see a
possible reference to its reflexed petals).
Another poet, Theocritus (born 310 bce), named an astonishing 87 plants in his
Idylls and demonstrated an unusual accuracy in his descriptions. He was careful to locate
plants in an appropriate habitat: plane trees beside water, oak and cedar on mountains,
and plants of the maquis in the foothills (Lindsell 1937/2000, 67–68). His descriptions
suggest that he had examined plants closely: the poppy is not just red, it is “soft;” celery
is not just green but “much twisted …. very descriptive of the frilly leaves of the celery”
(Lindsell 1937/2000, 66). Raven’s assertion (2000, 26) that “Theocritus possessed an
interest in and a knowledge of wild plants without precedent in the whole range of early
Greek literature” is supported by examining the plants which Theocritus placed near
the pool into which nymphs dragged Hylas (Idyll 13). Raven argues that each plant is
right for the habitat and that the adjective which describes each is botanically precise:
particularly dark celandine (to distinguish it from the greater lighter colored celandine)
and creeping grass to capture its habit of rooting as it creeps (Raven 2000, 25–26).
Raven agrees with the proposal made by Lindsell (1937/2000, 66) that the knowledge
of plants may have come to Theocritus from Theophrastus himself.
5. Dioscorides
We know little of Pedanius Dioscorides’ life beyond what he told us in the letter addressed to his teacher and colleague Areius of Tarsus in Cilicia which prefaces his De
Materia Medica. Born in the first century ce in Anarzarbus near Tarsus, Dioscorides was
a medical practitioner. He wrote of his “soldier’s life” (stratioticon ton bion, preface 4),
leading some scholars to conclude that he was an army doctor, and others that he referred to the hardships and discipline of his life rather than his occupation (Riddle 1985,
4; Scarborough in Beck 2005, xvi; see also Pharmacy). Dioscorides claimed to have
made “personal observation in utmost detail” of most of the items included in his work
Greek and Roman Botany
273
(Beck 2005, 3, preface 5). He apparently traveled widely in the Mediterranean, visiting
Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece and the islands, and Greek communities in
Sicily, southern Italy, and southern Gaul (Riddle 1985, 3).
De Materia Medica
Dioscorides included about 600 plants as well as minerals and living creatures in his five‐
volume book on medicinal material; its Greek name, Peri Hyles Iiatrices, was translated
into Latin as De Materia Medica, the name by which this work is usually known. We shall
concentrate on Dioscorides’ plant entries. Book one treats plants often characterized by
smell or taste: aromatics, oils, unguents, saps, resins, gums, asphalt, pitch, evergreens, and
fruit trees. In the second book, after discussing animals used for medicine, Dioscorides
described cereals, vegetables, and pungent (sharp) herbs. In book three, he included
roots, plant extracts, herbs, and seeds. Roots are continued with herbs in book four. Vine,
vine products, and minerals are described in book five.
Explicitly rejecting the alphabetical ordering of his predecessors, Dioscorides organized
material instead according to “properties.” For example, iris (1.1), akoron (1.2), and others
which follow are “warming;” onion (2.151), garlic (2.152), garlic leek (2.153), mustard
(2.154), and garden cress (2.155) all have “sharp” properties. Dioscorides intended this
grouping of medical materials with similar properties to assist physicians looking for
treatments; if a particular substance was unavailable, material with a similar property
could be substituted. But in spite of Dioscorides’ explanation in his preface, the earliest
surviving manuscripts reorganized the material in alphabetical order (Riddle 1985, 25).
To judge from papyrus fragments, previous pharmacologists had discussed plants one
at a time. Some, at least, illustrated their manuscripts to assist in identifying plants.
Most famous was Crateuas, whose work is known largely because some of his entries were added to Dioscorides’ manuscripts (see above, §4). Like his predecessors,
Dioscorides had a separate entry for each plant. Some plants are described fully, whereas
others are simply named. When Dioscorides commented on certain plants as “well‐
known”/“familiar” (gnorimos), he gave little or no description (e.g., 1.96: papyrus).
Whether he illustrated his work is not certain. Riddle (1985, 28) argues that without
illustrations Dioscorides’ descriptions would have been insufficient for identification.
Scarborough (2008) is inclined to think that the text was not illustrated and that the
plants not described in detail would have been well known. Illustrations, nonetheless,
were included in later copies, and the style of entry and illustration became a model for
later botanists. Dioscorides treated each plant entry in a standard order. A typical entry
includes the plant name followed by synonyms; the habitat where the plant grew, for example, woods, plain, mountain, and riverbank; a botanical description; medical uses; and
any geographical locations where the best specimens were found (Riddle 1985, 25–26).
Not all components were given for every plant.
Let us compare the entry on hyssop (Satyreia graeca L. = Micromeria graeca Benth.)
with the one on Achilles’ woundwort (Achillea millefolium). The entry on hyssop (3.25)
is brief. Dioscorides wrote simply that it is “well‐known” (gnorimos) and that there are
two kinds, “for one grows on mountains and the other in gardens; the best grows in
Cilicia” (Beck 2005, 190–191). In contrast, he described Achilles’ woundwort at great
length (4.36), including a synonym sideritis which was also the name in the previous
three entries (4.33–35):
274
M. Eleanor Irwin
[Achilles’ woundwort] bears shoots that are a span long or even longer, spindle‐shaped,
and surrounded by thin little leaves that have frequent slits at the sides; they resemble the
leaves of coriander, they are somewhat bitter, slimy, strong‐smelling, not unpleasant, but
medicinal in scent. On top it has a rounded flower‐head. The flowers are white, becoming
later golden. It grows on fertile lands. (Beck 2005, 263–264)
The description captures in detail, even to the smell, the plant we know as yarrow.
Whereas Theophrastus discussed the individual parts of many plants but did not give
a complete description of any particular plant in one place, Dioscorides treated whole
plants individually. He did on occasion compare a part of one plant to the same of
another, as in the example of Achilles’ woundwort, whose leaves were compared to
those of coriander.
Dioscorides’ Sources
In his preface, Dioscorides explained why his own work was necessary by identifying the
shortcomings of his pharmacological predecessors, whom he cited by name. Iollas of
Bithynia and Heraclides of Tarentum (preface 1–2) did not cover the subject adequately,
while Crateuas the root‐cutter and Andreas the physician neglected to include many
“highly serviceable” roots and certain herbs. Dioscorides acknowledged the accuracy of
these last‐named writers while being critical of more recent authorities, Julius Bassus,
Niceratus, Petronius, Niger, and Diodotus, followers of the physician Asclepiades, who
treated diseases with diet rather than medicines (preface 2, Beck 2005, 2). Pliny, too,
named almost all these writers among his sources; Niger is Pliny’s Sextius Niger, and
many similarities between Dioscorides and Pliny have been attributed to their common
use of Sextius Niger and other sources.
Dioscorides’ Reputation and Legacy
Dioscorides’ work was translated into Arabic, Syriac, and Latin, and it remained the standard
authority in Europe until the sixteenth century. Even later, he was a reference for botanists
like Sibthorp who, between 1786 and 1795, traveled in the Mediterranean area, gathering
samples for his Flora Europaea. The manuscript tradition is complicated because, as early as
the third century ce, the entries were reorganized alphabetically and copyists inserted synonyms for plant names and notes on various plants (Scarborough in Beck 2005, xviii–xix).
The rather quaint English translation by John Goodyer (1655) with modifications by
Robert T. Gunther (1933) did not help Greekless readers wishing to consult Dioscorides.
Beck’s English translation (2005), based on the Greek text and employing recent scholarly work and modern botany, will make De Materia Medica more accessible in a more
accurate rendition.
A study of Dioscorides must take account of the famous and much‐admired manuscript of De Materia Medica presented to Anicia Juliana in 512 CE (Mazal 1998). In this
codex, now in Vienna (Med. Gr. 1), each plant entry is accompanied by an illustration,
some excellent (e.g., Aristolochia sempervirens, folio 17v, Riddle 1985, 185), and others
neither accurate nor artistic.
Greek and Roman Botany
275
6. Transition to the Roman World
The Greeks were often interested in plants for their medicinal uses, and many of those
who wrote on plants paid particular attention to medicinal plants (e.g., Theophrastus,
HP 9; Dioscorides, Materia Medica). For the Romans, the study of plants was often
directed to agriculture. Three Roman prose authors, Cato the Elder, Varro, and Pliny’s
contemporary Columella, advised farmers on how to be successful in raising plants and
animals for food. In the case of plants, Roman authors wrote about choosing good locations for planting crops, fertilizing, and shaping fruit trees through pruning and grafting.
They emphasized the importance of agriculture and the fertility of Italy, and ordinarily
they did not describe plants except in discussing varieties of olives, vines, and fruit trees
(Greek and Roman Agriculture).
The poet Vergil was also interested in agricultural plants. He drew on Theophrastus
and Varro as sources for his Georgics, a poem on farming. In Georgics 2, Vergil
described methods of grafting and the care of vines and olive trees. (Some of his
grafting examples would not have been successful because the graft did not belong
to the same botanical family as the rootstock: Sargeaunt 1920, 4; Thomas 1988,
2.19–21, 161.) In Vergil’s total poetic output, we find the names of about 80 plants
(Sargeaunt 1920), though some seem to have been mere names, borrowed from
Greek poets, rather than plants known to the poet. One plant, however, amellus
(Georgics 4. 271), has been admired for the botanical precision of its description
(Martyn 1811, x, 449; Sargeaunt 1920, 14–16). The poet, who learned the name
of the plant from farmers, distinguished the golden disk (flos … aureus ipse) from
the surrounding ray florets (folia) in which purple shines beneath dark violet (violae
sublucet purpura nigrae). With a touch of humor, Vergil says the plant sends up a
vast forest (ingens silva) from a single root clump or stool (caespes). Its bitter flavor,
as well as its use for sick bees, indicates a direct experience with the plant which we
can identify with confidence as Aster amellus L., the European Michaelmas daisy, a
member of the Compositae family.
Pliny’s contemporary Columella used Cato, Varro, and Vergil in his work on agriculture, in which he discussed soils, viticulture, fruits, and olive trees, as well as farm animals
and beekeeping. His tenth book on gardens and flowers was written in hexameters, in
homage to Vergil and to satisfy a perceived lack because Vergil did not include garden
flowers in the Georgics.
From these works, we can appreciate what Romans knew about native plants, especially
agricultural plants, but it is to be noted that foreign plants usually remained nothing
more than names. Pliny’s Natural History differs from these agricultural works because
he included reports of exotic plants, the descriptions of which he garnered from his reading in both Greek and Latin, as well as plants that he had observed first hand in Spain,
Africa, and Germany.
Pliny chose to include material on animals, plants, minerals, and art in NH (Scientific Encyclopedias). Pliny’s list of topics by book in NH 1 may have encouraged his
readers to go directly to a topic of interest, bypassing others, but this method loses the
characteristic Plinian flavor of information mixed with anecdote (Murphy 2004; Doody
2010, 30).
276
M. Eleanor Irwin
7. Pliny the Elder
Pliny the Elder was not a philosopher like Theophrastus, nor a physician like Dioscorides. His interest in plants was not part of his professional life but rather arose from a
general and lively interest in the world in which he lived. He was more familiar with the
western Empire than the eastern, having served in his twenties in the Roman army in
Germany, where he met the future emperor Vespasian and his son Titus. Pliny served
in Africa, became procurator in Spain, and accepted a naval commission and charge
over the fleet at Misenum on the Bay of Naples. It was in that capacity that he observed
the eruption of Vesuvius in August 79 ce and lost his life. Years later, his nephew Pliny
the Younger described how his uncle was proposing to make a closer examination of the
cloud of volcanic ash that was shaped like an umbrella pine. When he received a letter
asking for help, the Elder Pliny sent the fleet to rescue the stranded inhabitants (NH
6.16). Curiosity seems to have been a characteristic of Pliny, but so too was the desire
to serve.
We know rather a lot about Pliny’s methods because of a letter written by this same
nephew (3.5). Rising while it was still dark, his uncle worked into the evening; slaves
read to him as he ate, bathed, and was carried in a litter. Pliny dictated passages—which
he found interesting or relevant—to be incorporated into his writings. As he dictated,
he apparently translated into Latin many of the Greek passages read by his slaves. His
method of note‐taking was well known, for his nephew records that he was offered a
large sum of money for his notes, an offer he rejected.
Dedicating NH to Titus, Pliny included a list of the topics so that Titus would be able
to find what interested him without needing to read through the whole work. Familiar
with many authors now lost to us, Pliny scrupulously acknowledged his sources, including, for his botanical sections, both pharmacological and agricultural writers, poets like
Homer and Hesiod, and contemporary figures like the future emperor Domitian, as well
as philosophers like Theophrastus, and his Roman predecessors Cato, Varro, and Vergil.
Pliny also credited Sextius Niger (who wrote in Greek in spite of his Roman name: NH
12, 13, 20, 21–30, 32–34), Nicander (NH 20, 21, 22, 26), Solon of Smyrna (NH 20,
24, 25), Crateuas (NH 24, 25), Cornelius Celsus (NH 27), and many others. Pliny’s
work, therefore, differs from Theophrastus’ and Dioscorides’ in being mostly material
gleaned from others rather than first‐hand experience, though Pliny confirmed his data
when possible.
Pliny called his work Naturalis Historia, recalling Theophrastus’ title Historia
Plantarum. Though NH is commonly translated Natural History, it might be better
translated Enquiry into Nature or, as Murphy (2004, 33) suggests, tongue in cheek,
Enquiry into Everything, because, as Pliny said, “nature, that is, life, is my subject”
(preface 13).
Of the 37 books in NH, books 12–27 deal with plants. Like Theophrastus, Pliny
began with trees: an overview of trees throughout the Empire (12), trees outside Italy
(13), fruit trees (14–15), forest trees (16), and cultivated trees (17). He then discussed
crops, grains, and gardens (18–19), medicinal plants (20), flowers for garlands (21),
herbs and dye plants (22), and trees with medicinal uses (23–24), with a discussion of
the value of plants (25), medicines by classes and diseases (26), and some remaining
plants and medicines (27).
Greek and Roman Botany
277
While Pliny at times provided seriatim entries on individual plants, he interrupted
the encyclopedic flow with tales of strange plants and people associated with plants. For
example, in his discussion of flowers for garlands, Pliny described the history of wreaths,
then some individual flowers (rose, lily, narcissus, violet, and others), turning next to
plant fragrance and color. After discussing several more plants, he described wreaths
made of a variety of plant material, especially leaves. He provided a sequential bloom
calendar of wreath plants from spring to autumn, ending with a digression on bees and
honey. After discussing garden plants, he turned to wild plants, prickly plants, plants
with flowering spikes, and medicinal plants. And he finally then returned to the rose,
lily, narcissus, and violet. In the midst of his discussion of wreath plants, Pliny related an
anecdote about Cleopatra VII, who secretly dipped flowers into poison and then suggested that her revelers “drink their wreaths” by throwing the flowers into their wine.
The queen brought in a prisoner, who drank the poisoned wine and died (NH 21.9).
Pliny described the dangers of the Pisidian iris (which raises blisters on the hands of
those who gather it: NH 21.19) and the usefulness of cnecus (an Egyptian plant, which
protects those who hold it from venomous snakes and scorpions: NH 21.57). Reading
only the entry on one plant as one would do if using NH as an encyclopedia, the reader
misses the narrative flow. Reading the whole book, the reader is carried along and, I dare
say, entertained.
Pliny was not a scientist, and his methodology indicates that he did not see himself
as an original thinker. It would be easy to denigrate Pliny’s accomplishment in NH and
to dismiss him as a mere collector of information, credulous, and naïve. But, though he
learned from books and was scrupulous in acknowledging his debt, he also kept his eyes
open. He added notes about places in the Empire where plants grew. He spent years in
Africa, Germany, and Spain, so when he wrote of German asparagus (NH 19.145), or
beans on islands on the North Sea (NH 18.121), or crops planted in the shade of trees
in Africa (NH 17.41), he was adding information from autopsy. He criticized other
writers for not describing the plants they were writing about and recounted how he
acquainted himself with almost all the plants in NH by visiting the garden of Antonius
Castor (NH 25.5, 9), where he saw most of the plants he mentioned. This garden must
have been a remarkable place, for Pliny says that Castor tended “vast numbers” of plants
until he passed the one hundredth year of his age.
Pliny’s Reputation and Legacy
Although Pliny was highly regarded up to the eighteenth century, his reputation dipped
in the nineteenth century: he had made mistakes in material gleaned, for example, from
Theophrastus; he had shown poor judgment in including unbelievable material; and he
was not a field botanist but a mere compiler.
Pliny also has his defenders. André (1955) explains some botanical errors in Pliny’s
texts as the result of oral transmission of information from reader to Pliny to his secretary. Stannard (1965) points out that Pliny is valuable for tracing the development of
botany and calls attention to Pliny’s own contributions with particular admiration for
his entry on the lily, which surpasses that of Dioscorides (21.23; cf. Morton 1986, 94).
More recent work has begun to consider Pliny’s work as a whole rather than individual
entries. Beagon (1992, 79–91) emphasizes that in the botanical books Pliny saw human
278
M. Eleanor Irwin
activity in partnership with nature, for example, in gardening and grafting. Pointing out
Pliny’s diligence in consulting so many authors, non‐Roman (Healy 1999, 327) and
Roman (1999, 146), Healy defends Pliny’s inclusion of anything which might be useful to his readers, even the marvelous (1999, 77, 64). Murphy (2004, 23) argues that
plants are part of Pliny’s definition of the Roman world, with different plants mapping
the extent of the Empire. Tracing the reception of and changing attitude to Pliny’s NH,
Doody (2010, 11–14) argues for rethinking the term encyclopedia for Pliny’s work.
Pliny’s NH remained accessible without interruption in western Europe and was
consulted by those interested in botany. Subsequent writers were largely derivative, for
example, Medicina Plinii, which reissued Pliny’s material on medicinal plants in the
fourth century ce as a separate work.
8. Conclusion
The need to identify plants and to understand factors influencing their growth developed
from their medical and economic use. Plants which received attention were in the broadest sense “useful,” and for this reason they had names and were described and differentiated from similar plants. Theophrastus built on the knowledge of plants acquired by
those who needed and used them, but he did not simply gather information; he reached
a definition of “plant,” described the parts of plants with their habit of growth, and
considered the effect of climate, rain, and altitude on plants. Theophrastus laid a foundation by developing a vocabulary to describe plants and by raising questions about the
way human action could improve on nature and the limits of that improvement. Later
writers moved from the big picture to concentrate on individual plants. Dioscorides
described individual medicinal plants with their properties without any general discussions of plants. Pliny gathered material and anecdotes from many authors and sources,
but he too was interested in individual plants rather than wider questions. In the period
covered by this study, Theophrastus was the giant on whose shoulders later writers stood.
References
André, J. 1955. “Pline l’ancien botaniste.” REL 33: 297–318.
Amigues, S. 1998. “Problemes de composition et de classification dans l’Historia Plantarum de
Theophraste.” In Theophrastus. Reappraising the Sources, edited by J. M. Van Ophuijsen, and
M. van Raalte, 191–202. RUSCH VIII.
Amigues, S. 1988, 1989, 1993, 2003, 2006. Théophraste: Recherches sur les Plantes. 5 volumes.
Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Beagon, M. 1992. Roman Nature: The Thought of Pliny the Elder. Oxford Classical Monographs.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beck, L. Y., trans. 2005. Pedanius Dioscorides of Anarzarbus: De Materia Medica. Hildesheim:
Olms‐Weidmann. With an introduction by John Scarborough: xiii–xxi.
Doody, A. 2010. Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Einarson, B. and G. K. K. Link. 1976, 1990. Theophrastus: De Causis Plantarum. 3 volumes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Greek and Roman Botany
279
Fée, A. L. A. 1822. Flore de Virgile. Paris: Ehrmann.
Fée, A. L. A. 1832. Flore de Théocrite et des autres bucoliques Grecs. Paris: Didot.
Fortenbaugh, W. W. and D. Gutas. 1992. Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings,
Thought and Influence. Part 2: Psychology, Human Physiology, Living Creatures, Botany, Ethics,
Religion, Politics, Rhetoric and Poetics, Music, Miscellanea. Leiden: Brill.
Goodyer, J. 1959. The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides, Englished by John Goodyer A. D. 1655, edited
by R. T. Gunther (1933). New York: Hafner.
Gow, A. S. and A. F. S. Scholfield. 1953/1997. Nicander: The Poems and Poetical Fragments.
London: Bristol Classical Press.
Greene, E. L., F. N. Egerton, R. P. McIntosh, and R. McVaugh, eds. 1909/1983. Landmarks of
Botanical History. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Healy, J. F. 1999. Pliny the Elder on Science and Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hort, A. F., trans. 1916. Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants: Books 1–5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Hort, A. F. 1926. Enquiry into Plants: Books 6–9; and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Irwin, M. E. 2003. “Venturing Where Vine and Olive Don’t Grow: Diet and Cultural Diversity.”
In Frogs around the Pond: Cultural Diversity in the Ancient World: Selected Papers presented at
the Joint CACW/CAPN Conference in Victoria, BC, in March 2000, edited by L. Bowman and
I. Holmberg, 83–99. Syllecta Classica 14.
Lindsell, A. 1937. “Was Theocritus a Botanist?” G&R 6: 78–93. Reprinted in J. E. Raven, ed.
2000. Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece, 65–75. Oxford: Leopard’s Head.
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1996. Aristotelian Explorations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martyn, J. 1811. The Georgicks of Virgil with an English Translation and Notes. 3rd edition. London:
Dutton.
Mazal, O. 1998. Der Wiener Dioskurides: Codex Medicus Graecus 1 der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Graz: Akademische Druck u. Verlagsanstalt.
Mejer, J. 1998. “A Life in Fragments: The Vita Theophrasti.” In Theophrastus. Reappraising the
Sources, edited by J. M. Van Ophuijsen and M. van Raalte, 1–28. RUSCH VIII.
Morton, A. G. 1986. “Pliny on Plants: His place in the History of Botany.” In Science in the
Early Roman Empire: Pliny the Elder, His Sources and Influence, edited by R. K. French and
F. Greenaway, 86–97. London: Croom Helm.
Murphy, T. 2004. Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Raven, J. E. 2000. Plants and Plant Lore in Ancient Greece. Oxford: Leopard’s Head.
Riddle, J. M. 1985. Dioscorides on Pharmacy and Medicine. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Sargeaunt, J. 1920. The Trees, Shrubs and Plants of Virgil. Oxford: Blackwell.
Scarborough, J. and V. Nutton. 1982. “The Preface of Dioscorides’ Materia Medica: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary.” Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of
Philadelphia 4: 187–227.
Scarborough, J. 2008. “Dioscorides.” EANS 271–273.
Singer, C. 1927. “The Herbal in Antiquity and Its Transmission to Later Ages.” JHS 47: 1–52.
Stannard, J. 1965. “Pliny and Roman Botany.” Isis 56: 420–425.
Strid, A. and K. Tan, eds. 1997–. Flora Hellenica. 2 volumes (to be published in 10 volumes).
Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.
Thomas, R. F. 1988. Virgil. Georgics. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Ophuijsen, J. M. and M. van Raalte, eds. 1998. Theophrastus. Reappraising the Sources.
RUSCH VIII.
280
M. Eleanor Irwin
Further Reading
André, J. 1985. Les noms de plantes dans la Rome antique. Paris. Les Belles Lettres. A
lexicon of all the plant names in Latin literature with literary references and identifications and an extensive bibliography.
Aufmesser, M. 2000. Etymologische und Wortgeschichtliche Erläuterungen zu “De Materia Medica” des Pedanius Dioscurides Anazarbeus. Hildesheim: Olms‐Weidmann. Plant
names in Dioscorides with notes on etymology, identification, and synonyms, organized
according to their occurrence in each of the five books of De Materia Medica with an
alphabetical index.
Sharples, R. W., ed. 1995. Theophrastus of Eresus. Commentary v. 5. Leiden: Brill. To accompany secondary sources on biology, human physiology, living creatures, and botany.
Sibthorp, J. and J. E. Smith. 1806–1840. Flora Graeca sive Plantarum rariorum Historia,
quas in provinciis aut insulis Graeciae legit, investigavit et depingi curavit Johannes Sibthorp.
10 volumes. With illustrations by Ferdinand Bauer. Volumes 8–10: Elaboravit Johannes
Lindley. London: Ricardi Taylor et Socii. A grand production of 10 folio volumes of
almost 1000 plants identified by the nineteenth‐century botanist Sibthorp in his travels
in the Greek world, illustrated by the artist Bauer who accompanied him on his travels.
Sprague, R. K. 1991. “Plants as Aristotelian Substances.” ICS 16: 221–229. A survey
connecting Aristotle’s identification of plants as substances with his philosophical concepts.