Enquiry into Plants/Volume 1/Chapter 1

by Theophrastus

 

THEOPHRASTUS

ENQUIRY INTO PLANTS

BOOK I

 

THEOPHRASTUS

ENQUIRY INTO PLANTS

 

BOOK I

Of the Parts of Plants and their Composition. Of Classification.

Introductory: How plants are to he classified; difficulty of defining what are the essential 'parts' of a plant especially if plants are assumed to correspond to animals.

I. In considering the distinctive characters of plants and their nature generally one must take into account their^[1] parts, their qualities,^[2] the ways in which their life originates, and the course which it follows in each case: (conduct and activities we do not find in them, as we do in animals). Now the differences in the way in which their life originates, in their qualities and in their life-history are comparatively easy to observe and are simpler, while those shewn^[3] in their parts present more complexity. Indeed it has not even been satisfactorily determined what ought and what ought not to be called 'parts,' and some difficulty is involved in making the distinction.

Now it appears that by a 'part,' seeing that it is something which belongs to the plant's characteristic nature, we mean something which is permanent either absolutely or when once it has appeared (like those parts of animals which remain for a time undeveloped)—permanent, that is, unless it be lost by disease, age or mutilation. However some of the parts of plants are such that their existence is limited to a year, for instance, flower, 'catkin,'^[4] leaf, fruit, in fact all those parts which are antecedent to the fruit or else appear along with it. Also the new shoot itself must be included with these; for trees always make fresh growth every' year alike in the parts above ground and in those which pertain to the roots. So that if one sets these^[5] down as 'parts,' the number of parts will be indeterminate and constantly changing; if on the other hand these are not to be called 'parts,' the result will be that things which are essential if the plant is to reach its perfection, and which are its conspicuous features, are nevertheless not 'parts'; for any plant always appears to be, as indeed it is, more comely and more perfect when it makes new growth, blooms, and bears fruit. Such, we may say, are the difficulties involved in defining a 'part.'

But perhaps we should not expect to find in plants a complete correspondence with animals in regard to those things which concern reproduction any more than in other respects; and so we should reckon as 'parts' even those things to which the plant gives birth, for instance their fruits, although^[6] we do not so reckon the unborn young of animals. (However, if such^[7] a product seems fairest to the eye, because the plant is then in its prime, we can draw no inference from this in support of our argument, since even among animals those that are with young are at their best.^[8])

Again many plants shed their parts every year, even as stags shed their horns, birds which hibernate^[9] their feathers, four-footed beasts their hair: so that it is not strange that the parts of plants should not be permanent, especially as what thus occurs in animals and the shedding of leaves in plants are analogous processes.

In like manner the parts concerned with reproduction are not permanent in plants; for even in animals there are things which are separated from the parent when the young is born, and there are other things^[10] which are cleansed away, as though neither of these belonged to the animal’s essential nature. And so too it appears to be with the growth of plants; for of course growth leads up to reproduction as the completion of the process.^[11]

And in general, as we have said, we must not assume that in all respects there is complete correspondence between plants and animals. And that is why the number also of parts is indeterminate; for a plant has the power of growth in all its parts, inasmuch as it has life in all its parts. Wherefore we should assume the truth to be as I have said, not only in regard to the matters now before us, but in view also of those which will come before us presently; for it is waste of time to take great pains to make comparisons where that is impossible, and in so doing we may lose sight also of our proper subject of enquiry. The enquiry into plants, to put it generally, may either take account of the external parts and the form of the plant generally, or else of their internal parts: the latter method corresponds to the study of animals by dissection.

Further we must consider which parts belong to all plants alike, which are peculiar to some kind, and which of those which belong to all alike are themselves alike in all cases; for instance, leaves roots bark. And again, if in some cases analogy ought to be considered (for instance, an analogy presented by animals), we must keep this also in view; and in that case we must of course make the closest resemblances and the most perfectly developed examples our standard;^[12] and, finally, the ways in which the parts of plants are affected must be compared to the corresponding effects in the case of animals, so far as one can in any given case find an analogy for comparison. So let these definitions stand.

 

1. τὰ ins. Sch. om. Ald.H.
2. πάθν, a more general word than δυνάμεις, 'virtues': ef. 1. 5. 4.; 8. 4. 2.; it seems to be it seems to mean here something like 'behaviour,' in relation to environment. Instances of πάθν are given 4. 2. 11; 4. 14. 6.
3. ἔχουσι conj. H. ἔχουσαι W. with Ald.
4. i.e. the male inflorescence of some trees; the term is of course wider than 'catkin'.
5. i.e. flower, catkin, leaf, shoot.
6. οὐδὲ γὰρ: οὐδὲ seems to mean no more than οὐ (cf. neque enim = non enim); γὰρ refers back to the beginning of the §.
7. ἐν τῇ ὥρᾳ ὄψει τοῦτό γε I conj.; τῇ ὥρᾳ ὄψει τό γε vulg. W.; τοῦτο, i.e. flower or fruit.
8. εὐθενεῖ conj. Sch., εὐθετεῖ UMV Ald. i.e. we do not argue from the fact that animals are at their handsomest in the breeding season that the young is therefore ‘part’ of the animal.
9. Lit. ‘which are in holes,’ in allusion to the well-known belief that animals (especially birds) which are out of sight in the winter are hiding in holes; the text is supported by [Arist.] de plantis 1. 3, the author of which had evidently read this passage; but possibly some such words as τάς τε φολίδας καὶ have dropped out after φωλεύοντα.
10. i.e. the embryo is not the only thing derived from the parent animal which is not a ‘part’ of it; there is also the food-supply produced with the young, and the after-birth.
11. cf. C.P. 1. 11. 8.
12. A very obscure sentence; so W. renders the MSS, text.

Layout 2