| XXX | (653) | XXX |
B O T are obliged to have recourfe to the unpardonable impropriety of employing a double analogy, the one betwixt the animal and vegetable, the other betwixt two different tribes of vegetables. In order to account for the propagation of the mufci, fungi, and, in a word, the whole cryptogamia clafs, whofe parts of generation are either wanting altogether, or invilible to our eye-fight, Linnreus maintains, that, this circumftance notwithftanding* they propagate their fpeciesby a regular and uniform commerce of fexes. “ As it has been proven (fays he) that all thofe plants whofe organs of generations are vifible, propagate their fpecies by, male and female embraces ; therefore all thofe whofe organs are lefs fubjedt to our obfervation, muft likewife propagate in the fame way.” Before fuch reafoning as this can admit even of a decent apology, before the fexualifis attempt to Ihew that fuch plants enjoy the faculty of generation, it is incumbent on them to prove that they are pofl'effed of generating organs. According to the dodtrine of fexes in vegetables, an* other capital defedl, or rather redundance, occurs in the analogy between the animal and vegetable. It is one of the mofl: benevolent and ufeful laws in nature, that mules, or fuch animals as are produced by the unnatural commixtures of two different kinds, are deprived of the capacity of propagating their monjlrout fpecies. It is true, Linnaeus’s mules are not obliged to comply with this law; they are not animal but vegetable mutes ; and confeijuently may freely tranfmit their monjirous iffue to pofterity! As they are not objedts of rewards or puniihments, they cannot be anfwefable for the horrid confequences of turning the whole vegetable world into confulion, and covering the face of the earth with monfters horrible to behold! It is a trite obfervation, that no fault is more common among bad writers than to render their arguments ridiculous by hunting down metaphors or analogies till every jfhadow of refemblahce be loft. It is equally true, that this blunder occurs in almoft every page of Linnseus’s works. But it is peculiarly unlucky when an analogy is of fuch a nature that it neceffarily runs into obfeenity when treated in this manner. In purfuing a fexual analogy, the utmoft delicacy of exprellion is required. This however is exceedingly difficult,- efpecially when the analogy is puffied beyond its natural limits. But, in perufing the Sponfalia Plantarum, one would be tempted to think, that the author had more reafons than one for reliffiing this analogy fo highly. In many parts of this treatife, there is fuch a degree of indelicacy in the expreffion as cannot be exceeded by the moft obfeene romance-writer. For example, in p. 103. he fays, “ The “ calix is the bride-chamber in which the ftamina and “ piftilla folemnize their nuptials;” “ Vel, fi mavis “ CUNNUS, feu Labia ejufdem, inter .quae organa “ genitalia mafeulina & feminina, delicatiffima: iftae partes, “ foventur & ab externis injuriis muniuntur !—Corolla “ eft aulxum, vel potius nympho:!—Filamenta funt vafa “ fpermatica, quibus fuccus ex planta fecretus in an“ theras transfertur !—Antherx funt Testiculi.,— “ Pollen, feu pulvis amherarum, genitura & verrniculis
- feminaiibus refpondet.—Stigma eft vulva,, in qua
Vol. I. No. 28. 3
ANY. 655 “ agit marls, quaeque hanc excipit.—Stylus A “ vagina, vel potius pars ilia qua; tuba: Fallopian# re“ fpondet.r—Germen eft ovarium; continet etiam femin t “ fubventanea feu non fcecundata ante copulam—Peri“ carpium & ovarium Jxcundatusn."—In p. 90, fee, we meet with virginea vulva lafeive hians—eejlra venerea “ agitata, pi/lillum jligmate hiat, rapacis instar “ draconis, nil nifi mafeulinum pulverem affedlatis.” fee. It is impoffible to do juftice to thefe expreffions in any tranflation. Befides the obfeenity of thefe paffages, it would be no difficult talk to ffiow that the analogies are entirely without foundation. The calix is made to reprefent no lefs than three things of very oppofite natures; firll, it is analogous to the chamber of the bride, then to. the female organ, and laft of alt to the Labia. What analogy is there betwixt the corolla of a plant and the nymph# of an animal ? Where is the analogy between the pollep and the animalcules in femine mafeulino ? &c. There is not any fcience which has fo little cenneftion with theory as botany. Theorjirmay perplex and coofound, but never can have the lead tendency to aflift the botanic ftudent. A man would not naturally expert to meet with difgufting ftrokes of obfeenity in a fyftem of botany. But it is a certain fart, that obfeenity is the very bafis of the Linnaean fyftem. The names of his claffes, orders, fee-, convey often the vileft and moft un.natural ideas. For example, diandria, the name of his fecond clafs, is thus explained by Linnaeus, “ mariti “ duo in eodem conjugio; feu ftamina duo in flore hermaphrodite;” /. e. one female married to tixio mates ; or tun Jlamina in a hermaphrodite flower. The number of males goes on increafing till the 13th clafs, the plants belonging to which are faid to have from 20 to 1000 hulbands to one wife !—-We might afk Linnaeus', where is the analogy in this fuppofition ? The fyngenefia clafs is thus defined by Linnaeus : “ Mariti genitalibus foeclus “ conftituerunc feu ftamina antheris in cylindrum coa“ hta;” e. the males have made a covenant with their tejles ; or the ftamina are united by the anther# in theform of a cylinder. The chararters of die orders are ftill worfe. Polygamia frufranea, the name of an order of the fyngenefia clafs, is thus defined: “ Fruftranea di“ citur, cum feminse maritatoe, fertiles funt, et fpsciem “ propagate queunt; caftratae, impregnari nequettnt.” Men or philofophers can fmile at the nonfepfe and abfurdityoffuch obfeene gibberilh ; but it is eafy to gUefs what efferts it may have upon the young and thoughdefs. But the bad tendency upon morals is not the only evil produced by the fexual theory. It has loaded the beft fyftem of botany that has hitherto been invented, with a profufion of foolifh and often unintelligible terms, which throw an obfeurity upon the fcience, obftrurt the progrefs qf the learner, and deter many from ever entering upon the ftudy. Upon the whole, we muft: conclude, that the diftinction of fexes among vegetables has no foundation in nature ; or, at lead, that the farts and arguments employed in fupport of this dortrine, when examined with any degree of philofophical accuracy, are totally infufficient to eftabliih it. 8C BOTAR-
