The Rebirth of Naturalism j 317317 317
flowers with specific anatomical structures. Like Aristotle, Zaluziansky believes that “male-
ness” is a nonmaterial “principle” of the plant that confers the ability “to do,” whereas
“femaleness” confers the ability “to bear.” In hermaphroditic plants, these two immate-
rial principles are “mixed.” Despite his awareness of artificial pollination in date palms,
Zaluziansky makes no mention of the role of pollen in the vast majority of flowers. Thus,
although his insights concerning seeds and buds are tantalizing, rather than being a fore-
runner of modern botany, Zaluziansky is perhaps best regarded as the last of the scholastic
botanists.Jean Ruel’s Pregnancy Model of the Flower
The sixteenth- century French botanist, Jean Ruel or Ruellius has been credited with being
the first botanist after Theophrastus to undertake a general treatise on botany.^60 In De
Natura Stirpium (1536), Ruel described plant reproduction using such anthropomorphic
terms as “conception,” “gestation,” and “parturition.” In addition, he referred to the embry-
onic plant inside the seed as the “fetus.” To account for “conception,” Ruel cited the impor-
tance of wind, which acts as the husband of the plant:Conception is the first thing in the order of nature, after the wind Favonius has begun
to blow; then in February all vegetal things are married to it. It is the procreative spirit
of the whole world. It blows from the equinoctial west, ushering in the springtime,
and all nature is in lively expectancy of conceiving seed; also, this [wind] breathes the
breath of life into seeds already in the ground. These are in the receptive state during
a greater or less number of days, according to their different natures, remaining preg-
nant, some for a longer, others for a shorter period, before bringing forth. ... This, in
the case with trees, is called germination. The parturition of these is in their flower-
ing; the flower, consisting of little disrupted wombs; and coming forth from these are
the fruits, to be nourished and brought to maturity.^61Note that the Roman god of wind Favonius not only causes the plants to become “preg-
nant,” but also stimulates the seeds in the ground to germinate. E. L. Greene comments that
the sexual metaphors Ruel employed in this passage indicate that he regarded plant repro-
duction as a sexual process, even if the male fecundating factor was erroneously identified
as wind. This Neoclassical conceit is not so very different from the way Christians imagined
Mary’s conception as pictured in the countless paintings of the Annunciation, in which a
dove represents the Holy Spirit and Mary’s purity is symbolized by a lily. In both cases, the
process is sexual because it requires two partners: neither flowers nor Mary can conceive on
their own. In the words of E. L. Greene:Such figures of speech could not fail to express and promulgate the idea of the femi-
ninity of all trees and shrubs in general. In the realm of animal life it was plainly
otherwise. Here it was necessary to procreation that there be a conjunction of
two individuals of opposite sex; for neither in the times of Pliny nor in the days of
Ruel was anything known of parthenogenesis in the animal kingdom. It could