Behind the Green Door j 389389 389
Would the Creator, Siegesbeck asked rhetorically, allow twenty or more men (stamens)
to share a single wife (pistil) or to sanction the practice of keeping adjacent female flowers
as their concubines? Ignoring the many instances of polygamy in the Bible, Siegesbeck then
answered his own question with the thunderous quote at the beginning of this section: God
would never allow such “a shameful whoredom!”
Amman sent Linnaeus a copy of Siegesbeck’s polemic in January of 1738. At first Linnaeus
refused to dignify it with a response. There was no point arguing with him, he said, because
Siegesbeck did not understand scientific evidence. Writing to Albrecht von Haller, he swore
that Siegesbeck would “never provoke an angry word from him, though he poured thou-
sands on Linnaeus’ blessed head.” But when he returned to Sweden from Holland in 1738
he was dismayed to discover that he had become the laughingstock of Stockholm. His own
countrymen believed that his sexual system had been annihilated by Siegesbeck— on theo-
logical grounds! He was treated like a pariah and even had trouble finding anyone willing to
work for him as a servant. Clearly, he had underestimated the role that religion would play
in the acceptance of his system.
Vowing never to engage Siegesbeck personally, he approached Carl- Fredrik Mennander,
the future archbishop of Uppsala, and Johan Browallius, the future archbishop of Åbo,
both of whom were physicists as well as theologians, to ask them if they would be willing to
defend him against Siegesbeck’s charges. Linnaeus was hoping an appeal to their Swedish
national pride would induce them to neutralize a particularly nasty German critic. In 1739,
Browallius answered the call. He published a response to Siegesbeck in which he stated
that there was no fundamental conflict between the account of the Creation in Genesis
and Linnaeus’s sexual system of classification. Morality, stated Browallius, refers to the
laws given by God to humanity. In nature, there are other laws, also sanctioned by God,
which cannot be classified as either moral or immoral. Plants reproduced just as Linnaeus
described, and there was nothing lewd or obscene about it. Just as monogamy is appropriate
for people, polygamy is often called for in plants and animals. For example, both quadru-
peds and birds are often polygynous, otherwise farmers would have to keep as many cocks as
hens. It could also be said that bees practice polyandry, since one Queen is served by many
males. Siegesbeck’s criticism of Linnaeus was thus absurd and must be completely rejected.^27
In the end, Browallius’s paper had its intended effect, rehabilitating Linnaeus’s image in the
eyes of his fellow Swedes. In return, Linnaeus named the genus Browallia, sometimes called
the amethyst flower or sapphire flower because of the beauty of its blossoms, in his honor.
But Siegesbeck would not give up so easily. In 1741, he published yet another sharp-
tongued critique of Linnaeus entitled Vaniloquentiae botanicae specimen (Vainglorious
Botanical Specimen), in which he stated that when Linnaeus calls seeds ovaries and talks of
matrimony, happiness, and the loves of plants, he, Siegesbeck, can’t tell whether Linnaeus is
competing with botanists or with poets and orators. Linnaeus’s sexual system of classifica-
tion should properly be called “the lascivious system.” Polygamy may be sanctioned in the
Old Testament, but prostitution is not!
The antagonism between Linnaeus and Siegesbeck blossomed into an intense mutual
hatred during the 1740s. The situation was further exacerbated by a famous incident involv-
ing a packet of Siegesbeckia seeds, which sundered their relationship forever. There are two
versions of the story, so we will present both of them. According to one version, Linnaeus
had come across a stray packet of Siegesbeckia orientalis seeds and, in a fit of pique, relabeled
it Cuculus ingratus (Ungrateful cuckoo) and put it aside. In 1744, Count Sten Carl Bielke of