Flora Unveiled

Idealism and Asexualism j 455

455 455

seen in the absence of sexual dimorphism in plants. Thus, Hegel concluded that the “seed

which is produced in a fruit is a superfluity.”

The only nineteenth- century asexualist to criticize Koelreuter’s experiments in any

detail was Schelver’s student, A. W. Henschell. Early in Henschell’s 600- page treatise On

the Sexuality of Plants, he stated that the sexual theory had attained the status of conven-

tional wisdom. He then undertook a detailed analysis of Koelreuter’s hybridization experi-

ments and offered an alternative explanation for his results. Koelreuter, Schelver argued,

had based his evidence for the sexual theory on the observation that different species or

varieties of plants could form hybrids that had intermediate phenotypes between those of

the two parents. However, Henschell pointed out, unlike hybrids in the animal kingdom,

which are sterile, many of Koelreuter’s hybrids, especially those between Dianthus species,

displayed variable degrees of fertility, raising the question of whether or not Koelreuter’s

putative hybrids were true hybrids:

Have plant hybrids the essential qualities of animal hybrids? Infertility with its own

kind and with other species is reckoned as the principal quality of animal hybrids.

Only Koelreuter speaks of hybrids which did not entirely possess this quality. Some

fruit formation took place on hybrids which had been dusted with paternal or mater-

nal pollen or with their own pollen.

Henschell offered an alternative explanation for the differences in phenotype Koelreuter

observed between parents and offspring in such apparent hybrids. Because he grew his plants

in cramped pots, Henschell explained, the roots were probably damaged, which would cause

the plant to develop abnormally. Henschell also noted that Koelreuter routinely “castrated”

the “maternal” parent in his crosses, which would further injure the plant and lead to abnor-

mal growth. Finally, the stigmas of the “maternal” parent were dusted with alien pollen, which

was contrary to Nature and therefore likely to sicken the plant. All of these disturbances

would be expected to reduce fertility and bring about the production of “monsters,” which

could easily account for the phenotypic deviations observed between parents and offspring.^76

Henschell’s concluding argument was based on what seemed like common sense: since

pollen was only a tiny part of the plant, it couldn’t possibly transmit the whole form of the

plant to the embryo. Instead Henschell endorsed the theory of his mentor, Schelver:  the

release of pollen represents the progressive removal of base matter from the spiritual essence

of the plant.

Death and Pollination: Goethe’s Final Equivocation

As we have seen, Goethe equated seed production with vegetative propagation (bud for-

mation), although he never explicitly repudiated the sexual theory. Thus Goethe seems to

have hedged his bets by representing himself both as an advocate of the sexual theory and

as a skeptic. Although he may have accepted the sexual theory as scientifically valid, he

felt powerfully attracted to Schelver’s alternative theory of pollination as spiritual refine-

ment. Schelver had redefined pollination as the “liberation from burdensome matter,”

which allows “the inherent abundance in the heart [pith/ medulla] of the plant, through the