Flora Unveiled

222 i Flora Unveiled

A difference common to all [trees] is the way in which people distinguish female and

male, of which the former are fruit- bearing and the latter are fruitless in some kinds

[of trees]. In other kinds both bear fruit but the female bears nicer fruit and more pro-

lifically, except that some people call these trees male. The distinction is analogous in

character to the way in which domestic and wild are differentiated.^36

Generally, the trees people call male are the unfruitful ones of a particular variety, and

of these they say some flower a lot, some a little, and some not at all. In contrast, in

some kinds [of trees] the males alone bear fruit.^37

And generally speaking, all those of any given kind which are called “male” trees are

without fruit. ... On the other hand they say that in some cases it is only the “males”

that bear fruit, but that, in spite of this, the trees grow from the flowers [of the female

tree], [just as in the case of fruit- bearing trees that grow from fruit].^38

Theophrastus’s attempts to understand sex in plants were made more challenging by the
long- standing practice among Greek farmers of gendering trees on the basis of their growth
habit and wood properties rather than on their floral structures.
According to historian Lin Foxhall, such ideas about gender in trees reflected prevailing
Greek gender biases:

Generally, male- gendered plants/ trees were believed to be wild, rough, dense, dry,

compact, knotty and ... often less fruitful or unfruitful (Theophr. Hist. Pl. 5.4 .1.).

Wood from male trees was inferior, being shorter, more twisted, easily warping

and difficult to work. Male plants were thought to need less good soils and grow-

ing conditions, and were generally perceived as more vigorous, tougher, and hardier.

(Theophr. Caus. Pl. 1.15.3– 4; 1.16.6). In contrast, female plants (of both fruiting and

non- fruiting varieties) were generally seen as more amenable in all senses (in many

cases, particularly, in terms of fruit production and wood working) (Theophr. Caus.

Pl. 1.15.3– 4). Essentially, they were felt to be more easily mastered and controlled by

humans. The qualities which defined plants as male made them ‘by nature’ difficult

to control.^39

Theophrastus himself never assigned sexes in plants based on wood properties or vegeta-
tive growth habits. Indeed, Theophrastus ultimately rejected the existence of sex in plants.
Yet in his discussion of the most favorable time for the grafting of trees Theophrastus adopted
the traditional custom of referring to spring budding in feminine terms as “pregnancy”:

The arguments in favor of each season are much like the arguments in favor of each

as a time for planting. Some persons recommend spring, the trees being still pregnant

at the time of the vernal equinox, since the graft in that case will sprout at the time of

pregnancy, and meanwhile the bark grows over the graft and encloses it.^40

Clearly, Theophrastus did not hesitate to use metaphors that reinforced the plants-
as- female gender bias. The closest he came to recognizing actual sex in plants occurred