OPPONENTS OF LINNAEUS. 
121 
soon made every sentiment of amity vanish. Even in the year 1737* 
his critical zeal brought forth a very violent pamphlet against Lin'- 
n^us, which contained few arguments, but a most copious deal of 
nonsense and ribaldry*. He combated in this work the New Sexual 
System of Linn m us in a manner peculiar to himself. Linn a us had 
maintained in this system — that in the animal as well as in the vege- 
table reign, there were frequently several males to one female: — 
plures mariti ; una Jxmina in eodem thalamo . — “ What man in the 
“world,” declaims Siegesbeck against this well-expressed propo- 
sition,— “ will ever believe that God Almighty should have introduced 
“ such confusion, or rather such shameful whoredom for the propagation 
<c of the reign of plants. Who would instrufi young students in such a 
« voluptuous system without scandal t?” 
Linn/e us having obtained a copy of this invidious produ&ion, com- 
plained of it in a letter to Haller, in the following satyrical ex- 
pressions: “ I wish to God, Siegeseeck had written those things be- 
« fore I published my first treatise ! I would then have learned in my 
k youth, what I must now learn in my manhood, namely, not to write, 
cc to hear others and be silent myself. What could induce me to be 
« SO foolish as to bestow so much time, so many days and nights upon 
« a science, to reap such fruits— to become after all the derision of the 
“ world! Siegesbeck affords no arguments; his whole book is one un- 
it interrpted strain of declamation. Whether I answer 01 am silent, 
» Botanosophi* Verier, s Sciographia ; cui accedit ob argument! analogiam Epicrisis in 
Linnari Systema Plantarum, &c. Pctrop. 4 to. 
+ Ecquis vero unquam credet, tales confusiones, vel si mavis scortationes quasi detestabiles 
in Regno Vegetabili ad propagationem a D. O. M esse subordinatas i Ecquis Methodum 
Salem laseivam studios* juventuti sine offensa poterit aperire i 
n « both 
