66 PUOC'KEiJlNGS OF THE 



no more at the College, and where it \\as gone no one knew. When 

 I A'isited the College in 189 J, the Srcretary showed me Eichhorn's 

 catalogue of the portraits in l heir ])ossession. Under Linnaeus by 

 Krafft, it was said that the piiinting had been lost and it was not 

 known where it now v^as. I afterwards, with the kindly help of 

 the late Baron Nordenskjold, made a careful examination of the 

 portraits of Linne at the Royal Academy of Sciences. The well- 

 known portrait presented by the artist, Eoslin, to the Academy 

 had the best position on the wall ; above it was a copy of the oil- 

 painting belonging to the Zoological Society of Amsterdam, a 

 three-quarters reproduction after the Clifford portrait. Above 

 that, high on the wall, was a portrait which 1 recognized to be like 

 the engravings of Krafft's painting. I suggested that it might be 

 the lost picture that had belonged to the Medical College. The 

 Baron had it brought down from the wall, and on careful examin- 

 ation we found it was signed and dated "Krafft 1774," and on the 

 back of the canvas was written " Carl v. Linne 1774 setat. 67." 

 There could be no doubt that this was the lost painting. 



Linne had his first paralytic stroke in May 1774, which obliged 

 him to relinquish the more active part of his professorial duties, 

 and to close his literary labours. The portrait exhibits no traces 

 of this malady, and ^^■as probably painted before May. 



Krafft's portrait may have been in the possession of the Academy 

 of Sciences before 1833, for Adam Afzelius, in his " Egenhiiudiga 

 Anteckningar af Linnaeus" published in that year, says (p. 67) that 

 the Eoyal Academy had Linne's portrait painted to put among its 

 founders, likewise the medallion Akrell had previously made in 

 wax, both very like. But Inlander, not Akrell, was the artist of 

 the medallion. The reference to the portrait may be that oF 

 Eoslin, but that was not painted for the Academy but was presented 

 to it. If for Eoyal Academy we substitute Medical College, the state- 

 ment o'ould apply to Krafft's portrait. But one cannot say from 

 the defective and erroneous statement w'hat Afzelius really meant. 



The Linnean Society o^^•es to the generosity of the Eoyal 

 Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, a faithful reproduction of Krafft's 

 beautiful portrait. 



There has just been published an admirable collotype, two-thirds 

 the size of the original, reproduced by J. Cederquist of Stockholm. 



There is at the Medical College a copy by John von Breda of 

 this portrait. It is very softly painted ; the wrinkles and x^arts 

 on the face have been omitted. There are also some modifications 

 in the details, — the necklace (?J is tied in a single knot, and the 

 left hand holding the Linno'ci rests on the page of an open book. 



Magnus Hallman, described as a student of Linne, made several 

 copies of Krafft's portrait. Two of these are to be found in the 

 house of Linne at Hammarby. Both are very poor reproductions. 

 One is not signed, the other has on the back of the canvas "Magn. 

 Hallman pinxit 1769." I have no doubt that both of them are 

 posthumons portraits based chiefly on Krafft, but with suggestions 



