OPPONENTS OF L I N N ^ U S. 119 



" prefixed to the publication of his latin correspendence, how little 

 * jealous 1 have been of that man, even when he provoked me with 

 " his contradittions. I feel, therefore, some pleasure at having it in 

 " my power to refute those unjust charges by Linn^^ius's own testi- 

 « mony*." This resentment, manifested by epistolar correspondence, 

 did not extend to the professorial chair, nor to representations and 

 opinions in written works. 



Whatever was neglefted by the father to show himself the public op- 

 ponent of his northern friend, was accomplished by his son Gottlieb 

 Emanuel Haller. He first dedicated his time to the study of 

 physic, but afterwards distinguished himself as an able civilian. He 

 did not long survive his father, and died as High Bailiff of Noyo7i in 

 the canton of Bern^ April 9, 1786. He commenced his career as an 

 author, in the 1 5th year of • his age, by several trafts dire£l:ed against 

 LiNN^us. They formed no epocha nor reform, and contained only 

 several observations stamped with the genius of the father. 



A more violent and more implacable adversary, whose unruly spirit 

 frequently interrupted the peace of the literary world, was professor 

 Lawrence Heister, at Hdmstadt, who died in that city in 1758, in the 

 76th year of his age.— A man distinguished by his merit in anatomy 

 and surgery; but as unskilful in the science of botany, as he was 

 conspicuous in the former. He always considered himself as a great 

 botanist. His self-love was of course easily offended. He followed 

 Ray's system, and had introduced many new changes and fresh appel- 

 lations in the vegetable reign; but the reform of Linnaeus levelled 



* Ex LiNN^ANis Epistolis apparet quam non invidiis in virum fuerim, etium cum suis 

 objedlionibus rae lacessivissei j neqiie displicuit mihi injustam acctisationem prgprio Linn^i 

 testimonio refutare. 



2 them 



