BOTANICAL REFORM. 
93 
conceived for Linn a us, though it was not preserved quite uncon- 
taminated by envy.* 
To this interesting acquaintance may be added several other con- 
nexions at Oxford and London, which were useful to Cliffort, and 
in process of £ime equally advantageous to Linn a us. A friendly in- 
tercourse was cultivated and improved between the latter and professors 
Collinson, Martyn, Rand, Ehret, and other persons who make 
a conspicuous figure in the annals of literature. Enriched with know- 
ledge and a colle&ion of natural treasures, he returned to Holland , 
towards the end of September, and was most joyfully received by 
Cliffort. 
Impelled by his celebrity, by the contradictions he had experienced, 
and animated with the flattering idea of becoming the creator of a 
new system, and the legislator of botany, Linnaeus now began to pur- 
sue with all possible exertion the career which conduced him to great- 
ness. Newton had conceived the original thought of splitting the 
rays of light. To prove its possibility, and to render valid a new truth, 
he spared no expence in having the finest instruments made, and be- 
stowed days and nights on the objeX of his invention. Such is the 
* The following passage of a letter, which Dillenius wrote to Baron Haller, on 
the 13th of October, will sufficiently evince the acrimony of his temper. Littnsei Flu am 
Suecicam nondurn midi. Non est unius hominis cottsetibere Floram universt rcgni. Cams fes- 
tinans , £2?*:. Vidhtl procul dubio Orchides in aclis SueciciSy par turn egregnim , [U£ 1 fa 
pessumdabis. Vi reor tamcn, tie nihil agas ; est enim homo , ne quid gravius dicant , 
Scribit ad me quotannis fere semcl, nil nisi semina efflagitans, licet ipse nulla mittlt. Mm 
phi rim a ; sed an fecerim opera pretium, haereo. Inbiat tantum generibus navis el mullet 
p t - ltf q U a nitnquam apud nos semina, irnmo nec fores ferunt ; ignarus ret hortensis. Spe- 
tierum ipsi fared cognitio ; navi tamen bene merits et a morem in flantas ob quee ipsi bene 
atpio. Epistol. ad Haller. Vol. II. p. 299. To understand this answer, we find it incum- 
bent on us to say, that Linnaeus had criticised Haller in the Flora Suecica in a strong. 
and pointed manner. 
■ Tvity 
