OPPONENTS OF LINNiEUS. 
116 
« occasion to be angry with me, you will like me if you see me in person, 
« and come to get acquainted with my way of thinking. My very ene- 
“ niies must own in my absence how much I esteem you. I lament ex- 
“ tremely my having offended your noble disposition towards me, I 
“ regret my fault, and crave your pardon. I hope this explanation will 
f£ afford you satisfa&ion, and you will, as formerly, remain my friend.” 
And so did Haller remain the friend of Linnaeus. He gave him 
the noblest and most egregious proofs of his friendship. Their mutual 
correspondence continued till 1750. Three years after, Haller left 
Goettingen , and returned to Bern , his native city. A collection of 
critical disquisitions, which Haller’s son published against Linnveus, 
during four years, reckoning from 1750, seems however to have been 
the cause which broke off that correspondence. 
The personal and reciprocal esteem and attachment between these 
two great men, was not unfrequently disturbed by jealousy and literary 
discordance. Considering the difference of their genius and way of 
thinking, it could not happen otherwise. That poet who sung with 
■Such beautiful philosophy the vanity of honour, would not have been 
the polyhistor of the age, had not a sense of that same honour guided 
him on the path of fame. With all the discretion and sedate grandeur 
of his temper, he was not insensible of its sweets and its value. 
As to Linnaeus, glory was the soul of all his endeavours, and the 
idol of his affeftions. He rose to be the monarch of botany, and 
claimed universal homage. Haller followed his own method in that 
science. How could it therefore have been possible that public dis- 
putes, reproaches, and petty attacks should not sometimes have broken 
out between them. 
“ LlNNiEUs” — 
I 
