1 J 9 
OPPONENTS OF LINNTUS. 
« prefixed to the publication of his latin correspendence, how little 
“jealous I have been of that man, even when he provoked me with 
« his contradiBions. I feel, therefore, some pleasure at having it m 
“ my power to refute those unjust charges by Lin nous’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 wasnegleaed 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 Noyon 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 tra£ts direHed 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 Helmstadt, who died in that city ^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. Lie always considered himself as a great 
botanist. Llis self-love was of course easily offended. Lie 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 Linnieanis Epi'tolis apparet quara non invidus in virum fuerim, etium cum suis 
objeft'.onibus me lacessiviisei ; neque displicuk mihi injustam accusationem proprio Liniwei 
testimonio refutare. 
them. 
2. 
