116 
LINNAEUS 
never heard an unkind judgment pass his lips, during 
many years’ intimacy; another, that he was most 
humane, being humanity itself; a third, that he was 
in all respects tender-hearted, and had a special dis¬ 
like of contention, persecution and slander. Being 
no one’s enemy he himself had no enemy, and had 
adopted as his motto sine spinis , without thorns (an 
allusion to his own name). 
The answers to these self-evident representations 
are clear. They ought in truth to have led Linnaeus’s 
biographers to greater care and reflection, before 
throwing out these accusations against his honour and 
reputation. 
After these general remarks we now pass on to a 
more detailed definition of these accusations. We 
may first fix upon the oft related story of the “ duel,” 
or as it may better be described, as an attempt at 
murder. With a marvellous confusion of ideas, 
people have sought to lay the blame upon Rosen, 
whilst for Linnaeus’s asserted action, extenuating cir¬ 
cumstances have been found. 
We may first of all point out, that about this 
“ duel ” not a single word occurs in any of Linnaeus’s 
autobiographies, nor can any mention of it be gleaned 
from contemporary accounts, letters and the like, 
though such an occurrence would certainly have be¬ 
come a cause celebre. It was first mooted after 
Linnaeus’s death, about sixty years later, and that in 
a German biography, in all other respects trustworthy, 
namely Stover’s “ Leben des Ritters Carl von Linne,” 
where it is given thus : 
“ A young man, Nils or Nicolaus Rosen, became 
Linne’s rival. Laying a complaint before the 
Academic Senate he urged that according to the 
statutes, Linnaeus should be forbidden to lecture. 
He was called before the Consistory, when many of 
the members were favourable to him, but Rosen 
giving strong reasons, and as the law could not be left 
unobserved, the desired prohibition was granted. 
