122 
LINNAEUS 
one sought worldly advantage. As a sample of ex¬ 
travagant language, take his statement that at Falun, 
Dr. Moraeus became envious of the practice Linnaeus 
obtained in a few weeks, although the latter admitted 
that his future father-in-law was a prosperous man 
and was weary of a laborious profession. This 
accusation of envy resembled his language concerning 
Rosen. 
Now let us consider the above-mentioned ordi¬ 
nance which the Chancellor of the University is 
reported to have issued; it is difficult to guard against 
the thought that the whole statement is entirely 
founded upon gossip or a failing memory. Enough 
that it is narrated only in the most untrustworthy auto¬ 
biography, without, in spite of all research, being 
confirmed in any way. The Chancellor’s archives, 
preserved in the Riksarkives in Stockholm, show no 
trace of any such restriction of a Docent in medicine. 
On the other hand, in the yalid academic constitution 
of 1665, it is laid down that only graduates possessed 
the fotestatem docendi (the right to teach), and that 
only by permission previously obtained of the Dean 
of the faculty, whilst such teaching by a student was 
entirely forbidden. Though the commission extended 
to Linnaeus (then only a student in the medical 
faculty) to instruct in botany and assaying, was thus, 
strictly speaking, illegal, it was excused on account 
of existing circumstances, and on the term ending, 
those rights lapsed. That he, during succeeding 
terms, gave private lessons was owing to the fact that 
the faculty or Greater Consistory willingly shut their 
eyes to this illegality. 
In the spring term of 1734, Linnaeus gave lectures, 
for which he never received permission, on the subject 
of dietetics, thereby trespassing in Rosen’s domain, a 
proceeding which can be regarded as still more 
improper for a student, as the academic regulations 
then in force, considered payments for lectures as a 
contribution to an Adjunct’s scanty salary. It is quite 
