124 
LINNiEUS 
was, as he himself said, frceceps in iram> quick to anger, 
and grief and irritation were kindled in him when 
he thought of the poverty, despair, and anxiety which 
he believed awaited him. These feelings encouraged 
thoughts of a violent revenge, but these were stemmed 
by an old friend’s persuasions, who appealed to those 
warm religious feelings, which from childhood had 
permeated the whole being of Linnaeus. “ God 
should become my ayenger,” said he, and added 
“ since then all went well with me.” He clearly 
entertained feelings of revenge, as shown in his 
“ Nemesis divina,” quoted at the close of this volume, 
but conquering them, he acknowledged that every¬ 
thing prospered with him. 
Evidently it is from the confession of this flaming 
wrath by Linnaeus that well-meaning and uncritical 
biographers derived their material for the whole 
“ duel ” story, and all its supposed consequences, not 
considering that it is a long step between hasty 
thoughts and violent actions. Besides it is evident 
from Linnaeus’s own words, that he did not long 
cherish bitter feelings against Rosen, but that facile 
\placabatur , he was easily appeased. This is shown 
by the greetings which he sent during his residence 
abroad to Rosen, and their familiar mutual letters at 
the time when Rudbeck was about to vacate his 
professoriate. 
Linnaeus’s relations with Rosen are well shown in 
the Mcecenatibus et faironis mentioned among his 
patrons, in the dedication to his doctoral thesis in 
Holland where Rosen’s name occurs, and two years 
later in Linnaeus’s “ Corollarium,” which he dedicated 
as devota mente , Viro illustri D. Nicolao Rosen 
alone. It appears incredible that Linnaeus should 
have acted thus, had his soul been full of bitterness 
and ill-will, unless he were guilty of cringing 
hypocrisy. 
Another story accuses Rosen of having induced 
Count Carl Gyllenborg to prefer J. G. Wallerius to 
