linnaeus' network

86
LINNAEUS’ NETWORK LINNAEUS’ NETWORK

Upload: hathien

Post on 13-Feb-2017

235 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Linnaeus' network

L i n na e u s ’ n etwo r k

Li

nn

ae

us

’ ne

tw

or

k

Page 2: Linnaeus' network
Page 3: Linnaeus' network

L i n n a e u s ’ n e t wo r k

exhibition

kungl. biblioteket – national library of sweden

december 13 2007 –  january 12 2008

Page 4: Linnaeus' network
Page 5: Linnaeus' network

3

Contents

  page

Foreword by Gunnar Sahlin  5Scholarly networks in the age of Linnaeus by Jonas Nordin  7

1. linn, carl von. Systema naturæ (1735)  122. linn, carl von. Bibliotheca botanica (1736); Fundamenta botanica (1736)  18 3. linn, carl von. Genera plantarum (1737)  204. linn, carl von. Flora Lapponica (1737)  225. linn, carl von. Critica botanica (1737); browallius, johan.   Discursus […] (1737)  266. artedi, peter . Ichthyologia (1738)  287. linn, carl von. Classes plantarum (1738)  308. linn, carl von. Systema naturæ (1740)  329. linn, carl von. Öländska och gothländska resa (1745)  3410. linn, carl von. Wästgöta resa (1747)  3811. linn, carl von. Anmärkningar om coffé (1746)  4212. linn, carl von. Hortus Upsaliensis (1748)  4413. linn, carl von. Flora oeconomica (1749)  4614. linn, carl von. Materia medica (1749)  4815. linn, carl von. Amoenitates academicæ (1749–64)  5216. linn, carl von. Äsping (1749)  5417. linn, carl von. Skånska resa (1751)  5618. linn, carl von. Philosophia botanica (1751)  6019. linn, carl von. Indelning i ört-riket (1753); Deliciae naturae (1773)  6420. linn, carl von. Species plantarum (1753)  6621. linn, carl von. Flora Svecica (1755)  6822. lfling, pehr . Iter hispanicum (1758)  7023. linn, carl von. Fauna Svecica (1761)  7224. linn, carl von. Museum s:æ r:æ m:tis Ludovicæ Ulricæ (1764)  7425. linn, carl von. Systema naturæ (1766–68)    7826. linn, carl von. A dissertation on the sexes of plants (1786)  80

Selected literature  82Index of names  83

Page 6: Linnaeus' network
Page 7: Linnaeus' network

5

Foreword

The history of science in Sweden reaches a peak in the mid 18th century. Even if there were numerous other successful Swedish scientists at the time, Lin-naeus and his disciples must be given their due credit for the strong position held internationally by Sweden. This high ranking position was merited by close col-laboration with their colleagues across Europe and from travels of exploration in other parts of the world. In the sphere of international relations, this was a distin-guishing mark of the 17th and 18th century scientists and Swedish scientists moved with ease across borders. The  interface came in the  form of personal contacts and exchanges of correspondence and texts. Linnaeus’ international network was extensive. The foundation was consciously set when he received his doctorate’s degree in the Netherlands and was successfully expanded during his eminent ca-reer. This intensity in international contacts was equal to those he conducted with the public government sector in Sweden. His central position came naturally to him among the circles establishing Sweden as a leading nation in the sciences. The Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences was established in 1739 and came to be an essential association. Linnaeus’ network was not limited to scientific circles. The public sector had then, as it has now, need of close contacts with the business community. Aside from scientists in his wide-ranging network, Linnaeus included directors, landowners, patrons, the clergy and officials.   The publishing of current  research findings was of great  importance  to  the position of scientists. The expansion rate of printed matter increases dramatically during the 18th century and is no longer the sole property of the church. Sweden has by and large been an importer of books and its export of books has for the most part been a less distinguished feature. This is to be expected from a small nation with its own language. Yet during the five centuries of book production in Sweden the gap between the import and export of books has never been as narrow as dur-ing the mid 18th century. To a great extent this can be attributed to the publication of successful Swedish scientific research.  Less than a hundred meters from Kungl. biblioteket, the National Library of Sweden, there is a statue of Linnaeus in Humlegården – his eyes resting on the yellow library building as he stands guard close by the annexe where the library houses its exhibitions. Exhibitions of our own material as well as that of others are important as they emphasize the wealth of our cultural inheritance. Accessibility 

Page 8: Linnaeus' network

6

also requires extensive knowledge. In her book Jag tänker på Linné. Han som såg allt, Karin Berglund writes how  the  scholarly and  renowned  former colleague at  Kungl.  biblioteket,  Sten  G.  Lindberg  discovered  a  unique  copy  of  the  first edition of Systema naturæ, which highlights this exhibition. It stands to reason that an extensive  tradition of considerable knowledge regarding  library collections and significant works is to be found at Kungl. biblioteket. Sten G. Lindberg is an important link in this chain of knowledge. 

It  is  a  pleasure  and  a  privilege  for  Kungl.  biblioteket  to  host  this  exhibition celebrating Linnaeus’ literary and scientific production and presenting several of his most treasured works. We would hereby like to thank those who has made it all possible by generously lending us books from their collections.   The exhibition is launched at the eleventh hour of this jubilee year honouring Linnaeus, yet appropriately close to the Nobel Prize ceremonies acknowledging other distinguished scientists. It is also my pleasure to thank Sven Hagströmer whose generous gift made this exhibition come to life. A vigorous collaboration between the public sector and the business community is a tradition that lives on from the days of Linnaeus.

Gunnar Sahlin

Page 9: Linnaeus' network

7

Scholarly networks in the age of Linnaeus

Access to information was an infinitely crucial resource before modern times  and  the  practical  difficulties,  regardless  of  subject  area,  to  come  across relevant  and  correct  information  is  a  difficult  notion  to  grasp  for  present-day people. The official news channels were few, severely controlled and irregular in their coverage. Verbally transmitted knowledge along the line risked distortion beyond recognition. The magnates of the 17th century would therefore invest heavily in establishing client networks across Europe. Networks which could supply them with the necessary knowledge of current events in politics, culture, fashion etc. In exchange for information they reciprocated with financial backing for strategically positioned politicians, officials and scholars. Such relationships between patron and client constituted a mutual exchange for both parties. The former accessed vital and at many times unique information, an important resource of power. The latter acquired economic compensation and occasionally made valuable contacts to their advantage.   These kinds of informal yet relatively impervious networks were a salient com-ponent in the social life of the 17th and 18th century. It had significant importance in communications yet bore relevance to numerous other functions. As there was a discernible lack of public subsidies and general institutions it acted as a career support, social introductions and a financial safety net for ambitious individuals. Anyone who has studied printed books from the time has taken note of how often they begin with one or several more or less servile dedications. This is often the client’s way of giving thanks to their patrons and thereby leaving definite remains of the client networks.   During the 18th century scholarly networks came to the forefront. Public fund-ing failed to subsidize expansion within the sectors of culture and science. Instead, culture stood to gain from the emerging middle class. However, science, lacking the consumer friendliness of culture, required other means of support – finan-cially and intellectually. Pivotal in this respect were the academies, which were a kind of institutionalised networks.   Throughout the 18th century universities increasingly evolved into educational institutions. It has occasionally been claimed that they were literally degraded to divinity schools and that no research worth its name was being conducted. Even though the likeness may have been considerably exaggerated it was nevertheless 

Page 10: Linnaeus' network

8

the academies who assumed pole position as the leading scientific institutions. If universities directed their energies on tuition and what by today’s standards is called basic research, the academies focused on transforming theory into prac-tise. This also applied to the artistic and belles-lettres institutions. The former pre-empted art-colleges, whilst the latter had as its purpose to have culture serve the community by compiling dictionaries and constructing linguistic rules and regulations.   The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences founded in 1739 became the foremost of all academies established in Sweden during the 18th century. In its statutes it states that the Academy must attend to all “sciences and arts that hold any true practical use to the benefit of the community”. To such were included all natural sciences, medicine, mathematics, economy, trade, crafts and manufacture. Even the guidance on the usage of the Swedish language assumed greater relevance as the Academy prescribed that all findings should first be made public in one’s own native language.   The members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences can roughly be sorted into three categories: patrons, professionals and scientists. The six founders illus-trate this constitution well enough: Sten Carl Bielke, Carl Wilhelm Cederhielm and Anders Johan von Höpken were politicians and as amateurs from the aristoc-racy, can be referred to the first group whilst the industrialist Jonas Alström and the mechanic Mårten Triewald belonged to the second and the young physician Carl Linnaeus, later knighted as von Linné, alone represented the last category.   On a formal level the scholarly republic recognised no social boundaries and in the statutes of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences it was written that fel-low members were solely elected on their merits – “science, reason and diligence are essential qualities and advantages”. It had been felt that the large number of aristocratic amateurs peopling the academies tended to challenge this. Neverthe-less,  in reality  they made substantial contributions  to  its activities. Aside  from giving financial aid they also connected the academies to influential circles and generally assisted in raising the prestige attached to the academy. Linnaeus once held forth that “the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences consists of two kinds of members: workers and magnates”. “The former we have to ascribe all the findings, which illuminate the Academy’s documents,  the latter provide encouragement and promotion.”   The science historian Hjalmar Fors says in a profound dissertation that science during the 18th century was very much a social activity where egalitarian proto-col was a superficial phenomenon limited by numerous restrictions. Academic work had its own behavioural codes whereby mutual exchange was of fundamen-tal importance. In the name of science the researcher and the professional, e.g. a professor in chemistry and the pharmacologist could enter into a confidential rela-tionship whereby the theorist shared his point of view whilst the practitioner con-tributed in the form of firm experimental knowledge. The exchange of knowledge was a prerequisite for this notion of egalitarianism. He who received information without reciprocating was duly disciplined for breach of etiquette and frozen out 

Page 11: Linnaeus' network

9

from the network. According to the regulations of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, a member who failed to contribute his own findings during a two-year period faced exclusion “as being redundant”. This was the formalised network regulating the informal rules.   The  conveyance  of  knowledge  became  investments  of  sorts,  exchangeable with other services provided by the network. Occasionally established scientists would transfer their outstanding accounts to their disciples/clients enabling their establishment within the network and thereby providing them swift promotions. Patrons would associate with young talents by presenting  them with marks of favour, which they could not reject and would therefore place themselves in debt. For instance, the favour could consist of assignments or contacts and was repaid by the young client sharing his knowledge. There were even opportunities for young careerists to struggle their way into the network through lobbying members with their scientific findings.    The  academic  network  system  stretched  well  beyond  national  borders. Prominent academies emphasizing the natural sciences were the Royal Society in London, Académie Royale des Sciences in Paris, Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin and the Imperial Russian Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg. As is evident from their names, royal patronage was a crucial ingredient in  the  stature and reputation of  the academies but  it was  in equal measures a confirmation of the strong position held by natural science and the credence given its utilitarian abilities. To publicly support the sciences was a prerequisite to assert a place among the civilized nations of Europe.    The most prominent of German academies was the Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, not least for publishing the highly respected peri-odical Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen (the title varies), which reviewed scientific literature from the entire continent and in most subjects. The first chair-man of the Academy was the Swiss anatomist and polyhistor Albrecht von Haller. Over a period of several years he was its most frequent writer and contributed in an assertive manner to its good reputation. A prerequisite was the extensive correspondence Haller maintained with the academics of Europe. The Swedish physician Nils Rosén von Rosenstein and not least the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ secretary during 33 years, the astronomer Pehr Wilhelm Wargentin, enjoyed a long and confidential correspondence with Haller and its importance to the Swedish scientific community’s international reputation can not be over-looked. Through the efforts of Haller and others the findings of Swedish scientists spread throughout the continent despite the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ ruling, dictated by domestic usage, that all documents be written in the author’s native tongue.   However, one concern was that Sweden’s brightest shining star, Linnaeus, had previously fallen out with Haller after the latter in 1745 had written an unfavourable review of Flora Svecica. Their previous friendship turned into petty enmity which escalated over the years. Finally the schism reached a level whereby Wargentin feared that it would disfavour Haller’s relationship to the Royal Swedish Academy 

Page 12: Linnaeus' network

10

of Sciences. Wargentin therefore heedfully strived to usher in other candidates to assume Haller’s reviews, among them the Swedish born professor in medicine at Göttingen Johan Andreas Murray. Networks and correspondences were sensitive matter simply because they in the end depended on personal contacts and if one link in the chain snapped it could induce far-reaching consequences for all those involved.   Another approach in which the academies could tie international contacts was to recruit foreign members. Corresponding member is a term still used though it was to be taken more literally during the 18th century. Then as now it was more often an honorary appointment rather than participating representation. For the single scientist it was meritorious to hold memberships of several academies and the academies were willing to allow the renowned membership to increase the academies’ radiance. However it was not mere vanity which lay behind such sum-mons. The scholarly correspondence filled the same function as the conferences and symposiums of today. The majority of scientists would at best commit to an occasional expedition abroad, seldom more, and the slow communications made it near impossible to meet at larger gatherings. The letters would therefore function as present-day lectures or conference acts: via them they could exchange views on preliminary thoughts. 

How does Linnaeus fit into all this? His name has been noted in passing and his work illustrates several of the discussions in a clarifying manner.   His most appreciated works in Swedish are undoubtedly the travel books. The first journey was undertaken in 1732 commissioned by the Royal Society of Sciences of Uppsala to, as it was known, survey the three kingdoms of nature in Lapland. The journey was succeeded by four others, of which three were ordered by the parliament and the government. Linnaeus’ travel books are charming literature in an ageless way where impressions are lined up chronologically. The information is of varying character and the systematisation, which is Linnaeus’ distinguishing mark, is elusive. As inventories they were regarded to be of value as the govern-ment knew very little of what natural resources the various counties had.   The journey to Lapland took place during Linnaeus’ youth and he put it to good use when furthering his career. As he travelled to the Netherlands to receive his medical degree he made use of the Sami objects he acquired to attract attention to his person. He remained three years in the Netherlands. Sten Lindroth writes: “He arrived as an unknown student from Sweden and left the country as the prince of all botanists”. Once in place he exerted all his talent to make advantageous con-tacts. Of his own accord he sought contact with the physician Boerhaave and the botanist Gronovius, two aging titans with extensive contacts. With their support most doors were opened. Gronovius would also fund the publishing of Systema naturæ, which lay the foundation of all Linnaeus’ latter-day fame.   In the short term, Boerhaave introducing Linnaeus to the professor of botany Johannes Burman was of greater significance. Through Burman he got to know the enormously wealthy George Clifford, director of the East India Company. Clif-

Page 13: Linnaeus' network

11

ford soon wanted Linnaeus employed as the manager of his gardens and library but Linnaeus was already committed to work for Burman and this appointment could not easily be retracted. The informal contract was resolved by Clifford offering Burman a book long sought after by him. Through the agency of Clifford, Lin-naeus was able to visit Paris and England, where he got in touch with academies and universities. Over time he became a member of the academies in Stockholm, Uppsala, St. Petersburg, Berlin, Vienna, London, Montpellier, Toulouse and Flor-ence. Assisted by connections, favours both ways, Linnaeus had in an astonishingly short time acquired the appointment as princeps botanicorum.   Following his return to Sweden Linnaeus went to Stockholm to practise medi-cine. Career wise this was but a temporary setback yet connections were made in the council and later even to the successors of the throne. These contacts were of the utmost importance for his social stature in his native country. At this stage the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was founded and in 1741 he was awarded a professorship in medicine at Uppsala. During the 1740’s he also undertook his aforementioned travels in Sweden. Although he despised arduous travelling he felt that these publicly appointed assignments could not be refused.   Nevertheless in 1749, after the journey to Skåne, Linnaeus travelling days came to an end. From the vantage point of his professor’s chair Linnaeus would instead delegate the rough work to his students. He would insatiably ask them to send more material to use in his research and approximately twenty of his disciples, “apostles”, were sent to all corners of the world at their master’s request.   Linnaeus’ relationship to his disciples has been evaluated in various ways. Some have described him as ruthless in his quest for natural specimens, others charac-terise him as a loving patriarch. Yet those who obtained his trust were a carefully selected group from his own students – more than three hundred were at his call. He was never casual about sending his protégées to foreign and unknown regions of the world and they were also most likely aware of the risks involved in such travelling. Those who survived the ordeals returned to excellent career oppor-tunities. With few exceptions they acquitted themselves well and several – Kalm, Solander, Sparrman and Thunberg – all became renowned men. By supporting his disciples Linnaeus had fulfilled an ideal line of development in the social mobil-ity of the scholarly republic: from enterprising student to inspiring professor and from client to protector.

  Jonas Nordin

Page 14: Linnaeus' network

12

  1.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Systema naturæ, sive regna tria naturæ systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera, & species. Leiden, 1735. Folio. + 

    LINNÉ, CARL von. Methodus. Leiden, 1736. Folio. + 

    Ehret’s plate. Leiden, 1736. Folio. Full calf. The first title-page with Linnaeus’ annotation “Exemplar Auc-toris”. Bookstamp of the Swedish Society of Medicine.       Hagströmer Library (property of the Swedish Society of Medicine).

Page 15: Linnaeus' network

13

Author’s copy

Following his studies in Lund and Uppsala the young Carl Linnaeus (after his ennoblement  in  1761  he  took  the name Carl von Linné, which  is  the name he is known by in Sweden), who could not expect money from his parents, was in need of an academic degree and an advantageous marriage. During his travels in Dalarna studying minerals and surveying natural resources he got to know Sara Elisabeth Moræa, daughter to the wealthy district medical officer in Falun. They got engaged and in 1735 Linnaeus travelled to Holland to receive his doctorate in medicine, which at the time was not available at Swedish universities. The doc-toral dissertation was by then completed but it was more a matter of formalities and the minor University at Harderwijk was the place to collect a swiftly delivered medical degree, something which his tutor from Växjö, Johan Rothman had also done.  On the journey Linnaeus brought with him a number of manuscripts, which he intended to find a publisher for. Around this time he would often produce listings or catalogues over completed or near completed manuscripts. The last of these lists is dated January 1735 and consist of no less than 30 written works, even though some of these were of an insignificant size. Among all these manuscripts was the rough draft containing the introduction to the classification of plants. Linnaeus had been labouring over this for a long time. The title simply read Systema naturæ. The main outlines of this work took shape as early as the 1720’s during Linnaeus’ time in Uppsala. Throughout this time he devoted much of his botanical obser-vations to the stamen of plants and pistils, i.e. inspired by the theories about the genus and sexuality of plants presented by the French botanist Sébastien Vaillant (1669–1722) in Discours sur la structure des fleurs from 1718.  Linnaeus  summarised  his  observations  and  ideas  about  a  new  principle  of classification, based on the reproduction of plants in a short text titled Praeludia sponsaliorum plantarum. He delivered the work on New Years Eve 1729–30 to Olof Celsius  the older, who made certain  it  came  to Olof Rudbeck  the younger. A revised version was presented shortly after to the Royal Society of Sciences at Uppsala. The ground strokes to the  ideas, which were eventually presented in Systema naturæ, were already evolving in this text. Linnaeus would soon explain and use them in a more concise form on plants in Hortus Uplandicus from 1730–31. In his autobiographical notes relating to this year he writes: “the days are used to work with the disciples” and “at night outlining the new system and the reformation Linnaeus has initiated in the field of botany”.   The essential features of Linnaeus’ classification scheme – with regard to plants – were available as early as the late 1720’s. During his travels to Lapland, Norway, Finland and Dalarna in the first half of the 1730’s he was given the opportunity to refine his ideas through practical experience as he worked on structuring the gathered material. It is clear that Linnaeus’ views on the taxonomy changed dur-ing this period. In a preface written 1730 in the manuscript of Fundamenta botanica he speaks of “a new but very special method”. The expression “natural method” 

Page 16: Linnaeus' network

14

recurs  frequently  throughout his  text. At  this point  in  time, Linnaeus  sees his system as indisputable and final. A surveying of nature as it was once created. But Linnaeus was to make a sudden departure from this point of view and as noted in a letter from 1733 he unexpectedly derides the system as artificial as opposed to natural. What he is saying is that he no longer believes the system is the “correct” approach when classifying the component parts of nature. This revision of his own attitude to the system would invariably prove problematic for Linnaeus, who at times gave rise to certain concerns about making it known publicly. The lack of naturalness could in certain quarters be conceived as heretical but it also left the field open to criticism from natural scientists. It is possible that this fear and lack of faith in his system withheld it from being made public until 1735, even if the main reason for the delay most likely was the lack of a publisher willing to invest. Surely Linnaeus also wished to acquire an academic title before stepping forth to a larger audience.   Towards the end of June 1735, Linnaeus and his travel companion Claes Sohlberg arrived to Amsterdam where they merely waited for an opportunity to return to Sweden. The main purpose of the journey was to attain Linnaeus’ medical degree at Harderwijk. Once that was completed Linnaeus discovered that his funds were running low. The two travellers finally decided to travel home but to make a short visit to Leiden on the way. Once there Linnaeus took the trouble of looking up the professor of botany Adrian van Royen (1704–79), and later on the renowned physician and natural scientist, Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738). The meeting with Boerhaave was without a doubt what Linnaeus valued most from the journey but there was also another meeting that took place around the same time and which would  have  more  far  reaching  consequences  for  his  life  and  fame.  Early  July Linnaeus met with the scholarly and wealthy Johann F. Gronovius (1686–1762), who came from a family of strong academic traditions. Gronovius was also married to the daughter of a rich businessman, which undoubtedly improved his already affluent financial situation. This enabled him to cultivate his main interests, botany, zoology and mineralogy, and his large library emphasized these subjects as did his considerable collections of plants, animals and minerals. Gronovius was familiar with the name of Linnaeus. He had read the news items published in the German press about Linnaeus’  travels  in Lapland and  the  interesting works everybody expected to come forth from the young botanists’ pen. It has later been discovered that Linnaeus himself on the whole authored these so-called news items, mainly published  in  the  respected  journal Hamburgische Berichte von gelehrten Sachen.  In these news items he comes forth as a talented, adventurous young man, perhaps even a genius, on foot in distant parts of the country among strange peoples. This self-perceived image was something Linnaeus made good use of when visiting prominent scholars in Holland, e.g. by appearing in his Sami costume playing on a Sami drum.   Attending one of the first meetings between Gronovius and Linnaeus was a rich Scottish student by the name of Isaac Lawson (–1747). Linnaeus showed his manuscript of Systema naturæ to both these wealthy enthusiasts of natural science. 

Page 17: Linnaeus' network

15

The manuscript was in tabular form with the division of classes, orders, genera, species etc. Lawson and Gronovius were riveted by what they were shown and made promises to finance publication and printing of the work. Matters moved along swiftly from hereon. Linnaeus entered a few minor alterations, but as early as July 10 the manuscript was delivered to the printers for typesetting. Ten days later, July 20, Linnaeus departed Leiden and handed the job of proof reading and changes to Gronovius.  It  soon  became  obvious  that  the  printing  and  proof  reading  process  of  the Systema naturæ would  take  longer  than  at  first  expected.  There  were  constant new queries and changes  to  the  text, which required an enormous effort  from Gronovius who had shouldered the responsibility to prepare it for publication. An intense correspondence between the two took place shortly after Linnaeus had departed Leiden. This correspondence, which continued well after the publication of Systema naturæ, bears witness to the gargantuan efforts invested by Gronovius as promoter, proof reader etc. at  the publishing of several of Linnaeus’ works. The letters also tell of the patience displayed by Gronovius with the young and, occasionally, careless author. The only recognition Linnaeus gave Gronovius of his efforts is found in a letter to Olof Celsius from 1736: “Gronovius works day and night, year out and year in with proofs of my works and therefore believes it merits him.” As marks of honour upon his and Lawson’s efforts Linnaeus had flower species named after them.  Not least the considerable and technically advanced printing process required for the advanced tables in Systema naturæ led to problems at the type setting stage. There  were  constant  trial  impression  and  new  amendments.  Things  did  not improve when an unfortunate type setter in October accidentally dropped the entire frame of types set to one of the completed tables on the floor, delaying the process even more as the time consuming and laborious type setting of this table had to start anew. However, following a burdensome autumn, Linnaeus received a message on December 9 saying that Systema naturæ was now finally completed.   Systema naturæ was printed in two versions, one printed on both sides and one, which was only printed on one side of each sheet. The latter was to enable nailing them to walls during lectures. There is no information as to the size of the edition but we know that Linnaeus himself received approximately a hundred free copies. The sale of the book was done via the bookseller Theodor Haak, but it could also be bought directly from Gronovius. He informed in a note written 1739 that he still had a few hundred copies left, which he then sold to Haak. It is however more likely that this remainder was due to weak sales rather than the edition being too large. The fact that very few copies remain to this day corroborates this line of reasoning. It never became known what happened to the rest of the edition kept by Haak but Gronovius had apparently saved a few copies of the version, which was only printed on one side of each sheet. He would use the blank pages to mount dried plants  for his herbarium. These sheets are presently  the property of  the British Museum (Natural History Museum).   In some of the copies there were further sheets attached with the title Methodus

Page 18: Linnaeus' network

16

juxta quam physiologus. This is however a separate work printed in 1736 in the same format as Systema naturæ and the idea was to bind them together. Methodus presents Linnaeus’ method of scientific description of natural specimens – point by point.  What exactly made Systema naturæ, despite its modest page count, have such an effect? Towards the end of the 17th and in the beginning of the 18th century there was considerable work being produced attempting to describe the entire world’s plants, animals, minerals etc. The collected knowledge about nature grew at a fast rate. Disparate attempts at systematisation and classification of these findings produced various results. One of the more significant attempts towards a systematisation was created by John Ray (1627–1705), whose nomenclature was based on a division of species and genera within botany and zoology. There was also Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656–1708), whose nomenclature was based on the construction of the crown leaves from plants and fruits. Ray’s nomenclature was very reminiscent of Linnaeus’ own. Both Ray’s and Tournefort’s systems were functional, and were utilised although in an arbitrary manner and lacking in clear cut principles. Most likely they created more trouble than alleviating scientists’ attempts at classifying new plants and animals. In general this resulted in each person classifying and naming natural specimens as they saw fit.   What Linnaeus succeeded at with Systema naturæ was to organise simple, under-standable, practical and usable principles as to how the classification and systema-tisation of nature should be done, a system of rules which soon everyone could benefit from. It was not the system in itself, which was so special, but the simplicity of its application. The two most famous components are the sexual system and the binominal nomenclature, developed at a later date. The sexual system, which was introduced in the first edition of Systema naturæ, was built mainly on the observa-tions from the previously mentioned Vaillant but also from the German botanist Rudolf Jakob Camerarius (1665–1721). The binominal nomenclature received its final constellation  in Species plantarum  from  1753. The principles established  for naming initiated in Systema naturæ was nevertheless an important step using the name of the species as the first part of its description. The name was thereafter followed with enough specific characteristics to delimit the species from other similar species according to both a logical and substantial pattern up to a total of twelve words.   In Systema naturæ Linnaeus divides nature into three kingdoms. Mineral king-dom, vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom of which the vegetable kingdom was the most thoroughly researched of the three. All plants belong according to Lin-naeus to one of 24 classes which – aside from cryptograms where neither stamen nor pistil are visible – are differentiated by the number of stamen or special ar-rangement found in the plant’s flower. The classes are then in turn divided into sub classes such as orders, genera, families and species. These divisions were mainly based on similarities between the plants and have later on become the object of a complete revision with the introduction of genetics and DNA technology. But in 1735 the applicability of Linnaeus’ sexual system was obvious, despite the irrita-tion of some critics over Linnaeus’ continuous comparison with mankind’s sexual 

Page 19: Linnaeus' network

17

life (when discussing plants he uses the terms bride’s chamber, wedding, bed etc.) or that the principles at times were somewhat rigid. Yet it was now possible for the world’s plant collectors, botanical enthusiasts and scientists to study a plant, assess the shape of its reproductive organs and thereby determining its overall place in the hierarchy. The animal kingdom, however, was divided into six classes: mammals, birds, amphibians, fish, insects and worms, following which there were numerous factors to determine relationships among these. This approach to clas-sifying was admittedly heavy handed and caused numerous misunderstandings and confusion, but as the existing zoological systems were found to be even more insufficient  than  those  found  in botany,  it was  still  a  substantial  improvement, which became crucial when classifying animals and insects. There was a special section in Systema naturæ devoted to mythological beasts and other figments of the imagination, such as dragons and satyrs. Their heading read “Paradoxa”. Finally Linnaeus divides the mineral kingdom into three classes: rocks, minerals and fos-sils. The classification applied to these came from the rock’s physical character and was never really accorded any scientific merit.   The simplicity of the principles from Systema naturæ was decisive in the work gaining such a swift dissemination across the world. But perhaps more importantly was Linnaeus’ own manner of establishing himself in the science community of the 18th century. His tireless work constantly classifying the flora of the world soon made him the sole authority in the field of botany, which in turn resulted in that his system of classification,  from a pragmatic point of view, soon discarded all other existing or conceivable systems. Linnaeus’ exceptional efforts and ability to market himself and his ideas made it scientifically unconstructive for a long time to formulate or use other systems. Linnaeus’ sexual system and binominal nomenclature  monopolised  the  scientific  community.  With  the  publication  of  Systema naturæ Linnaeus met with fame and he would for the remainder of his career expand and develop his work.   This copy of Systema naturæ was included in the Swedish Society of Medicine’s first library catalogue, printed 1820. The seven large folio sheets are here folded vertically and therefore form a book only half as wide as the size of the sheets, a  format Linnaeus himself  recommended as  the most practical way of  folding out the three tables. In 1977  this copy was examined and a small entry reading “Exemplar Auctoris” was found on the title-page. The person who had it bound in this way was no other than the author himself. The copy also contains a plate, il-lustrating the 24 classes of Linnaeus’ sexual system for plants, which was engraved and hand coloured by Georg Dionysius Ehret, one of the foremost flower painters of the 18th century. This plate, dated 1736,  is only known to appear in a handful of copies. The previously mentioned Methodus-sheet from 1736 is also bound in. Finally it should be mentioned that Linnaeus made one correction in his copy of Systema Naturæ. In the table “Regnum animale”, in the column Insecta, there is by “Cancer”, a denunciation “pedes 12”, where Linnaeus corrects the number “2” to a zero, as the crayfish only has 10 feet. 

Page 20: Linnaeus' network

18

2.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Bibliotheca botanica. Amsterdam, 1736. 8:o. + 

    LINNÉ, CARL von. Fundamenta botanica. Amsterdam, 1736. 8:o. Half calf. With signature of bookseller Gottfried Kiesewetter at lower end of title-page and signature of Abraham Hülphers on front paste-down.

Private collection.

Page 21: Linnaeus' network

19

Dispositio et denominatio

Following  Systema naturæ  Linnaeus  once  again  turned  his  attention  to  botany. Work on two of his projects, on which he had spent numerous years – Bibliotheca botanica  and Fundamenta botanica – was  resumed. Linnaeus was assisted  in  their completion during some late-summer weeks by his host and colleague, Johannes Burman.  Burman  was  duly  rewarded  for  his  services,  receiving  a  printed dedication  in  Bibliotheca botanica.  The  latter  work  is  a  catalogue  consisting  of previously published literature on the subject of botany in which the old authors find  themselves  arranged  according  to  a  system  of  classes  and  methods  very much along the lines of Linnaeus’ own system for the natural kingdom. Bibliotheca botanica is divided into sixteen classes; among them he placed Patres, the fathers of botany, and Systematists. In the latter class, there is the Universal order and its subdivision of Sexualists in which Linnaeus positioned himself alone. Alongside this work Linnaeus also published Fundamenta botanica, a scientific work in which the theoretical basis for his nomenclature was presented in 365 concise aphorisms, arranged  in  tabular  form.  It  says  in  the Fundamenta,  that  the basis of botany  is dispositio et denominatio, arrangement and denomination. The concise and rigid form fits like a hand in glove with the intentions of the book – and once and for all – establish the ground rules of the Linnaeus’ classification of plants. Linnaeus states how the components of plants should be named and described, how the fruitification organs are used when identifying the family of plants and its higher classes, as well as the disengaging of the separate species. It seems like a thought that both the Bibliotheca and Fundamenta botanica are printed in small and pocket friendly  octavo  editions.  Linnaeus  ambition  was  no  doubt  to  see  all  botanists nurture these titles near their bosoms.   The small, discrete signature “GK” on the title-page in this particular volume indicates  that  it  had  been  sold  through  the  bookseller  Gottfried  Kiesewetter. Kiesewetter had immigrated to Sweden from Germany and in 1735 he married the widow of  the book dealer  J. H. Russworm. Kiesewetter  thereby came  into ownership of Russworm’s bookstore in Stockholm along with Russworm’s privi-leges as academic bookseller in Uppsala. He also pursued publishing ventures, among which were several of Linnaeus’ works. Linnaeus found Kiesewetter’s con-siderable network throughout Europe to be a useful asset. The German natural historian Johann Georg Gmelin in correspondence with Linnaeus tells him that he can use Kiesewetter for shipments, as he often ships considerable amounts of books to Leipzig.    This copy belonged to the foundry proprietor and author Abraham Abraham-son Hülphers (1734–98) from Västmanland, who in his major topographical works, among them Samlingar til en beskrifning öfwer Norrland (1771–97), was clearly influ-enced by Linnaeus’ topographical descriptions. Parts of Hülphers’ extensive book collection were sold at an auction in Uppsala 1805. 

Page 22: Linnaeus' network

20

3.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Genera plantarum. Leiden, 1737. 8:o. Full calf. Ownership signature “J. Leche” on title-page and some contem-porary annotations in the text.

Private collection.

Page 23: Linnaeus' network

21

Surveying plant families

Early in 1737 Linnaeus published his extensive survey of all the then known plant species  –  Genera plantarum.  In  his  autobiography  Linnaeus  in  a  self-conscious manner characterizes the work as “a work no one has dared to follow”. Even the printed dedication to one of  the most renowned contemporaries,  the scientist, physician and botanist Herman Boerhaave (1668–1738), who Linnaeus first met in the Netherlands, must be said to reflect  the young author’s conviction that he had achieved something of importance. Altogether Linnaeus identified 935 spe-cies in Genera plantarum and 686 of these he had personally been able to examine using living plant specimens. The work is also based on extensive surveys of the prevalent literature, whereby virtually all works contributing to the delimitation and attribution of species had been put to use. Linnaeus would sample the key to the attribution of the species’ characteristics in accordance with his classification principles using the reproductive organs. Among these he identified 26 different types of organs, “the letters of plants”, distinguishing distinctive features put there by the Creator. The genus is defined through the number of organs, shape, posi-tion and its relative size in the flower – Linnaeus’ four “mechanical principles”. In Genera plantarum he creates a number of new plant families and in a strict con-sequential manner he also changes or excludes more than half the family names given by previous writers. In an accompanying corollary to Genera plantarum he also notes the geographical spreading of various plant families. All this appears to have impressed Boerhaave to the extent that he writes and thanks Linnaeus for the dedication and gives vent to his opinion that the book displays “immeasurable exactness” and “science beyond comparison”.   This  copy of  Genera plantarum once belonged  to  the physician  Johan Leche (1704–64), who has most likely written the annotations in the text about such mat-ters as Swedish name variants and the locality of plants. Leche first studied to be-come a priest in Lund, yet during a period as a private tutor his interest for natural history began to take precedence and in an autodidactic fashion he added to his knowledge through books acquired by selling his Hebrew bible. On his return to Lund in 1733 Leche studied medicine and soon came to Linnaeus’ attention, after having sent him specimens from Skåne. Linnaeus encouraged Leche to pursue his studies of the local flora and fauna and would later be instrumental in Leche’s employment as physician with the East India Company in Gothenburg and his election to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in  1745. Linnaeus was also instrumental in 1748 when Leche was awarded a professorship in medicine at Åbo University (Finland) where he took a special interest in the natural sciences and its applications. In a dissertation published under Leche’s tutelage he opposes – with-holding names – the convictions of Linnaeus and others that swallows hibernate on the sea bed. He relied on notes about swallow’s migration patterns along with a simple experiment whereby he let a swallow be submerged in water and on realis-ing its predicament the swallow would float up to the surface. 

Page 24: Linnaeus' network

22

4.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Flora Lapponica. Amsterdam,  1737. 8:o. Full calf. With the engraved armorial bookplate of Matthias Ben-zelstierna.

Kungl. biblioteket – National Library of Sweden.

Page 25: Linnaeus' network

23

Plants of the North

Among the manuscripts Linnaeus brought with him to the Netherlands was his flora of Lapland. It was the most important scientific result from the journey he undertook to the northern parts of Sweden in 1732, commissioned by the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala. The notes he had produced from his botanical observations during the journey were compiled when he got home. But it was not until Linnaeus came to the Netherlands and was ably assisted by his new found friend Johannes Burman that Flora Lapponica after many revisions became the first of his floras to see print. A factor which delayed the process further were the ac-companying plates, funded by and dedicated to various patrons, such as Linnaeus’ friends and benefactors Burman, Clifford and Gronovius. As could be expected, the flora as a whole was dedicated to the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala.  The Flora Lapponica opens with an introduction about the geographic conditions of Lapland. The catalogue of plants contains detailed descriptions of the species Linnaeus found, but even here he occasionally indulges in narrating. For instance, he recounts episodes from the journey through Lapland and accounts admiringly for the simple and free lifestyle of the Sami people – the author was himself a man of modest habits. Always the marketing strategist, Linnaeus knew to intersperse the academic tone of the catalogue with exotic gleams from the north, which was an obvious attempt to attract readers who lacked the knowledge of the specialists. From a letter to his colleague and rival Albrecht von Haller it becomes clear that Linnaeus had another kind of readership in mind for the Flora Lapponica, which he says was “not written for the scholarly but for the unscholarly”, than that of his more systematic works. Yet the Flora Lapponica has its own very special mean-ing as it is the first published work in which Linnaeus applied his own botanical taxonomy on a regional plant material.   This copy of Flora Lapponica belonged to a fellow-student of Linnaeus from his days at the University of Lund, Matthias Benzelstierna (1713–91). Both were seen at the lectures in natural history given by the versatile physician and professor Kilian Stobæus (1690–1742). Benzelstierna was at this time preoccupied with his studies in the natural sciences and briefly consider a career as a physician. Nevertheless, he was to take a different path to that of Linnaeus and eventually became Director of the Postal Services in 1759. Yet they stayed in touch and as late as 1773 Benzelstierna wrote to Linnaeus to remind him of some plants and seeds, which he had been promised. The delay was typical of Linnaeus who always proved more efficient in asking for data and samples of species than supplying others with the same.   Benzelstierna would throughout his life entertain a strong interest in history and in 1786 he was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities; the same year he was awarded a full membership to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He was a diligent collector of books, manuscripts and coins – above all he owned one the largest private libraries in Sweden at the time. This was eventually inherited by his nephew Lars von Engeström and donated in 1864 to Kungl. biblioteket. 

Page 26: Linnaeus' network

24

Page 27: Linnaeus' network

25

Page 28: Linnaeus' network

26

5.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Critica botanica. Leiden, 1737. 8:o. + 

    BROWALLIUS, JOHAN. Discursus de introducenda in scholas et gym-nasia praecipue vero in gymnasium Arosiense historiæ naturalis lectione, ad generosissimum […] bar. de Reuterholm, et […] doct. Andr. Kalsenium. Leiden, 1737. 8:o. Vellum. Lower part of title-page with bookdealer Gottfried Kiesewetter’s miniscule  signature “GK”. Signature on  front  free endpaper:  “Eric G: Liidbeck”, dated Uppsala October 15, 1743.

Private collection.

Page 29: Linnaeus' network

27

Naming and friendship

The Critica botanica, which constitutes a further development of the aphorisms 210–314 in Fundamenta botanica, established Linnaeus’ rules when naming the genus and species of plants, which had long been a problematic issue in botany with its long and complicated denomination of  species  seemingly  intended to confuse rather than clarify. According to Critica botanica a species is named using a single word and not just any kind of names were permitted. For instance it was recom-mendable to name the genus after some famous botanist. For the species itself a longer description is used containing a thorough characteristic though with an upper limit as to the number of words used.   The Critica botanica contains a noteworthy appendix, Johan Browallius’ (1707–55) Discursus about the importance of introducing natural science to the curriculum of  schools and colleges.  It  is a  typical plea of  its  time,  shared by many, of  the benefits natural science in education could reap for society. Linnaeus had become acquainted with Browallius during his time in Falun where the latter was chaplain and private tutor with the County Governor Nils Reuterholm. Under Linnaeus’ influence Browallius came to develop a strong interest in the natural sciences and in the year when Discursus was published he was awarded a professorship in the natural sciences at Åbo, Finland. Whilst at Åbo he introduced Linnaeus’ taxonomy before he was transferred to the theological faculty. Browallius, who became the Bishop of Åbo in 1749, also authored the first biography of Linnaeus, Curriculum vitæ Caroli Linnæi (Swedish translation in 1920). Linnaeus reciprocated by naming the plant genus Browallia after his friend.   This copy was once in the ownership of Erik Gustaf Lidbeck (1724–1803). He was one of the disciples Linnaeus indulged with great, at times overwhelming, affection and came to appoint as his favourite. Lidbeck was for instance Linnaeus’ sole  travel companion during his  journeys  through Västergötland  in  1746. The original plan was for Lidbeck to accompany Linnaeus to Skåne as well, but he was prevented from doing so due to illness. Lidbeck was to take a greater interest in the practical uses of botany and would eventually be awarded a professorship in natural history at Lund along with the directorship of plantations in Skåne. In the latter capacity he would, among other things, come to promote the plant-ing of mulberry trees in this part of the country, something his mentor Linnaeus considered to be both desirable and suitable. Both of them conducted an intense correspondence and Lidbeck supplied Linnaeus with extensive reports from his scholarly journeys to the Netherlands and Germany, which he undertook, on the advice of his mentor in the autumn of 1752. Through Lidbeck’s description, Lin-naeus was once again transported to the gardens of George Clifford at Hartekamp, where 25 years earlier he enjoyed an extraordinarily productive and happy period of his life.

Page 30: Linnaeus' network

28

6.  ARTEDI, PETER. Ichthyologia […] editit Carolus Linnæus. Leiden, 1738. 8:o. Full calf. Front cover with “G. Cliffortio sacrum” lettered in gilt.

Private collection.

Page 31: Linnaeus' network

29

A gift to the benefactor

Barely  a  month  after  his  return  from  the  Netherlands  in  June  1735,  Linnaeus happened upon his good friend and fellow student from Uppsala, Peter Artedi (1705–35) from the county of Ångermanland, at a tavern in Leiden. The emotions displayed by both at the reunion are said to have been joyous. When Linnaeus had arrived in Uppsala seven years earlier, Artedi had already established himself as an authority on natural science at the University. They became friends and began to compete in a friendly way in developing their ideas about describing nature in a systematic manner. Artedi would come mainly to specialise in fish. He was also the first of the two to leave Sweden to find his fortune abroad. When Linnaeus met with him again in Leiden Artedi had just returned from England where research in fish at the time was well advanced. Linnaeus assisted Artedi – who was low on trav-elling funds – in finding employment with the collector of naturalia, Albert Seba, whose extensive collection of fish was in need of qualified cataloguing. By the end of September that same year Artedi concluded his project with Seba and at a new meeting Linnaeus took the opportunity to show him the completed manuscript of Fundamenta botanica whilst his friend read to him what he had completed in his book about fish. Analytical discussions between the two ensued. As they parted Linnaeus left Amsterdam to begin his work as supervisor of the greenhouses in the renowned garden of financier George Clifford at his estate in Hartekamp.   Linnaeus barely got settled at Clifford’s house before tragic news reached him. On September 27 Artedi had attended a banquet at Seba’s and towards the small hours as he ventured off home he fell into one of the canals in Amsterdam and drowned. Linnaeus was now faced with a promise the two had once given each other, whereby the survivor would publish the results of the deceased’s scientific findings. There was nevertheless an obstacle to overcome as Artedi’s landlord re-fused access to his possessions, including the manuscript to the book on fish, until what debts were left behind had been settled. Eventually Linnaeus’ benefactor Clifford intervened and bought the manuscript and financed its publication. Three years after Artedi’s death the Ichtyologia was in print with a few minor amendments by Linnaeus. The work became as pioneering as Linnaeus’ scientific achievements in botany with a clear and distinct allocation of fish into genera and species. True to order Linnaeus dedicated the book to the project’s patron and honoured him with this copy, where the gilded lettering on the cover reads “Votive offering to G. Clifford”. This gesture of subservience – hardly typical of Linnaeus – reflects the importance of Clifford to the young Swedish botanist’s career. His work for Clif-ford provided Linnaeus with the security and the much needed peace and quiet to pursue his work, enabling him to take up the position as the main authority on systematic botany. The work for Clifford was mainly seen in Musa Cliffortiana, where Linnaeus showed for the first time how he got a banana tree to blossom in the Netherlands, and his magnificent book of plates about the garden, Hortus Cliffortianus (1737).

Page 32: Linnaeus' network

30

7.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Classes plantarum. Leiden, 1738. 8:o. Half calf. Signature “O. Kalmeter” and bookstamp of the Swedish Society of Medicine on the title-page.

Hagströmer Library (property of the Swedish Society of Medicine).

Page 33: Linnaeus' network

31

Method is everything

The last of Linnaeus’ botanical reform texts from the years in the Netherlands was Classes plantarum, in which he reflects upon the highest systematic level, the classes. Linnaeus develops his rulings from Fundamenta botanica, aphorisms 53–77 and the work also carries the subtitle Fundamentorum botanicum pars II. In Classes plantarum, Linnaeus looks back upon history and presents an overview of all botanical sys-tems that existed before his own time. These are divided into two main sections, on the one hand there are the systems whereby the classes are determined by the fruit and on the other hand those whose classes emanate from the flower, similar to his sexual system. Linnaeus also makes a comparison in which the empiric in a complicated manner must seek his way through herbaria, books and illustrations to enable the identification of a plant, whilst the taxonomist with his system based on logic, step by step can eliminate categories of alternatives and thereby reach the same identification at a much faster rate. Linnaeus means that in the science of botany, method is everything. In Classes plantarum a proposal about the natural plant system is finally set forth, consisting of 65 orders. Even for Linnaeus, the creator of the artificial sexual system, a natural system would be the conclusive goal and these reflections would remain with him throughout his life.   The printed dedication in the Classes plantarum is addressed to two of Linnaeus’ earlier acquaintances  in Sweden, Nils Reuterholm and Gabriel Gyllengrip, of which the former is discussed elsewhere in the catalogue. With regard to Gyllengrip (1687–1753),  he  entered  a  liaison  with  Linnaeus  following  his  appointment  as County Governor of Västerbotten in the year of the bad crops 1733. Aware that Linnaeus had recently toured the county he asked his advice whether “Lapland could be sown to reap fruits and utilities as the southern regions”. Linnaeus replied by recommending lyme-grass, which he had seen prosper along the coastline of Bottenviken, as suitable for that purpose. Gyllengrip would duly follow his advice. He propositioned the government that Linnaeus should be given a public grant so he could occupy himself “with the discovered seed’s acquisition to its sufficient abundance”. However, the project would come to nothing and Linnaeus would later in life distance himself from his youthful enthusiasm for the superiority of the lyme-grass.   This copy has belonged to the physician Olof Kalmeter (1711–66), who was the physician in charge of the town of Falun and its mines. In resemblance with Lin-naeus he was married to a daughter of Falun physician Johan Moræus and the two brother-in-laws consequently had numerous meetings during the years. There was an actual instance whereby Kalmeter assisted Linnaeus. This is documented in a letter from the German natural scientist and collector Franciscus Ernst Brück-mann (1697–1753), dated December 16, 1741. Kalmeter was at the time travelling in Germany and paid Brückmann a visit with the purpose of studying his collection of minerals and fossils. He then took the letter home to Sweden and Linnaeus, in which Brückmann among other things asks for Swedish mineral samples and natural science dissertations from Uppsala. 

Page 34: Linnaeus' network

32

8.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Systema naturæ. […] Editio secunda, auctior. Stockholm, 1740. 8:o. Full calf. From the library of Carl Gustaf Tessin, with his signature on the title-page. 

Kungl. biblioteket – National Library of Sweden.

Page 35: Linnaeus' network

33

“My great Apollo”

On his return to Sweden in the summer of 1738, Linnaeus settled in Stockholm and practised medicine. His business was slow to start with but eventually he found an appreciative clientele among the city’s young prosperous gentlemen. He was newly engaged to Sara Lisa Moræa but needed a regular income to secure his future father-in-law’s consent to marry his daughter. In the autumn of that year he made the advantageous acquaintance of Carl Gustaf Tessin who had reached political power when the Hat Party was triumphant in Parliament and Tessin was elected its Land Marshal. Through the agency of Tessin, Linnaeus was appointed physician to the Admiralty. The agreeable salary that accompanied the position enabled Linnaeus to marry in 1739 and set up home in the capital. Before then, he had for several months enjoyed free board and lodge at Tessin’s apartment. Whatever limited interest Linnaeus showed in politics he would hereafter remain a staunch supporter of the Hats and maintained cordial relations with several of the party’s leaders, among them Anders Johan von Höpken and Clas Ekeblad.  The year following his marriage Linnaeus published a second and expanded edition of Systema naturæ, provided with Swedish names in the sections of zoology and mineralogy. The Fundamenta botanica was added as an appendix and it was no coincidence that Linnaeus also added a printed dedication to Tessin. Dedications were especially common in scientific works and dissertations of the time. They were to an extent used as career aids whereby the author could thank his patrons or attract new ones. In Linnaeus’ case it was especially important to use dedications – there are further examples of such in the catalogue – to gain new acquaintances among researchers, especially as some of his ideas would provoke established ways of thinking. There were occasions when the recipients did not cordially receive the dedications; the elderly Herman Boerhaave for instance, despised all forms of honorary distinctions, nevertheless he appreciated, as we have noted Linnaeus’ dedication addressed to him in Genera plantarum. However, the German botanist Johann  Jacob Dillenius became  indignant over  the  fact  that he had  received a dedication in the Critica botanica to which he had not given his approval. Dillenius proved to have been critical to this work and also felt that Linnaeus should have been aware of his “dislike of pomposity and flattery”.  However, Linnaeus’ relation to Tessin, “my great Apollo”, remained cordial and was barely impaired when Tessin in 1752 handed in his resignation as President of the Chancellery. The following year saw the publication of the magnificently illustrated Museum Tessinianum, in which Linnaeus describes his patron’s impres-sive collections of minerals and fossils at Åkerö. Tessin on the other hand paid tribute to Linnaeus by immortalizing him on a medal. Their friendship is also documented in an extensive correspondence.  Tessin was one of the great collectors of his time and his library at Åkerö was also extensive and of a universal character, ranging from belles-lettres to natural sciences. Many of the volumes are bound in full calf with Tessin’s name in gilt lettering.

Page 36: Linnaeus' network

34

9.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Öländska och gothländska resa […] förrättad åhr 1741. Stockholm & Uppsala, 1745. 8:o. Full calf. Title-page with bookstamp of Oskar (II). Front free endpaper with author’s personal inscription to Gustaf Kierman, partially erased and somewhat disguised by old red sealing-wax.

Private collection.

Page 37: Linnaeus' network

35

In the service of the welfare of the state

Shortly after attaining his sorely sought after position as professor in medicine at Uppsala in May 1741, Linnaeus undertook a new journey, commissioned by the Parliament and with instructions from its Office of Manufacture. The assignment was to secure plant dyes  for  the textile  industry, find herbal medicines, survey for sorts of clay and earth and take notes in the field of natural history on Öland and Gotland. The journey bore the imprint of the Swedish Age of Liberty and its utilitarian approach, which was often present in Linnaeus’ other activities; what Sweden had  in  the way of natural  resources needed  to be utilized better  than it was. In the company of six younger associates who funded their fare, among them his wife’s brother Johan Moræus, Linnaeus travelled via Södermanland and Östergötland, first to Kalmar, where the expedition were shipped across rough seas to Öland. On arrival they were rewarded with a wealth of flora and the collecting of specimens began immediately on the way to Borgholm. Linnaeus was particu-larly impressed by the island’s many species of orchids, but during the three weeks on Öland the company also found the time to study runic writings and the local customs of Öland.  The visit to Gotland lasted longer and the larger island offered more to see. Ancient remains, animal life and especially the many plants gave rise to the pleas-ure of discovery, the delight of collecting and diligent note taking. With his usual astuteness Linnaeus describes natural specimens as well as the living conditions of the farmers on Gotland, which he considered to be fair and well organised. The theme of the journey was nevertheless that of economic progress and with regard to Sweden’s “large, sterile and useless mires”, Linnaeus was of the opinion that mires could be seeded using the great fen-sedge of Gotland, which dehydrates the sallow mire and constitutes excellent material for roofing. On Fårö Linnaeus examines lyme-grass, which he a few years earlier recommended for the cultiva-tion of Lapland, however, on Gotland he was more interested in its ability to bind shifting sands. At Roma monastery before his journey home a barn makes Lin-naeus exclaim in a lyrical manner “there was this beautiful monastery built, cut and polished out of marble looking like a cowhouse and it is the most splendid cowhouse to be seen in Sweden”.   After close to two months on Gotland the time for the journey home was near-ing. Cursed with bad weather conditions at sea Linnaeus and his companions suf-fered a shaky boat ride back to Öland: “the northern weather began to howl and the waves grew furious.” The short ferry ride to the mainland did however take place in calmer conditions and once in Kalmar the company parted. Linnaeus travelled to his childhood home in Stenbrohult where he met “my greying old father, my many siblings and relatives, whom I for the last time paid a visit”. The final stage of the journey took him to Medevi and its mineral spring. It was here that Linnaeus met with the entomologist Carl De Geer to “see what insects he had found this summer”. Back home in Stockholm Linnaeus after a brief stay travelled to Uppsala to take up his professorship and his many duties delayed the editing 

Page 38: Linnaeus' network

36

and printing of his experiences of Öland and Gotland close to four years. When the book was finally ready it presented a wealth of material despite of the fact that no important dyes or clay sorts for the production of china had been found on the two islands. Instead it was the natural-historical findings, with over a hundred newly discovered plants and a large amount of information about the husbandry from the islands, which proved to be the yield of the journey. Linnaeus’ Öländska och gothländska resa was also his first published book in Swedish. In his foreword he apologises to the reader for his simple and direct use of his native language, which in hindsight seems unnecessary; with this and later travel books Linnaeus also made his way into the annals of Swedish literary history.   This copy  is  inscribed by  the author  to Gustaf Kierman  (1702–66), delegate of the Parliament’s Office of Manufacture, which issued the instructions for the travels that Linnaeus reproduces on some of the book’s preliminary pages. In a letter to Carl Gustaf Tessin dated December 22, 1745, Linnaeus asks the former to distribute four enclosed copies of the Öländska och gothländska resa to the delegates of the Office of Manufacture, whose chairman was Tessin.  Kierman, who was the son of a merchant from Askersund, enjoyed from 1728 a swift career as a wholesaler in Stockholm and would eventually become one of his time’s most influential financiers and politicians in the Hat Party. In the financial crisis of the 1760’s due to the dissolution of the exchange offices, which Kierman helped to initiate, he lost his fortune and position of power. Accused of having misused his political standing for personal gain he was heavily fined and jailed fol-lowing a political mock trial. He died shortly after at the fortress in Marstrand as a hated and despised man. Linnaeus mentions Kierman in his clandestine notes in Nemesis divina, in which he noted episodes from life illustrating his conviction that all moral lapses receive their justified punishment this side of death. Set against this background the image of Kierman in Nemesis divina, becomes still darker and it is implied that in his younger days Kierman either murdered or had someone hired to murder his employer in Stockholm only to marry the victim’s widow. Linnaeus also recounts a confession by Kierman during – no doubt under the influence of alcohol – at a dinner party following a tour of his shipbuilding yard in 1756: “You have seen that I have masts worth two barrels of gold, but if one made a gallows pole of them all, it would not be enough for my crimes.”

Page 39: Linnaeus' network

37

Page 40: Linnaeus' network

38

10.  LINNAEUS, CARL von. Wästgöta resa. Stockholm,  1747. 8:o. Full calf. Bookplate  “Bibliotheca Reuterholmiana” on  front paste-down, signature “Christ. Reuterholm” on the title-page, bookstamp of the Swedish Society of Medicine on front free endpaper.

Hagströmer Library (property of the Swedish Society of Medicine).

Page 41: Linnaeus' network

39

Westward

When Linnaeus received his commission from the States of the Realm to visit Öland and Gotland, Västergötland was initially to have been part of that itinerary. For practical reasons the surveying of this region was postponed until June 1746, “just days following the magnificent flowering of the Academy Gardens”, when Linnaeus was ready to undertake his travels in Västergötland. This time only his disciple, Erik Gustaf Lidbeck, accompanied him. They visited a number of towns on their way, among them Västerås where they met with Bishop Andreas Kalsen-ius who informed them of the improvements he had recently introduced to his teaching at the town’s college. The pupils took part in natural science field studies and followed current news events, “so that they may not arrive at the universities totally ignorant aside from the required dose of Latin and the usual cramming”. Pleased with this information on educational progress, Linnaeus continued his travels south-west and eventually reached Kinnekulle, where studies of the moun-tain’s geological characteristics and formations were undertaken. The two travel-ling companions also secured several rare plants whilst enjoying sceneries that “defy description in all their splendour”.   As was the case with his journeys to Öland and Gotland, Linnaeus’ research would mainly benefit economical interests and there are occasions when Linnaeus acts more as a government surveyor of agriculture and industry than as a scientist. The strange Scottish charlatan Alexander Blackwell, who was to be executed for high  treason  in Stockholm  the  following year, was paid a visit by Linnaeus at Ållestad, a royal estate he had been granted by the state to pursue improvements in education and agriculture. Linnaeus became visibly disappointed at what he saw of Blackwell’s agricultural experiments and assumed an ironic tone over the latter’s claim that pure sand within a three year period could be turned into black soil. However, Linnaeus adopts a more positive attitude as he ponders Jonas Al-strömer’s manufacturing plant in Alingsås, of which he concludes: “it is impossible to imagine what goes on here without having seen it”. In true patriotic manner Linnaeus appeals to the young men of Sweden who might entertain plans of mak-ing their fortune abroad to first pay a visit to the Alingsås manufacturing plant and Falu mines so they “should not seek abroad what they may find at home”.   After Alingsås Linnaeus visits Gothenburg where part of the assignment was to form contacts with those interested in natural history, among them Jacob Boëthius and Linnaeus’ protégé Johan Leche, both of whom delivered numerous and previ-ously unaccounted for species of fish, clams and insects. From Gothenburg the journey continued towards Bohuslän where the marine life offered the travellers several unknown natural history specimens “which had us confounded.” Trollhät-tan and its waterfall however failed to impress Linnaeus who had seen the rapids and falls of Lapland and considers Västergötland’s equivalent to be “mere child’s play” in comparison. The journey was thereafter homeward bound and on leav-ing Trollhättan, Linnaeus inspects the tobacco plantations that were beginning to yield their owners handsome profits. Linnaeus hoped it would prevent further 

Page 42: Linnaeus' network

40

import of tobacco. They made a much appreciated stopover at Count Jacob Cron-stedt at Fullerö in Västmanland, whose sizable gardens and well stocked library made for interesting observations. Yet even here Linnaeus would not allow his pen to rest and among other things he reported on a new dessert served at the count’s table, Escadie d’Espagnie, a pastry made of sugar and lemon rind. The ever pragmatic Linnaeus nevertheless found the concoction to airy, “a pleasant thing for magnates” though nothing “to strengthen one’s body with”. As the harvest ap-proached the travelling companions reached Uppsala, “as the children in the field sang and blew their horns for the grazing cattle until the cool evening weather began to blow and the evening sun fell below the horizon”.   This copy of Wästgöta resa was the property of one of Linnaeus’ most important benefactors, Nils Esbjörnsson Reuterholm (1676–1756). They became acquainted during the winter of 1733–34 when Linnaeus visited the town of Falun invited by a former student friend of his, Claes Sohlberg. During his visit Linnaeus was given the opportunity to render Reuterholm, who was at the time County Governor of Dalarna, an account of his journey to Lapland. This impressed Reuterholm to such a degree that he began discussing the possibility of realizing similar projects within his own county. In the summer of 1734 he asked Linnaeus to return from Uppsala and presented him with a generous offer to embark on a journey in Dalarna. Seven of Linnaeus’ fellow students from the faculty of medicine signed up to join and on July 3, a select entourage of eight, among them his friend Sohlberg, departed from Falun. In a grand manner the group of travellers named themselves the Societas Itineraria Reuterholmiana, in tribute to their benefactor and Linnaeus became its obvious leader. During the journey, which lasted 45 days and took them all the way to Røros in Norway, ambitious research was carried out within all branches of natural history, but also of the county’s state of affairs. Linnaeus kept a diary from his travels but this would not see print until 1889.  When Linnaeus participated in the constituting of the Academy of Sciences in 1739 he was instrumental in securing Reuterholm a membership that same year. In part this was no doubt due to a sense of gratitude on Linnaeus’ behalf but it was on the whole crucial for the new academy to attract all benevolent and influential forces it could – consequently a number of high-ranking officials and aristocrats joined Reuterholm as members of  the Academy. However, a delicate situation arose in 1745, when the ever thorough Linnaeus raised the issue concerning one of the Academy’s founding statutes, which maintained that anyone who did not provide new research or in any other manner assisted the Academy within a two year period would loose their appointment. It soon became obvious that Linnaeus’ friend Reuterholm was in trouble with regard to the statutes but he was reinstalled as his knowledge regarding means to poverty stricken people was requested.   Reuterholm owned a library of approximately 4000 volumes ranging from theo-logy to natural history. This was relocated prior to his death to his estate at Ekeby in Västmanland and was divided in 1757 in five equal shares among his heirs. 

Page 43: Linnaeus' network

41

Page 44: Linnaeus' network

42

11.  HIORTER, OLOF. Almanach för åhret […] 1747 […]. Tillika med med. pro-fessor. herr d. Linnæi anmärkningar om coffé. Stockholm, (1746). 16:o. Paper bound. With Bengt Ferrner’s signature on title-page and spo-radic diary entries.

Private collection.

Page 45: Linnaeus' network

43

Enlightening the people

Almanacs have for a long time been one of the most widely distributed forms of publications. The various collected editions of almanacs in Sweden in the 1740’s reached approximately 140.000 per year and in 1747 there were 14 different Swed-ish almanacs published. The publishers were often astronomers and  they had, often against their convictions, supplied the almanacs with astrological predic-tions about the current year. Occasionally, essays on such subjects as history, natu-ral science or economy made for added attractions. Such essays would over time grow in stature and successively push the astrological material off the pages of the almanacs. From the 1730’s the renowned astronomer Anders Celsius enabled such specialists as Jonas Alströmer and Christopher Polhem to write essays for the al-manacs he published. The final two almanacs which Celsius published in 1744–45  included Linnaeus’ “Underrättelse om nyttan af wäxternes olika kiön”, the first popular scientific explanation of the sexual system.  Olof Hiorter (1696–1750), Celsius’ brother in law, was also a publisher of alma-nacs and was assisted at first by Nils Rosén von Rosenstein and then Linnaeus to fill them with texts. Having written about diseases as well as fern trees, Linnaeus began a series of essays of the various salubrious effects of beverages; the most well known is the often reprinted text about aquavit.   In the almanac for  1747,  the text  is about coffee and begins with a botanical description of the coffee plant and its geographical range and continues with how the drink is prepared and the various coffee habits of different peoples. Linnaeus raises a warning finger about drinking too late in the evening and “on this note coffee is conducive to those who are concerned about their time, rather than life and health; and if forced to work through the night it will aid astronomers to stay awake at their observatories and gentlemen at the gaming tables.”  Linnaeus wrote a total of twelve essays for almanacs, from “Some household remedies for the mariners” in 1741 to “Transaction on the planting of forests” in 1750. His two last essays were written for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences who in 1749 acquired exclusive rights to publish almanacs in Sweden and thereby was given a lucrative source of income. The Academy continued adding popular science essays to almanacs until the privilege was suspended in 1972.  Bengt Ferrner (1724–1802) was the son of a priest from Värmland and began his studies at Uppsala University in 1743. He succeeded Hiorter as astronomic obser-vator at Uppsala observatory and was a member of both the Royal Swedish Acad-emy of Sciences and the Royal Society. In 1758–63 Ferrner undertook an extensive scientific journey across Europe. He carried with him numerous assignments from Linnaeus, sending reports back to Linnaeus in his correspondence. Much of it was related to the expansion of Linnaeus’ network of contacts. Ferrner kept sending greetings, books and seeds to the expectant Linnaeus. Whilst in London he met with several of Linnaeus’ disciples whom he counted upon to supply Linnaeus with reports to the masters many queries. He also had to deny a rumour of Lin-naeus’ death.

Page 46: Linnaeus' network

44

12.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Hortus Upsaliensis. Stockholm, 1748. 8:o. Full calf. With the gilded supralibros of Uppsala University and J. G. Acrels signature on the title-page.

Private collection.

Page 47: Linnaeus' network

45

Home and workplace

Linnaeus’ tenure as lecturer and scientist in Uppsala was ultimately dependant upon the state of the gardens. On entering office at the university, he soon found the gardens, once created by Olof Rudbeck the elder, to be in a state of neglect and Linnaeus immediately set to work on its restoration. To his aid he acquired the services of the gardener Didrik Nietzel, which he without any sense of remorse “stole” from his former employer in the Netherlands, George Clifford, who in a  letter  to  his  former  protégé  gave  vent  to  his  disappointment  over  Linnaeus behaviour. Furthermore the great Swedish architect of the time, Carl Hårleman, contributed with plans in accordance to contemporary preferences for the pruned and the geometric French ideals. An Orangery was also built in the background, divided  into  sections  for  the  less  heat  demanding  plants  respectively  tropical plants.  In addition the prefect’s office built by Rudbeck was restored, whereby Linnaeus moved in to what would for the remainder of his life be his home.   In 1745 Linnaeus published a first account of the improved Academy Gardens in the shape of the dissertation Hortus Upsaliensis. Three years later this expanded edition, dedicated to the Crown Prince Adolf Fredrik, was published. Here Lin-naeus accounted extensively for the garden’s 3000 species. In a review of the work in Lärda tidningar an image of its potential audience is envisioned: “the author tells us that he has written this work solely for the students at Uppsala University, that they need not make notes of the plant names; yet it is in truth no less useful for other academics and learned botanists who will discover many new herbs and ob-servations, as well as pharmacists to learn how to care for herbs and for gardeners, plantation owners and to each and everyone who finds pleasure in gardens.”  As in the gardens of Linnaeus’ former employer Clifford in Hartekamp there were in the Uppsala garden numerous species of animals – monkeys, parrots, pea-cocks etc. – who for the most part constituted gifts from Linnaeus’ ever growing host of admirers. As his fame spread there were a large amount of seedlings and bulbs sent to Linnaeus from all parts of the world and during the summer months the garden came to function as a classroom for Linnaeus’ botanical lectures and a general thing worth seeing for the Uppsala visitor. In his home, the prefect’s office, Linnaeus set up a library, herbarium and collections of specimens, all expanded due to his extensive network of contacts. His home by the garden also became the place for his scientific meetings, where his disciples at times literally rubbed shoulders due to lack of space, as well as more secluded and financially rewarding private tutoring for the sons of the wealthy interested in the natural sciences.   The Uppsala University supralibros shown on the cover of this volume was in-troduced by Erik Benzelius the younger (1675–1743) at the time he was the univer-sity librarian in the early 18th century. Its constituent parts are a double monogram with the letters “VB” (i.e. UB, short for Uppsala bibliotek) surrounded by two palm leaves and crowned by a so called bandeau with a Greek sentence, which in trans-lation reads: “sanatorium of the mind” – an inscription, which during antiquity supposedly was found above the entrance to the library of Alexandria. 

Page 48: Linnaeus' network

46

13.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Flora oeconomica. Stockholm, 1749. 8:o. Full calf. With the gilded supralibros of Fredrik I (the national coat of arms in front and a monogram on the back). 

Kungl. Biblioteket – National Library of Sweden.

Page 49: Linnaeus' network

47

“… to the gain of mankind”

Flora oeconomica, a practical guide to those plants considered useful for domestic purposes, was first published as a dissertation in Latin in 1748. The work’s charac-teristic as a manual made it highly appropriate for a wider readership of farmers, carpenters and manufacturers. This prompted a translation the following year by the dissertation’s respondent Elias Aspelin. Among the large number of disserta-tions written by Linnaeus this one came to be one of the few, which during his time were translated into Swedish. In the preface Linnaeus develops his views on nature: “the ultimate purpose of creation is Man; this is what the scriptures teach us: this is the teaching of nature. Everything is therefore made to the benefit of Man. Everything Man needs in the way of food and clothing is taken from the three kingdoms of nature.” As the son of a clergyman, Linnaeus had taking it upon himself to arrange and describe God’s creation and there existed no contradic-tion between the Christian faith and the natural sciences; on the contrary they reflected each other.   The starting-point  for  the Flora oeconomica was  the first edition of Linnaeus’ Flora Svecica, his Swedish flora from 1745. The numbering of the species therefore coincides between the two works, as does the choice of format – with the inten-tion of binding them together in one useful volume. The Flora oeconomica does not offer any botanical descriptions of the species themselves, instead their fields of applications are of course numerous. Aside from food for humans and animals everything from dyes and perfumes to building and clothing material could be found in the vegetable kingdom. The only aspect the Flora oeconomica bypasses with regard to useful plants are remedial herbs, as these belonged to pharmacopoeia and herbal books. The descriptions of the usefulness of plants are usually, as was often the case in Linnaeus’ works, kept short and concise, as for instance the fol-lowing about the buttercup shrub: “Potentilla. Tok. From this small bush they make wisps and brooms on Öland.” A reference is made here, as in many other places in the text, to the source material, in this case Linnaeus’ own travels on Öland and Gotland.   Although Tessin manoeuvred in the background it was Fredrik I who officially awarded Linnaeus his professorship at Uppsala University. However, it remains most unlikely that the King, whose preference for hunting and pleasure seeking was well known, became absorbed in this or any other of Linnaeus’ books. Thus, the King’s supralibros on this copy of Flora oeconomica does not indicate that the book has been part of his private collection – which barely existed – but should be interpreted to have been part of the Kungl. biblioteket collection. The dedication copies that Fredrik I was honoured with, he would either send to Kungl. biblio-teketor to his consort Ulrika Eleonora who, in contrast to her husband, owned a vast number of books of which most were kept at Gripsholm Castle. They would eventually, during the National Librarian G. E. Klemming’s tenure, be transported from Gripsholm to Kungl. biblioteket.

Page 50: Linnaeus' network

48

14.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Materia medica, liber I de plantis.Stockholm, 1749. 8:o. Half calf. With Pehr Löfling’s annotation on the title-page “Donum nobiliss. dom. auctoris. P. L.” and numerous of his complementary annotations and correc-tions in the text. On the endpaper he has drawn in part a portrait of a man and in part an imaginative drawing with various scientific instruments, crystals etc.

Private collection.

Page 51: Linnaeus' network

49

The dearest of disciples

When Linnaeus in his youth first came to study botany his only references were found in so called herbals with listings of plants and their medicinal qualities, such as Arvid Månsson’s En myckit nyttigh örta-book (first edition 1628). Linnaeus later decried them as “worthless manuals”. The herbals with their background in the pharmacological plant listings from antiquity, for example by Theophrastos and Dioscorides, were a clear expression of the utilitarian mindsets, which had long dominated the study of flora. The centre of interest was the healing properties of plants applicable to humans and domestic animals rather than their construction, procreation and family structures. As a physician Linnaeus kept an open mind to such utilitarian aspects of botany and he would eventually venture into the pharmacological domain with his Materia medica.  With the author’s characteristic systematic elegance, 535 medicinal plants were registered in Linnaeus’ Materia medica, which had been given Latin name forms according to the Linnean system but also with synonyms from the Swiss botanist Caspar Bauhins archaic but influential herbal, Pinax theatri botanici (1623). In short but informative tables Linnaeus accounts for the geographical sources of plants, whether they are perennial or not, domestic or introduced from abroad. In the latter case he informs on which plants need additional protection from the harsh winters of Sweden. Information is also given as to which parts of the plants are used  for medicinal purposes,  their dosage and  the ailments  they are meant  to cure and alleviate.  In one of  the  tables an account of  the  tastes and  smells of the plants are supplied – factors indicative according to Linnaeus to their range of application. Materia medica concludes with several useful registers, such as an index morborum with suitable medicinal herbs and their respective illness. Due to this commendable systematisation and overview, Linnaeus’ Materia medica soon became the standard reference work within the medical profession.  A copy of Materia medica came  shortly  after  the printing  to  accompany  the young Pehr Löfling (1729–56) from Tolvfors in Gästrikland on his journey abroad. Löfling had initially studied for the clergy but was introduced to botany by J. O. Hagström and the lectures of Linnaeus. Hagström wrote the following in a letter to Gjörwell: “on approaching my book shelves my herbarium vivum incited him to read and look upon. This pleased me immensely, whereby I soon accompanied him day and night. […] on staying with me he saved on the firewood but noted it on his expense account to his father, instead purchasing paper to a herbarium vivum”. When Löfling at a later stage, due to financial difficulties was forced to abandon his studies he was employed by Linnaeus who had been impressed by his learning ability. He became Linnaeus’ son Carl’s private tutor, worked in the botanical garden and assisted his employer with various publications. Board and lodgings were given to him in Linnaeus’ own home and Linnaeus would also come to call him “his dearest and best disciple”. As a sign of the trust his mentor had for him, Löfling was permitted to write the main part of his dissertation himself, which was presented in 1749. This was an exceptional procedure at the time, not least 

Page 52: Linnaeus' network

50

with regard to the dissertations that were presented under Linnaeus’ presidium.   When Linnaeus in  1750 received the offer of sending a disciple to Spain the choice fell naturally on Löfling. In his instructions for the voyage Linnaeus writes among other things that Löfling is to observe where plants may be “gathered to the use of pharmaceutics” and examine “what diseases are the most common and what the locals’ domestic cures are”. With the persistence of a researcher he eventually acquired a proficiency and knowledge of the Spanish language and Löfling would soon become a respected name among Spanish botanists. His plans however were of a greater magnitude and through contacts he in 1753 received the commission to accompany an expedition to South America as royal botanist. In January 1754 his ship sailed from the port of Cadiz and once in Cumaná, Venezuela Löfling began his botanical research. His assignment consisted in part of accounting of natural resources such as spices and new medicinal herbs for the colonial power. Results were also expected in Sweden in the shape of samples of known and unknown medicinal herbs. To his friend Pehr Bierchén Löfling wrote: “in America I get to see many useful medicaments, which still remain undiscovered”. He is detailed in his description of several medicinal compounds, among them the cinchona bark. He nevertheless regrets his incompetence in the field of medicine and wishes “that I understood more of fundamental medicine and its applications than I do”. In this context he pleads for further instructions.   The South American flora had until then remained more or less unexplored and Löfling classified newly discovered species in accordance with the Linnean system. From the notes he left behind it becomes apparent that much attention was given medicinal herbs during the voyage and that he even prepared a special work on these. A preserved ledger shows that he employed locals to collect samples. In a letter to his mentor Linnaeus he writes: “enclosed to the royal physician [Lin-naeus] are some observations in material medica of this country’s medicinal drugs, which I have incompletely noted and described”. Early in 1755 the expedition took the sea route to Guyana, but for reasons of observation Löfling chose to travel across  land. Several of his books and  instruments were  lost or damaged when transported by sea and for Löfling the journey through the tropical forest became far too adventurous and in February 1756 he died at the mission station of San An-tonio del Caroní in Guyana. His notes were despatched to Spain and together with his correspondence it came to lay the foundation for Linnaeus’ publication Iter Hispanicum eller resa till de spanska länderna (1758). Along with other possessions he left behind was Löfling’s book collection as registered in an inventory, dated Car-oní February 23 1756, the day following his death. In the register this book is found, “Matheria medica, un tomo”. The books were later dispersed at an auction.

Page 53: Linnaeus' network

51

Page 54: Linnaeus' network

52

15.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Amoenitates academicæ. I–VI. Leiden, 1749 (I); Stockholm, 1759–64 (II–VI). 8:o. Half calf. Signature of “Joh: Salberg” on front free endpapers. The second volume from the second edition, 1762.

Hagströmer Library (property of Karolinska institutet).

Page 55: Linnaeus' network

53

Academic amusements

A central and a recurring aspect of Linnaeus’ production, after he entered his duties as professor at Uppsala University, were the academic dissertations. He would over time preside over a total of 186, most of which he also authored – a standard practise at the academic learning tests during this period. The procedure would usually consist of Linnaeus giving a verbal discourse on a subject in the natural  sciences or medicine, whereby the respondent made notes, edited and thereafter defended the dissertation, the printing of which he would often have to finance himself. Most of Linnaeus’ disciples were of course Swedish but for the first time in its history Uppsala University now had a professor who attracted foreign students from countries such as Denmark, Russia and Germany. Even a North American student from Philadelphia made his way to Uppsala. What the majority of them had in common was an unswerving sense of loyalty to the master, who in turn responded by unreservedly applauding their efforts, especially those who were to pursue botanical exploratory journeys on his behalf, such as Hassel-quist, Osbeck and Löfling.  A majority of Linnaeus’ dissertations are routinely executed and typical of their age in so much as they are short texts mainly intended to meet the requirements of formalities for a doctors’ degree. But in the voluminous material there are works of originality to be retrieved. Examples of such are the two dissertations about “housekeeping” respectively the “policing” in nature, Oeconomia naturæ (1749) och Politia naturæ (1760). In these, Linnaeus expounds on a physico-theological reason-ing about the importance of equilibrium in nature, according to which it consti-tutes a divine strategy characterised by a self-regulatory system of animals and plants, where each and everyone has as its goal to fill in the food chain. Charles Darwin would eventually take part of these thoughts when evolving his ideas on natural selection. Anxious to present the dissertations in a more definitive shape, Linnaeus would over a period of years publish them in seven volumes with the title Amoenitates academicæ, “academic amusements”. The first part was published independently of Linnaeus in Leiden 1749. This is also the one that begins the exhibited suite. Linnaeus was however displeased with the Leiden edition and chose to use his Swedish publisher Lars Salvius, whose authorised edition makes up the remainder of the suite.   This copy, which lacks the seventh and final part, once belonged to Johan Salberg (1741–1810), who during Linnaeus’ presidium in 1763 defended his doctoral thesis on Fructus esculenti,  “about edible  fruits”, one of  the dissertations which is part of Amoenitates academicæ, volume six. Salberg, who would later find employment as regional physician in Västernorrland and lecturer at Härnösand gymnasium, owned a fine library with books predominantly on the subjects of natural history and medicine. Along with a catalogue, which he compiled himself, the collection was bequeathed the Collegium medicum in Stockholm.

Page 56: Linnaeus' network

54

16.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Äsping, beskrefven af Carl Linnæus. In: Kongl. Svenska Vetenskaps Academiens Handlingar, för år 1749. Vol: X. 

Stockholm, (1749). 8:o. Full calf. Leonhard Klinckowström’s gilded supralibros on front co-ver and his engraved armorial bookplate on front paste-down.

Private collection.

Page 57: Linnaeus' network

55

“To our successors”

Having returned home from a journey in the Netherlands, Linnaeus began in the winter of 1738–39 to befriend the inventor Mårten Triewald. Triewald also had ex-periences from abroad, in his case England between 1716–26, where he had among other things worked in the mining-industry and become acquainted with Isaac Newton. When Triewald met Linnaeus he was already a member of the Royal Society in England and the Royal Society of Sciences in Uppsala and would most likely have had these institutions in mind when suggesting to his new found friend that a similar society was needed in Stockholm. As opposed to those societies the new one would mainly focus on “economic and practical issues”, which was in total accord with the guidelines regarding the nation’s economic improvement presented by the Hat Party, who had come to power. Among the initiators of what became the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, there was consequently a promi-nent member of the Hat Party, Anders Johan von Höpken, who met with Linnaeus and Triewald on numerous occasions during the spring of 1739. Their meetings took place in the home of Triewald’s close friend from his stay in England, Jonas Alströmer, who was also made privy to their plans. It was the influential Höpken who prepared the Academy’s founding rules and procured the Royal privilege for its printed transactions. The inauguration of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sci-ences took place June 2, 1739 and Linnaeus was elected its first president.  The Transactions of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences – already supplied with its familiar title engraving of “the man who plants a tree” and the motto “To our descendants” – began publication during the autumn of 1739. First out was an essay on the subject of planting by Linnaeus, who thereby established an editorial trend towards pragmatic observations and innovations. This policy was however not dogmatic and the natural sciences had from the very beginning a given place in the Transactions. Its share of the contents would successively increase and com-bined with Linnaeus’ international reputation and articles by such talented scien-tists as Anders Celsius, Georg Brandt and Nils Rosén von Rosenstein soon led to it being read widely abroad. There were scientists who taught themselves Swedish simply to be able to read the Transactions, of which parts of various sizes were translated into several languages. In this volume from 1749, Linnaeus describes the young viper, whose poisonous bite was especially noted.   This volume has belonged  to  the State Secretary Leonhard Klinckowström (1685–1759), one of those selected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for strategic reasons. As General Director of the Swedish Postal Services Klinckow-ström made certain that the outgoing mail from the Academy bypassed the cost of postage by using the diplomatic post. He was duly rewarded in 1750 with a seat among  its members. Linnaeus had personal reasons  for being grateful  towards Klinckowström, when he after the mediation of Linnaeus’ friend Abraham Bäck overlooked the fact that Linnaeus “had due to confusion and not malice” mislaid a note concerning private matters in a proof, which was being mailed as a paid-up letter. 

Page 58: Linnaeus' network

56

17.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Skånska resa.Stockholm, 1751. 8:o. Full calf. With signature “Carl G. Tessin” on the title-page and gilt supralibros of Gustav III on front cover.

Kungl. biblioteket – National Library of Sweden.

Page 59: Linnaeus' network

57

The last of the county journeys

The last of Linnaeus’ travels, commissioned by the Parliament, took him to Skåne. Leading up to it was a memorial to the Parliament by the Court commissary Carl Hårleman, who felt that Skåne also should be made the object of an economic sur-vey of the kind Linnaeus had done elsewhere. Hårleman wanted a survey of Skåne to focus on dyes and minerals of use to the industry and also to supply information about climate and soil. The latter should be seen in the light of the development of the agricultural sector, which was one of the most discussed issues of its time. For Linnaeus this assignment was a much needed break from the burdensome duties at the university and despite the stressful preparations – he had to replace Erik Gustaf Lidbeck who took ill with another disciple, Olof Söderberg – Linnaeus remained in good spirits on leaving Uppsala by the end of April in 1749. His good spirits were further enhanced as he was able for the first time to travel by coach, “since I am now more burdened by years and work and can therefore not bear the thought of riding such a long way”. Travelling to Skåne Linnaeus stopped at Sten-brohult where he grieved to see his deceased father’s garden, where as a child he enjoyed his first acquaintance with botany, destroyed by a fire. On the other hand, he rejoiced that his brother Samuel had succeeded his father as parish priest.   The initial stages of Linnaeus’ journey in Skåne took place in the eastern parts, where he explored  the areas of  shifting  sand and  its flora around  the  town of Kristianstad. Further south, by Vittskövle, he witnessed successful fern tree plan-tations, which he felt should be made even larger so the farmers “may not sigh so much over lack of forest and shifting sands”. Furthermore, the ample occurrence of crown imperials in the area of Simrishamn has Linnaeus considering whether this region could become a competitor to successful flower industry in the Neth-erlands. Without noticeable enthusiasm Linnaeus confirms that one could culti-vate “lilies and bulbs of tulips, hyacinths and other kinds of flowers, if the nation ever was to acquire the same taste for this rubbish as the foreigners”. On visiting Tunbyholm, Linnaeus  turns his  ever-critical  eye on a divining-rod, which his companion Söderberg makes out of a hazel twig and begins to demonstrate during an excursion with the barons Reuterholm and Oxenstierna. To prove the useless-ness of the divining-rod, Linnaeus buries his purse in a field and asks Söderberg to locate it with the aid of his tool. After much searching, during which the party is on the verge of abandoning the project, the divining-rod finally responds and a relieved Linnaeus retrieves the purse, which he had forgotten where it was placed. Nevertheless, he remains sceptical to the divining-rod, even though he henceforth “will not bet quite so many ducats”.   On the road to Malmö Linnaeus gives thought to the unrelenting conservatism of the farmers in Skåne. According to him this was noticeable in the way they persisted with the use of hitching large numbers of draught animals to the plough. Linnaeus insists that the work could be just as efficiently carried out with a pair of horses but the farmers, for reasons of status, stay with the old and tried methods. “As a farmer has 6 or 7 pairs to the plough, he stands akimbo believing himself 

Page 60: Linnaeus' network

58

to be a superior animal, more so than a lord with as many horses”. In his assign-ment it was also required that he should investigate the presence of plaster and flint (the latter of importance to firearms) in Skåne. The results were poor. Flint was however found at several places, but Linnaeus remained sceptical if it would suffice for the nation’s needs. During the remainder of the journey he passes by several fishing villages, where the fish catches are so varied “that a curieux from the area could on a daily basis make new observations”. A highlight for Linnaeus on  the  journey  is a visit  to Lärkesholm, where  the baron Berent Wilhelm von Liewen – “an exceptional man of genius” – performed several economic innova-tions, consisting of everything from carp ponds to snuff mills, “without making much of a secret out of it”. Liewen makes an exception for an infallible method to exterminate wolves, for which his asking price is “2 daler silver coins”.  As his nation’s most revered natural scientist Linnaeus had a relatively steadfast position and nor did the end of the Age of Liberty and the seizure of power of Gustav III in 1772 disrupt his position within the Swedish circle of scientists. At an early stage Linnaeus had become one of the tutors to the young Crown Prince. In a  letter  to his parents, dated August 3,  1754,  the Crown Prince  informs how Linnaeus that very day “had informed him about mosquitoes and birds that ate them, about swans, about pelicans and about sea lions”. They later kept in touch when the Crown Prince was the Chancellor at Uppsala University. In a letter from ca 1770 Linnaeus asks the Crown Prince Gustav to order the university library in Uppsala to purchase a couple of volumes of Buffon’s (though Linnaeus ascribes the illustrator Daubenton as the author) expensive Histoire naturelle, as he needed access to its bird illustrations. Noteworthy is the fact that Linnaeus, who held very little interest in politics, appears to have welcomed Gustav III:s revolution and in a speech to his disciples he expressed his regret that he would not live to see the prosperity of science, which he felt were sure to come. An interesting insight into the relationship between Gustav III and Linnaeus is presented in a letter from 1774, where  the  latter acts as  the messenger  for  the princess Karoline Luise of Baden-Durlach, married to a second cousin to Gustav III. Through the Swedish traveller Jacob Jonas Björnståhl the princess commands (!) Linnaeus to ask the King for some rare Swedish books, among them Carl Clerck’s Icones insectorum rariorum and Olof Rudbeck’s Campi Elysii. She also requires Swedish specimens for her museum. How Gustav III reacted to these requests is unknown but the fact that the princess used the aging Linnaeus as an intermediary in her pursuits lends credence to the force still attached to his name. Gustav III was not a stranger to this fact when he in his speech to the Parliament some months after the decease of Linnaeus in 1778 mentioned his death. In 1787 he also laid the foundation to an institutional building in the botanical gardens at Uppsala University, built to the memory of Linnaeus.  This volume with the gilded supralibros of Gustav III belonged at first to Carl Gustaf Tessin, who was in charge of the young Crown Prince’s education until he lost the trust of the court. The copy merely contains a facsimile of the original page 26 with the article on “Svedjor” (i.e. burn-beating) in Småland, a usage Lin-

Page 61: Linnaeus' network

59

naeus considered to be of sound nature: “if burn-beating was denied the smålän-ning he would come to a considerable halt as regards a healthy balance and on an empty stomach view a sterile desert”. Along with many other contemporary debaters on the subject of agriculture the above mentioned Carl Hårleman dis-liked “the destructive way of burn-beating” and persuaded Linnaeus to exclude the aforementioned page, which in most copies would be replaced with an article on “Gödselen” (i.e. manure).

Page 62: Linnaeus' network

60

18.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Philosophia botanica. Stockholm, 1751. 8:o. Full calf. With Linnaeus’ personal inscription “pour m. Bernard de Jussieu”.

Private collection.

Page 63: Linnaeus' network

61

The general and the major-general

Among the tasks the favourite disciple Pehr Löfling completed before he left for Spain was to finish the manuscript for Philosophia botanica following Linnaeus’ dic-tation. This work is in many respects a further development of Fundamenta botanica, the small botanical “book of laws” from 1736, which consists as the latter of 365 brief paragraphs attached with detailed examples. Philosophia botanica also contains rules for the Latin denominations of genera and species, based on Critica botanica. The book concludes with ten explanatory plates presenting leaf shapes, roots, types of flowers etc. – some copied from Hortus Cliffortianus – and numerous notes of practical advice,  such as  the organising of botanical excursions and writing of travel diaries.   Two of the 18th century’s literary notables, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, were seriously impressed with Philosophia botanica. With an overwhelming enthusiasm Rousseau wrote  to Linnaeus  in  1771:  “Alone with nature and you, I spend many happy hours strolling in the countryside and from your Philosophia botanica I derive more usefulness than from any other books on ethics”. In accordance with the contemporary mode of sentimental and intimate letter writing, Rousseau concludes by saying: “I read your works, study them and ponder them and I revere you and love you with all my heart.” Goethe, who held an interest in the natural sciences, was to an extent critical of Linnaeus and his rigid classification system for plants but otherwise held Linnaeus in the same kind of reverence as Rousseau. Philosophia botanica accompanied Goethe on his Italian journey in 1786 and towards the end of his life he summarised his views on Lin-naeus: “I have  learnt enormous amounts  from him and not  just with regard to botany. With the exception of Shakespeare and Spinoza I know of no one among the no longer living who has influenced me more strongly.”  The printed dedication in Philosophia botanica is made out to the member of the Privy Council Anders Johan von Höpken (1712–89) who we have previously seen in the role as promoter in the founding of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Höpken remained a crucial contact for Linnaeus, which was made evident in an extensive correspondence. As a reply to the dedication Höpken wrote a flattering thank you note where he claims to have read the entire work “with no less joy and wonderment” and takes pleasure in the fact that he “will be part of immortality, to which it is aimed.” Their relationship remained steadfast and cordial and in a moving New Year letter to his old friend from December 1771 Linnaeus notes that “his welfare’s benefactors, who in the past were many […] have taken to their beds under the ground” and that only Höpken now remained. In a letter from 1776 the aging and sick Linnaeus received an unreserved tribute from Höpken, who most likely was aware of his friend’s dark moods and constant need of acknowledge-ment: “aside from Newton, I know of none than the archiate [Linnaeus had been appointed court physician in  1747] who has so benefited from a lifetime of the public’s praise, which so many strive for but few reach”.   Linnaeus would seldom adorn his books with pesonal inscriptions, but in this 

Page 64: Linnaeus' network

62

copy of Philosophia botanica, presented to the Frenchman Bernard de Jussieu (1699–1777), he made an exception for a botanist whose significance was comparable to his own. He first made contact with a letter to Jussieu, whose two brothers Antoine and Joseph were also engaged in the same field of work, during his visit to the Netherlands and on the way back to Sweden in the summer of 1738 he visited the brothers in Paris. It would be Bernard, the demonstrator at Jardin du Roi who got to act the host, introducing Linnaeus to the scientific circles in Paris. They ob-served the herbariums of Tournefort and the Jussieu brothers and the well stocked botanical library of d’Isnard, where Linnaeus found him unknown books that he later used to add to his Bibliotheca botanica.  Linnaeus’ and Jussieu’s relationship remained firm, as shown when the latter published the fourth edition of Systema naturæ in 1744, with French replacing the Swedish names of plants. Acting as liaison and supervisor was Linnaeus’ faithful friend Abraham Bäck who at  the  time was  in Paris. That  the connection with Jussieu was important is reflected in a letter to the latter in 1747, where Linnaeus mentions that he has been flattered by the appointment to court physician the same year, yet he placed greater store in his friendship to Jussieu. In the same letter Linnaeus complains that Jussieu so seldom writes him and continues mod-estly to say that he will never be able to return all that Jussieu has done for him. However, through the Kingdom of Plants “officer’s list”, which Linnaeus put up in one of his autobiographies it becomes clear that he had no doubts as to the chain of command between the two; at the top reigns Linnaeus the general, whilst the major-general Jussieu clearly takes second place!  Bernard de Jussieu’s own botanical scheme of classification, which to an extent was comparable to the artificial sexual system presented by Linnaeus in Philosophia botanica, differs from the latter in its ambition to assemble the classes based on natural relationship. Jussieu never published his system but used it  instead for teaching purposes when laying out Ludvig XV:s botanical garden in Trianon. His nephew and pupil Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu was taught in the gardens, contin-ued working on his uncle’s notes and in 1789 published his own Genera plantarum, the work on which the entire modern system of plant classification is founded. During his journey throughout Europe, Linnaeus was thus afforded a glimpse of the embryo to the classification system that would in a few decades make his own redundant. 

Page 65: Linnaeus' network

63

Page 66: Linnaeus' network

64

19.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Indelning i ört-riket, efter Systema naturæ, på swenska öfwersatt af Johan J. Haartman. Stockholm, 1753. 8:o. +

    LINNÉ, CARL von. Deliciae naturae. Tal, hållit uti Upsala dom-kyrka år 1772. Stockholm, 1773. 8:o. Full calf. Gilt initials of Sara Catharina Sahlgren on the front cover.

Private collection.

Page 67: Linnaeus' network

65

Systema naturæ in Swedish

During a number of years Linnaeus would review his own work anonymously in the journal Lärda tidningar, which was edited by his publisher Lars Salvius. About Indelning i ört-riket it is reported: “this work is really nothing more than a transla-tion of the part by the court physician and knight Linnæi Systema naturæ, which concerns the Herbal Kingdom and Regnum vegetabile, whereby it has been necessary to expand the Swedish edition with explanatory notes on the terminology, which previously were standard in Latin but have now been translated into Swedish, to benefit those who are not familiar with Latin. This has also been the main objec-tive of this translation so it will not present an obstacle to those who so desire to observe the miracles of nature, of which many are of the noble sex”.  Among  the prospective readers  “of  the noble  sex” was Carl Gustaf Tessin’s talented wife Ulrika Lovisa (1711–68), who had been the translation’s promoter and was presented with a printed dedication. She was experienced both in the ways of the world and education and C. M. Carlander describes her in his Svenska bibliotek och ex-libris : “Her sustained life in the world had made her, sadly, to disguise her learning, which exceeded the level usually attained by women”. The Countess Tessin’s interest in botany was evidently so large that a surprised Linnaeus wrote Abraham Bäck asking himself: “if the Countess Tessin is serious in her ambitions to pursue botany, then she will most likely be unique in that science among her gender.” She also owned a significant library and left considerable amount of notes on history and biography.  Included in the circle of female readers was the original owner of this copy, Sara Catharina Sahlgren (1748–1818). She was the daughter of the director of the East India Company Niclas Sahlgren, one of the wealthy businessmen who were elected into the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to lend it protection. In 1770 Sara Catharina Sahlgren married Clas Alströmer, a member of the Swedish west-coast trade aristocracy. Clas Alströmer was interested in the natural sciences and had in his youth studied under Linnaeus in Uppsala. The latter named the species Alstroemeria after his student and they both kept up a vigorous correspondence, especially during Alströmer’s travels abroad in 1760–64, from which he would send Linnaeus seed samples and plants. Alströmer created his own extensive natural specimen collections and had an impressive library in his home in Alingsås – most of which was destroyed in the fire in 1779 that devoured most of the town. In 1768, two years prior to his father in law Sahlgren, Alströmer was elected to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. His wife Sara Catharina was also known for her learning and like her husband she was elected to Kungl. Vetenskaps och vitterhets-samhället i Göteborg, a society of sciences and literature founded in 1773.  Bound with this volume is also the last of Linnaeus’ many speeches held during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor at Uppsala University. With Deliciae naturae (1773), “nature’s delights”, he lays down his chancellorship and delicately sings the praises of nature’s three “temples”, belonging to Pluto (mineral kingdom), Flora (plant kingdom) and Pan (animal kingdom), out of which he created order. 

Page 68: Linnaeus' network

66

20.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Species plantarum. I–II. Stockholm, 1753. 8:o. Two volumes in half calf. With Samuel Olof Tilas’ signature.

Hagströmer Library (property of Karolinska institutet).

Page 69: Linnaeus' network

67

The binominal nomenclature

In 1746 Linnaeus initiated the work he was to characterise as “his greatest mas-terpiece”, Species plantarum. The level of ambition was all encompassing: all then known plant species would be registered and classified within the system he had created. Due to its scope the work became demanding and burdened by his task Linnaeus gave up on his first version in 1749. In a letter to Abraham Bäck the same year he is considering to give up on the whole project, as “after a full years’ work it remains impossible for me to dispatch them [i.e. Species plantarum]; I wish to leave what I have completed so far to an inventory, so those that follow me can see that I could have achieved what I set out to do, if I had commanded time and will. But shall I work myself to death; shall I never be allowed to see or taste the world? What do I stand to gain?” The disconsolateness he felt soon gave way and having let his project take a rest, Linnaeus soon began the registering, which finally was completed in June of 1753. In a likeness, Linnaeus saw himself as having produced species very much “like a hatching hen” and all in all he could now account for ca 8000 of them.  In his preface to Species plantarum, Linnaeus conjures up an image of the network which had made the project a reality. Aside from his personal observations of living specimen, he had also perused a long line of herbariums and received dried plants and seeds from disciples and friends among the botanists such as Fredrik Hassel-quist, Pehr Löfling, Bernard de Jussieu and J. G. Gmelin. Linnaeus also notes that he has not  included plants which he had not seen himself, as he often has  felt deceived by the information given by other authors. As always, he is sensitive to criticism and concludes by pre-empting his opponents by turning his back to them: their “scornful accusations” he can take – final judgement lies with posterity.   Linnaeus own estimation of Species plantarum held true; few of his works has enjoyed such lasting importance. The reason for this lies with the so-called trivial names he added to the book’s margins by each specimen. Along with the family name they formed the “trivial” – abbreviated – name of the species. It was never Linnaeus’ intention to allow this binominal nomenclature to replace the complete name forms, but he soon realised that what at first had been a useful complement to the latter was something that could substantially alleviate the study of botany. This, as we know also became the case: the binominal nomenclature stands firm even in the age of genetics.  This copy belonged to the poet Samuel Olof Tilas (1744–72), the son of Lin-naeus’ colleague in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the geologist Daniel Tilas. The younger Tilas’ signature is here dated 1758, at the mere age of 14. His youth was a time when he turned “a practised eye on the great work of the Crea-tor, Linnaeus and nature, and sought a treasure of flowers and of animals”, as his private tutor Olof Bergklint extolled in a commemorative verse over his former student. Tilas was part of the circle of friends associated to the great Swedish poet Carl Michael Bellman and his otherwise barely noteworthy lyricism is considered to possess a fine sensitivity when rendering nature.

Page 70: Linnaeus' network

68

21.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Flora Svecica. Editio secunda aucta et emendata. Stockholm, 1755. 8:o. Half calf. Signature “Joh: Salberg” on front free endpaper.

Hagströmer Library (property of Karolinska institutet).

Page 71: Linnaeus' network

69

The flora of Sweden

The 1740’s are occasionally labelled as Linnaeus’ “patriotic decade”, which came about as he traversed the south of Sweden on three occasions. Central to his sur-veying of Sweden’s natural resources was also Flora Svecica, first published in 1745 and dedicated to one of his friends in the Hat Party, Carl Gyllenborg. The latter was University Chancellor  in Uppsala and an active patron of  the natural  sci-ences – the same year he donated his collection of natural specimens consisting of Chinese birds, clams, corals etc. to the university. In 1744 Gyllenborg also donated “the grand-father of all butterflies” (species unknown) to Linnaeus’ own collection of insects.   In the first edition of Flora Svecica, Linnaeus accounts for 1140 Swedish plant species.  It  contains  information about  their characteristics  in Latin,  synonyms from older literature, popular parlance, geographical range and pharmacological applications. In 1755 the expanded second edition appeared, in which a total of 1222 species were accounted for – 929 phanerogams and 293 cryptogams. Another addition to the second edition of Flora Svecica is information about the lifespan of the plants and the binominal nomenclature Linnaeus had introduced two years earlier  in Species plantarum. A single plant  is  illustrated in Flora Svecica: Linnaea borealis, which Linnaeus during his visit to the Netherlands had asked his friend Johann Frederik Gronovius to name after him.   For latter day linguists and ethno botanists, the 1755 edition of Flora Svecica has been valued as  its many dialectical name forms of plants – 425  in  the original edition – had doubled. The various name forms are attributed to the counties and all those in today’s Sweden, alongside Åland, Österbotten and Nyland in Finland are represented. Some of these names Linnaeus collected himself from his travels, whilst his many correspondents from all parts of the country conveyed others. Some of the plant names in Flora Svecica, e.g. ”guckusko” from Uppland has since made its way into the standard Swedish language.   This copy belonged to the Linnaeus disciple and district medical officer from Härnösand, Johan Salberg (1741–1810), who interspersed it with leaves in quarto size with notes concerning medicinal and economic uses for various plants. About Valeriana officinalis (valerian), it is said, “the Finnish country people use a decoction of it to treat inflammatory eyes”. There are also several notes about dyes, e.g. As-perula tinctoria (dyers woodruff), of which Salberg informs “the roots will dye wool red”. Numerous references are made to printed works such as the Royal Patriotic Society’s Hushållnings journal, the Transactions of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, as well as writings by other Linnean disciples  interested  in  the eco-nomical aspects of botany, as Pehr Kalm and Pehr Adrian Gadd. In the printed text Salberg has made notes and alphabetical markings concerning the various plants’ regional occurrences in central Norrland. A key on the front free endpaper informs that H = Helsingia, J = Jemtia, M = Medelpadia and Å = Ångermania.

Page 72: Linnaeus' network

70

22.  LÖFLING, PEHR. Iter hispanicum […] utgifven efter dess frånfälle af Carl Linnæus. Stockholm, 1758. 8:o. Grey boards. With the bookplate of the Leuhusen estate library.

Private collection.

Page 73: Linnaeus' network

71

Botanical remains

The death of his  favourite disciple  in the  jungles of South America  1756 came as a hard blow to Linnaeus, whom would a few years later reminisce in Nemesis divina how Löfling had tripped when departing for Spain. In hindsight he saw this as an omen, especially since the same thing happened to Peter Forsskål, another prominent disciple, when journeying out to an early death in Yemen. However Linnaeus recovered from the loss and having edited and published yet another deceased disciple’s research, Fredrik Hasselquists’ Iter palæstinum eller resa til heliga landet (1757) he was finally able to publish Iter hispanicum. This work consists mostly of the letters he received from Löfling during the latter’s visit to Spain and South America, but also of two unfinished floras, one Plantae hispanicae and one Plantae americanae, which Linnaeus received as a transcript from the Swedish legation in Madrid. Despite Löflings’ work prematurely coming to a halt he would eventu-ally be seen as a pioneer in surveying the flora of South America. His fate was also known to the renowned German scientist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt, who in an entry in one of his diaries feels “ominous premonitions” when in the spring of 1800 he was ill with fever near the place where Löfling succumbed to similar circumstances.   The initial part of Löfling’s  journey took place with the Swedish East India Company, which gave him free passage to Lisbon, from whence he made his own way to Spain. The transport was part of a large pattern of networking between Swedish scientists and the company, whose board of directors would often offer enthusiastic support to the natural sciences. Usually the scientists were given pas-sage as chaplains. This was the case with Pehr Osbeck, who in 1750–52 made the journey to the Far East and back, depicted in Dagbok öfwer en ostindisk resa (1757). The East India Company even encouraged their own employees to remain observ-ant and collect natural specimens, which gave tangible results. For example, Lin-naeus could account for a selection of zoological findings made available through one of the company’s directors, Magnus Lagerström, in the dissertation Chinensia Lagerströmiana (1754).   In Spain, Löfling spent most of his time in Madrid where the previous owner to this copy of Iter hispanicum, Carl Leuhusen (1724–95), was the Swedish chargé d’affaires from 1752. Löfling’s socializing in the capital was limited but aside from “Spanish botanists and the Danish priest”; Leuhusen came to be one of those peo-ple he frequented regularly. It was also Leuhusen who made certain that Löfling was finally given the opportunity to leave Madrid, when they both undertook a journey in the summer 1752, funded by the former, to study the salt mines in Aran-juez. During the journey the botanically interested Leuhusen seized the oppor-tunity to show Löfling “beautiful botanical places”. As opposed to his travelling companion, Leuhusen returned to Sweden and came to attention as a writer on economic issues. At his property Degarö in Uppland he founded the considerable Leuhusen estate library, which was well supplied in the areas of economy, philo-logy and historical literature, but also with some works on the natural sciences.

Page 74: Linnaeus' network

72

23.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Fauna Svecica. Editio altera, auctior.Stockholm,  1761. 8:o. Half calf. Numerous  interesting amendments  to  the  text  in  ink by  Samuel Ödmann, along with several interfoliated sheets containing annotations and draw-ings on the subject. With Eric Rydbeck’s, Samuel Ödmann’s och C. F. Meijerhelm’s signa-tures. From the library of Gunnar Brusewitz. 

Private collection.

Page 75: Linnaeus' network

73

The Swedish Fauna

A year after the publication of Flora Svecica, Linnaeus published its counterpart for the animal kingdom, Fauna Svecica (1746). Linnaeus coined the term Fauna derived from some rather obscure etymological reasoning, which included the forest gods of antiquity, Pan and Faunus – Fauna was its female match. Fauna Svecica bore dedications to four prominent politicians of the Hat Party, among them Hårleman and Höpken. It was also the first survey on the nation’s animal population. Linnae-us was able to account for 1357 species found within the borders of what was then Sweden, and notes in his preface that the science of zoology has not come as far as that of botany. Nevertheless, he had utilized the knowledge of his predecessors such as Olof Rudbeck the younger and his bird illustrations as well as Peter Arte-di’s descriptions and drawings of fish. When it came to insects, which constituted the main part of Fauna Svecica, Linnaeus was indebted to the knowledge of Carl De Geer and a collection containing more than 500 insects from Skåne, which he had access to thanks to Johan Leche. Linnaeus however made it clear that he had collected most of the material on his many excursions. He had a particular interest in insects, which becomes evident as they have the most thorough descriptions in Fauna Svecica. The number of species has been considerable increased by this, the second, edition and number 2328.  The latter-day owner, Gunnar Brusewitz has written about this copy of Fauna Svecica,  in Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift. He tells of how he bought this copy – “without a doubt the most scribbled book I own” –  in Stockholm because  it had belonged to the Linnaeus disciple Eric Rydbeck (1732–95). Rydbeck was the respondent to Linnaeus’ dissertation on Pandora insectorum. He later became phy-sician in Vadstena. Brusewitz however discovered another signature in the book. This one belonged  to  the  theologian, naturalist  scientist and culture-historian Samuel Ödmann (1750–1829). He was also one of Linnaeus’ disciples. Eventually Brusewitz confirmed that most of the annotations were from the hand of Ödmann. Looking at the manner in which Ödmann has signed his name, Brusewitz came to the conclusion that Ödmann acquired the book prior to 1776. The copy was in Ödmann’s possession during his time as chaplain on Värmdö in the Stockholm archipelago – it somehow survived the fire in 1788 that destroyed his home – and in the margins he added information about which species he observed, how frequent-ly they appeared, etc. The letter “W” marks the species he had seen. Brusewitz verifies that “the most interesting and thorough notes are those about seafowl that can be hunted” and emphasizes their value to the understanding of the Stockholm fauna from old times and changes in the eco-system. The volume’s next owner, who purchased it at an auction after Ödmann in 1832, added further notes to its pages.   Ödmann was a loyal disciple of Linnaeus, yet remained independent enough towards his master to point out assorted mistakes in his writings. This caused him to suggest the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1786 to make a thorough revision of Fauna Svecica. The Academy however, rejected the proposal. 

Page 76: Linnaeus' network

74

24.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Museum s:æ r:æ m:tis Ludovicæ Ulricæ.Stockholm, 1764. 8:o. Light toned full calf. With Lovisa Ulrika’s gilded supralibros.

Kungl. biblioteket – National Library of Sweden.

Page 77: Linnaeus' network

75

The Queen’s museum

The increased interest in natural history during the 18th century was not solely expressed  through  research  findings  in  dissertations,  scientific  periodicals  and monographs but also by the cabinets of natural history specimens. Linnaeus and his colleagues considered these cabinets to be crucial to their labours. They were also trading specimen, plants, animals, minerals and fossils, extensively. Collecting specimens also became a fashionable trend among the European royalty, aristoc-racy and the bourgeoisie. In Sweden the royal couple, Adolf Fredrik and Lovisa Ulrika began to build especially costly cabinets of natural history specimens from the mid 1740’s. These were equipped with rarities, which Carl Gustaf Tessin – a major collector – procured for them both at the markets in the Netherlands spe-cialising in natural specimens. Like their owners these cabinets are different in character and whereas Adolf Fredrik’s cabinet at Ulriksdal contained “strange” objects  such  as  amphibians,  fish,  skeletons,  foetus  and  abortions,  the  naturalia chambers of Lovisa Ulrika at Drottningholm would veer more towards the exotic and beautiful, mainly seashells, clams and butterflies.   When the royal cabinets were due to be arranged and catalogued it stood to reason to call  in  the services of Linnaeus, whose name was well known at  the court. Tessin who enjoyed royal patronage at the time also spoke well of Linnaeus. In  1746 Linnaeus published a preliminary  study on Adolf Fredrik’s  collection, the dissertation Museum Adolpho-Fredericianum, and from 1751 his visits to the royal couple increased. After numerous delays the Museum s:æ r:æ m:tis Adolphi Friderici, was finished in 1755. It was an impressive folio volume with engravings of excellent quality, executed by Jean Eric Rehn. A second volume of this magnificent work was planned, however, delays set in and when finally published in 1764 it came in a smaller octave format. It also suffered the fate of being considered as an appendix to the present work, Museum […] Ludovicæ Ulricæ. From this it may be concluded that the Queen’s collections were not to be presented in the same splendid manner as  those of  the King. The  small  volume  lacked  illustrations but  the  catalogue section  is  far more extensive  than  that of her husband’s collections and of  the 720 pages, approximately two thirds are about insects and the remaining about seashells. Linnaeus and Lovisa Ulrika’s relationship seems to have been friendly and the reserved Queen was attracted by Linnaeus’ unaffected manner, whilst he was moved by her thoughtfulness and generosity.  This  copy of Museum […] Ludovicæ Ulricæ  is Lovisa Ulrika’s own copy. Her books are, as in this case, generally bound in fine full calf bindings from the royal bookbinder Christopher Schneidler’s workshop,  and carry  the coat of  arms of Sweden and Prussia on  the  front  covers. Lovisa Ulrika’s  library alongside her cabinet and collection of coins were kept in several rooms in a specially furnished part of Drottningholm Palace. Her natural history cabinet was eventually merged with her husband’s and shortly after the turn of the century in 1800 the collections were  divided  between  the  Royal  Swedish  Academy  of  Sciences  and  Uppsala University.

Page 78: Linnaeus' network

76

Page 79: Linnaeus' network

77

Page 80: Linnaeus' network

78

25.  LINNÉ, CARL von. Systema naturæ. Edito duodecima, reformata. I:1–2–III. Stockholm, 1766–68. 8:o. Four volumes in full calf. Signature “A: J: Hagström” on front free endpapers.

Hagströmer Library (property of Karolinska institutet).

Page 81: Linnaeus' network

79

A lifetime’s achievement accomplished

This is the twelfth edition of Systema naturæ. It was the last edition which Linnaeus edited himself and it is based on the tenth edition from 1758–59 in which he for the first time consistently applied a binominal nomenclature on the animal kingdom. He had initially attempted it in the catalogue over the Adolf Fredrik collection of natural specimens 1754–55. Through this new order the tenth edition of Sys-tema naturæ came to assume the same importance for zoology as Species plantarum had on botany and there are still numerous plants and animals named after this edition – with the addition of “L” for Linnaeus. As in earlier editions of Systema naturæ, man was unceremoniously categorised to the animal kingdom along with the monkeys and in accordance with binominal nomenclature Linnaeus named him Homo sapiens. Simultaneously he exchanged the name of the order Anthropo-morpha – “humanlike” – to Primates – ”noble animals”. In the changes made in the tenth edition there was also the transfer of whales from fish to mammals, a change Linnaeus was the first to implement.  The tenth edition’s third part on the mineral kingdom never reached the print-ers and it was only in the present edition of Systema naturæ that Linnaeus was able to correct this shortcoming and thereby publish a final version. Among those who acquired the twelfth edition was the previous owner of this copy, Anders Johan Hagströmer (1753–1830), before ennoblement Hagström, who at the time of pub-lishing studied medicine at Uppsala. Linnaeus was one of the lecturers and was “held in awe only second to God” by Hagströmer. For financial reasons he was forced to suspend his studies and encouraged by his uncle, the Linnaeus disciple and physician Johan Otto Hagström, he chose the more craftsmanlike profession of surgeon. Of this he made a successful career and soon became one of the fore-most anatomists in Sweden. In 1785 he was awarded a professorship in anatomy and his skill as pathologist caused his friend Johan Gabriel Oxenstierna to exclaim wishfully “that before they bury me, it shall my final honour be, that Hagströmer learned bistouri [scalpel], shall search through my carcass”. Hagströmer was an appreciated teacher within the Linnean tradition, where impartiality and soundly structured lectures were alleviated by a sense of humour.  Even in his younger years Hagströmer collected natural specimens. These were eventually donated to the Collegium medicum in 1807, where he had been assessor [expert] since 1797. Over time he acquired large amounts of literature in the fields of medicine and the natural sciences. He also created an extensive library at the Theatrum anatomicum in Stockholm. He donated his own books as well as his col-lection of natural specimens to the Collegium medicum with the reservation that they would be accessible to students and staff at Theatrum anatomicum. Karolinska institutet was founded in 1810 and in 1816 it moved to new premises on Kungshol-men. Most of the above-mentioned collections became part of it and Hagströmer settled in an apartment next to the institute, wall-to-wall with the library and the natural specimen collection he had donated. In 1825 he published a catalogue over the books, manuscripts and surgical instruments of Karolinska institutet.

Page 82: Linnaeus' network

80

26.  LINNÉ, (CARL von). A dissertation on the sexes of plants. Translated from the Latin of Linnæus. By James Edward Smith.London, 1786. 8:o. Later half cloth binding. With a personal inscription to “d:r Acrell from his friend the editor”.

Private collection.

Page 83: Linnaeus' network

81

Farewell to Sweden

During Linnaeus’ lifetime his works became the subject of several translations into German, French, English and Dutch etc. His readership abroad was especially interested in his systematic works. However, it is worth noting that some books intended mainly for his Swedish readers, such as the county travel books, were also translated into foreign languages. Furthermore, some of Linnaeus’ disserta-tions, especially those of a utilitarian character, e.g. Noxa insectorum, concerning the harmfulness of insects, came to be published as translations, mainly in periodicals and anthologies and occasionally separately. Translations continued to be pub-lished after 1778 and the present dissertation is one of many. The original in Latin was published in St. Petersburg in 1760 and was written by Linnaeus as a contribu-tion to a contest arranged by the Russian Academy of Sciences.  The translator of this edition was the young English natural historian James Edward Smith (1759–1828). He also provided the footnotes and the preface. Smith would later on contribute considerably in the surveying of the flora on the British Isles but has mainly gone down in history as the man who purchased Linnaeus’ books, manuscripts and natural specimen collections. The transaction took place in 1784 after the sudden demise of Carl von Linné the younger, as the house by the botanical gardens in Uppsala was to be assigned to his successor. The widow of Linnaeus the older needed to empty the house and looked forward to the income such a sale would provide. She therefore got in touch with Johan Gustaf Acrel (1741–1801) who was assistant master in medicine at Uppsala, Linnaeus’ disciple and old friend of the family, to ask him to mediate in a sale. Acrel first contacted the renowned English natural historian and patron Sir Joseph Banks. Banks had already made an offer whilst Linnaeus the younger still  lived, but his financial situation had taken a change for the worse. He chose instead to encourage his friend Smith to make a bid. Smith seized the opportunity and offered 1000 guineas for the entire lot, yet with the reservation that a detailed inventory had to meet his expectations.   In Sweden voices were raised, especially among Linnaeus’ disciples that his collections should remain in the country. There were no serious bidders among the country’s affluent private collectors and Acrel, who obviously  felt  that  the collections should remain in Sweden, presented the  idea that  the King should make the purchase. However, Gustav III was at the time in Italy and most likely never received the offer. Meanwhile in England Smith had persuaded his wealthy father, an industry owner in Norwich, to release the necessary funds and during the spring of 1784 he gave his approval to the list of inventories Acrel had sent him. It all went quickly from now on and having settled the agreement, Acrel began packing the collections into 26 large crates, which left Stockholm on September 17  with  the  English  ship  Appearance.  The  Linnean  Society  in  London  would hereafter hold the inheritance left by Linnaeus in trust. Their first Chairman was Smith. A few years after the epoch making acquisition and perhaps as a gesture of gratitude, Smith sent Acrel his translation of Linnaeus’ dissertation.

Page 84: Linnaeus' network

82

Selected literature

blunt, wilfred, Carl von Linné (Stockholm 2002).Bref och skrifvelser af och till Carl von Linné, I:1–8, II:1–2 (Uppsala 1907–1943). (Also as an elec-

tronic resource: http://linnaeus.c18.net).brusewitz, gunnar, »Tre linneaners Fauna Svecica. Ett exemplar som tillhört Erik 

Rydbeck, Samuel Ödmann och C. E. von Meijerhelm», Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 1968–69, p. 3–24.

Carl von Linnés betydelse såsom naturforskare och läkare, Skildringar utgifna af Kungl. Vetenska-psakademien i anledning af tvåhundraårsdagen af Linnés födelse (Uppsala 1907).

dahlgren, knut vilhelm ossian, »Philosophia botanica, ett 200-årsminne», Sven-ska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 1950–51, p. 1–30.

dal, bjrn, Sveriges zoologiska litteratur. En berättande översikt om svenska zoologer och deras tryckta verk 1483–1920 (Fjälkinge 1996).

eriksson, gunnar, Botanikens historia i Sverige intill år 1800, Lychnos-bibliotek, 17:3. Natur-vetenskapernas historia i Sverige intill år 1800, 3 (Uppsala 1969).

fors, hjalmar, Mutual favours. The social and scientific practice of eighteenth-century Swed-ish chemistry, Instutionen för Idé- och lärdomshistoria, Uppsala universitet, skrifter, 30 (Uppsala 2003).

fries, sigurd, »Flora Svecica som växtnamnsordbok. Hur Linné samlade folkliga växt-namn», Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 1962, p. 34–45.

fries, theodor magnus, Linné. Lefnadsteckning, 1–2 (Stockholm 1903).frngsmyr, tore,  Svensk idéhistoria. Bildning och vetenskap under tusen år,  1:  1000–1809 

(Stockholm 2000).hagelin, ove, Old and rare books on materia medica in the Library of the Swedish Pharmaceutical

Society (Apotekarsocieteten). An illustrated and annotated catalogue (Stockholm, 1997).— Georg Dionysius Ehret and his plate of the sexual system of plants in Linnæus’ own copy of Systema

naturæ (Stockholm, 2000).hagelin, ove  (red.), Herr archiatern och riddaren Linnæus i Lärda tidningar, Hagströmer-

bibliotekets skriftserie, 3 (Stockholm 2007).hedlund, emil,  »Om  generaldirektören  Anders  Johan  Hagströmers  förhållande  till 

Linné», Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 1939, p. 4–8.hildebrand, bengt,  Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakademien. Förhistoria, grundläggning och

första organisation, 1–2 (Stockholm 1939).landell, nils-erik, Läkaren Linné. Medicinens dubbla nyckel (Stockholm 2004).lindell, torbjrn, Carl von Linné. Den fulländade forskaren (Lund 2007).lindroth, sten, Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens historia, 1–2 (Stockholm 1967).— Svensk lärdomshistoria. Frihetstiden (Stockholm 1978).linn, carl von,  »Linnés  almanacksuppsatser»,  Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift  1928,  

p. 117–146.— »Linnés företal till Species plantarum», Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 1952, p. 1–4.— Vita Caroli Linnæi. Carl von Linnés självbiografier. På uppdrag av Uppsala universitet ut-

givna av Elis Malmeström & Arvid Hj. Uggla (Stockholm 1957).— »Artedis liv», översättning och noter av I. Odelstierna, Svenska Linnésällskapets årsskrift 

1966, p. 1–8.— Nemesis divina. Utgiven av Elis Malmeström & Telemak Fredbärj (Stockholm 1968).malmestrm, elis, Carl von Linné. Geniets kamp för klarhet (Stockholm 1964).nannfeldt, john axel, »Species plantarum. Ett 200-årsminne», Svenska Linnésällska-

pets årsskrift 1953, p. 1–9.rydn, stig, Pehr Löfling. En linnélärjunge i Spanien och Venezuela, Bidrag till Kungl. Veten-

skapsakademiens historia, 6 (Stockholm 1965).

Page 85: Linnaeus' network

83

strandell, birger, » Caroli Linnaei Systema naturae 1735», Berömda böcker. Andra sam-lingen (Stockholm, 1958).

stafleu, frans a .,  Linnaeus and the Linnaeans. The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1735–1789 (Utrecht 1971).

srlin, sverker & fagerstedt, otto, Linné och hans apostlar (Stockholm 2004).uggla, arvid hjalmar,  »När Linné införde namnet Fauna», Svenska Linnésällskapets

årsskrift 1949, p. 65–67.

Index of names

Acrel, Johan Gustaf: 44, 81 Adolf Fredrik: 45, 75, 79Alströmer, Clas: 65Alströmer, Jonas: 8, 39, 43, 55Artedi, Peter: 29, 73Aspelin, Elias: 47 Banks, Joseph: 81Bauhin, Caspar: 49Bellman, Carl Michael: 67Benzelius, Erik d.y: 45 Benzelstierna, Matthias: 23 Bergklint, Olof: 67Bielke, Sten Carl: 8Bierchén, Pehr: 50Björnståhl, Jacob Jonas: 58Blackwell, Alexander: 39Boerhaave, Herman: 10, 14, 21, 33Boëthius, Jacob: 39Brandt, Georg: 55 Browallius, Johan: 27 Brückmann, Franciscus Ernst: 31Buffon, Georges-Louis-Leclerc: 58 Burman, Johannes: 10, 19, 23Bäck, Abraham: 55, 62, 65, 67Camerarius, Rudolf Jakob: 16Cederhielm, Carl Wilhelm: 8Celsius, Anders: 43, 55Celsius, Olof d.ä: 13, 15Clerck, Carl: 58Clifford, George: 10, 23, 27, 29, 45Cronstedt, Jacob: 40Darwin, Charles: 53Daubenton, Louis-Jean-Marie: 58De Geer, Carl: 35, 73Dillenius, Johann Jacob: 33Dioscorides: 49Ehret, Georg Dionysius: 17Ekeblad, Clas: 33

Engeström, Lars von: 23 Ferrner, Bengt: 43Forsskål, Peter: 71Fredrik I: 47Gadd, Pehr Adrian: 69Gjörwell, Carl Christoffer: 49 Gmelin, Johann Georg: 19, 67Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von: 61Gronovius, Johann Frederik: 10, 14, 15, 

23, 69Gustav III: 58, 75, 81Gyllenborg, Carl: 69Gyllengrip, Gabriel: 31Haak, Theodor: 15Hagström, Johan Otto: 49, 79Hagströmer, Anders Johan: 79Haller, Albrecht von: 9, 23Hasselquist, Fredrik: 53, 67, 71Hiorter, Olof: 43Humboldt, Alexander von: 71 Hülphers, Abraham Abrahamsson: 19 Hårleman, Carl: 45, 57, 58, 73Höpken, Anders Johan von: 8, 33, 55, 61, 73Isnard, Antoine-Tristan Danty de: 62Jussieu, Antoine de: 62Jussieu, Antoine-Laurent de: 62 Jussieu, Bernard de: 62, 67Jussieu, Joseph de: 62Kalm, Pehr: 11, 69Kalmeter, Johan Olof: 31 Kalsenius, Andreas: 39Karoline Luise: 58Kierman, Gustaf: 36 Kiesewetter, Gottfried: 19, 26 Klinckowström, Leonhard: 55Lagerström, Magnus: 71Lawson, Isaac: 14, 15Leche, Johan: 21, 39, 73

Page 86: Linnaeus' network

Leuhusen, Carl: 71Lidbeck, Eric Gustaf: 27, 39, 57Liewen, Berent Wilhelm von: 58Linnaeus, Samuel: 57 Linné, Carl von d.y: 50, 81Lovisa Ulrika: 75Löfling, Pehr: 49, 50, 53, 61, 67, 71Moræa, Sara Elisabeth: 13, 33, 81Moræus, Johan d.y: 35Moræus, Johan d.ä: 13, 31, 33 Murray, Johan Andreas: 9Månsson, Arvid: 49Newton, Isaac: 55, 61Nietzel, Didrik: 45Osbeck, Pehr: 53, 71Oxenstierna, Erik Gustav: 57Oxenstierna, Johan Gabriel: 79Polhem, Christopher: 43 Ray, John: 16Rehn, Jean Eric: 75Reuterholm, Esbjörn: 57Reuterholm, Nils: 27, 31, 40Rosén von Rosenstein, Nils: 9, 43, 55Rothman, Johan: 13Rousseau, Jean-Jacques: 61 Royen, Adrian van: 14Rudbeck, Olof d.y: 13, 73

Rudbeck, Olof, d.ä: 45, 58Russworm, Johan Henrik: 19 Rydbeck, Eric: 73Sahlgren, Niclas: 65Sahlgren, Sara Catharina: 65Salberg, Johan: 53, 69Salvius, Lars: 53, 65, 67Schneidler, Christopher: 75Seba, Albert: 29 Smith, James Edward: 81Sohlberg, Claes: 14, 40Solander, Daniel: 11Sparre, Ulrika Lovisa: 65Sparrman, Anders: 11Stobæus, Kilian: 23Söderberg, Olof: 57 Tessin, Carl Gustaf: 33, 36, 47, 58, 65, 75Theofrastos: 49 Thunberg, Carl Peter: 11Tilas, Daniel: 67 Tilas, Samuel Olof: 67Tournefort, Joseph Pitton de: 16, 62Triewald, Mårten: 8, 55 Ulrika Eleonora: 47Vaillant, Sébastien: 13, 16Wargentin, Pehr Wilhelm: 9Ödmann, Samuel: 73 

kungl. bibliotekets utstllningskatalog 152 issn 0491-0567

hagstrmerbibliotekets skriftserie 5 issn 1654-5354

isbn 978-91-7000-262-5 (English)    isbn 978-91-7000-261-8 (svenska)

Initiative: Sven HagströmerIdea and book selection: Mats Rehnström

Catalogue editor and main author: Olof Kåhrströmwith supplementary texts by Sebastian Casinge, Carl Ehrenkrona, 

Ove Hagelin, Harald Hultqvist and Mats RehnströmTranslator: Jonathan Pearman

Photo: Claes Jansson, Kungl. biblioteket

Printing limited to 800 copies.Paper: Lessebo Linné naturvit 150 g (text block); 250 g (cover)

Typeface: Monotype JansonGraphic design: Lars Paulsrud

Overseer: Mimma Almström, Kungl. biblioteketPrinted by AB Danagårds Grafiska, Ödeshög

This catalogue was produced by Kåhrström & Rehnström HB in cooperation withKungl. biblioteket – National Library of Sweden & Hagströmerbiblioteket