| The Linnaean Correspondence |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LETTERS | INTRODUCTION | BIOGRAPHIES | BIBLIOGRAPHY | EDITORS | CONTACT | C18 |
Viro Clarissimo Celeberrimoque,
M[onsieur] Chr[istiano] Gottlieb Ludwig,
Medico, Doctore [sic],
In Acad[emia] Lipsiensi publico Docenti,
Botanico[a] Egregio,
S[alutem]
C[arolus] Linnaeus
A longo retro tempore Tuas ultimas per D[ominum] Andry habui. Exspectavi D[ominum] Kesselring, qui non adhuc nobis innotuit. Exspectavi Tuum Donum in hunc diem frustra. Vellem prius videre Tua Genera,[1] antequam responsum darem. Nuper tandem ea apud Bibliopolas Amstelodamenses obtinui; ea perlegi sollicite. Doleo me non accepisse Tuas literas quas cum Kesselring mittebas, in quibus Te multa scripsisse dicis.
Cum Lugduni eram, apud D[ominum] Andry tua vidi cogitata de meis characteribus, quos nullo modo extollo, sed optime et melius quam alius ullus novi meos defectos. Hos omni die emendo, augeo, polio. Volui potius eos tum qualescumque edere quam incertis futuris temporibus, quae collegeram, studiose committere.[2]
1. Scrupulosior notarum determinatio. Mei characteres nil sunt nisi descriptiones genericae. Descriptio speciei, quo plures notas & proprietates includat, eo perfectior est; affectavi hoc in genericis. Scribant alii definitiones genericas secundum suas ideas, ego modo descriptiones, qualescumque potero, sistam. Novi, quod in speciebus solo nomine; si differentia alias selecta, eoque bene determinare licet speciem. Tamen descriptiones non rejicio.
2. Situm neglexit non raro. Utinam hoc mihi ostenderes! Situm naturalissimum dedi in Fundamentis meis.[3] Istum praesupposui, ut ambages evitarem. Sic solent et Zoologi, cum describant animalia. Ipsis superfluum videtur describere oculorum situm in capite, nasum intra oculos, dentes in maxillis, vide F[undamenta] b[otanica] 97.[4]
3. Notae plures memoriam confundunt. Volui dare omnes quas vidi notas, ut certiora evaderent genera. Alias dum plura in novo orbe vel antiquo reperiantur genera, confundentur cum meis, cum ego mea genera ab istis non notis aliis distingue[re] non potuissem.
4. Mutatio nominum usitat[or]um erat dissuadenda. Forte! Ego aliter concepi. Rationes meas dedi in Critica.[5] Dum dissentiant homines, elucescit veritas![6]
5. Nomina Botanicorum non adhibenda. Sic Tu putas! Rationes Tuas non audivi, meas dixi.[7]
6. Varietatem staminum & pistillorum. Ego ubicumque varietates in his observavi, fide notavi, nec reticui umquam. Methodum assumsi a staminibus, nec adhuc eam inferiorem agnoscam, tamen nullo modo naturalem. Videbis proxime methodos omnes collatas et exinde earum praestantiam.
5. Multa signa oculum armatum fugiunt. Hoc Tu dicis! An Tu absque signis?
Sed transeant haecce! A nostris nulla conclusio. Nos tantummodo observationes colligiamus [sic] in usum futurorum Botanicorum, qui alium videbunt solem.
Tui characteres egregii sunt et ex iis Tibi immortalem gloriam comparasti.[8] Docent isti abunde summam Tuam in Botanicis doctrinam summumque studium.[9]
D[ominus] Hallerus detinetur nimium, ut vereor, a fructu. Alias est ille certe Magnus Botanicus.
Tu non vidisti multos meos errores. Videbis longe plures in Horto Cliffortiano,[10] ubi omni speciei novum imposui nomen.
Ludwigiam dixi. Doleo, quod Tibi displiceat.[11] Si erravi, studio erravi. Et Tu errasti dum me accuses, quod discipulum confundam cum Botanicis perfectioribus contra mea principia.[12] Tuae definitiones! Mea sunt contra Te argumenta!
Salutes meis verbis magnum Virum D[ominum] Heucherum. Si quid peccaveram contra eum, dolerem. Nesciebam certe eum in vivis esse. Scripsi, ut mihi videbatur, juste.
Quaero, num accepisti meam Floram Lapponicam a me, quam misi eodem tempore, quo ad Hallerum et alios misi cum curru publico.
Hortum Cliffortianum jam ego absolvi, opus certe dirum et durissimum. Tantum paginae 420 sunt impressae in magno folio. Reliqua omnia restant. Hoc anno vix videbis opus istud. Hoc detinuit me a correspondentia mea non parum. Habemus, ni fallor, bene multa quae D[omino] Walthero deficiunt. Sed non minimus est mihi labor, quae mittere possem, mittere, primum Amstelodamum, tum ad currum publicum, deinde viae difficultas pro plantis vivis.
Signa[13] quae urges mea, quae ad omnes species adplicari non possunt, pauca attulisti.[14] De Myosotide, Ceraso, Grossularia, Acere argumenta laevia sunt et forte sese in his res bene habeat.[15]
Rhinantum seu Elephantem numquam confundebat Tournefortius cum pedicularibus. Crista galli est Rhinanthi species, a pediculari distinctissima.[16]
Quod semper monuisti signa mea nimis stricta esse nec ad omnes species applicari[b] posse,[17] doleo. Emendo omni die. Tandem si vixero, erint quae deficiunt. Absit, quod ullo modo quid a Tuis detraham. Sed si iubeas, ego hoc idem ostendam in Tuis, et quidem in omni genere nullo excepto. Curas [sic] Tu Tua genera! Erint Tibi adhuc sat onerosa per decennium. Ego mea emendabo qua potero diligentia. Tu numquam errasti, nisi seductus a Tuis Authoribus classicis.
In Epimedio calycem non vidisti. Petala calycem vocas & nectaria petala, quod et inter observationes in mea Genera recenses.[18] Aperies florem vix explicatum et dein dijudices.
Melianthi infidum characterem praestiti.[19] Dabo jam alium. Accedens Amstelodamum vidi florituram plantam 1735, quam hyems destruxit ante flores explicatos; hinc quid pro quo sumsi, calicem pro corolla, &c.
Grates Tibi persolvo summas, quod Tua argumenta mecum communicare velis tam fide & privatim. Tibi et omnia, quae fidus amicus reddere queat, numquam intermittam reddere.
Musa Cliffortiana[20] numquam venalis prostitit, nec umquam divenditur Exemplar. D[ominus] Cliffortianam[c] istam ut Hortum suum propriis edidit sumptibus eamque inter[d] amicos modo distribuit. Mittam Tibi exemplar, sed vereor durum Tuum judicium de Tractatu, tam multa scilicet compilare de una planta.
D[ominus] Siegesbeck mihi promisit per duos annos suum catalogum,[21] quem ob causas certas aveo summopere videre. Hic venalis non est, nec ab Authore eum obtinui.
Nomina nova non perfers, Tu tamen, qui vides quot mendis adhuc commaculata est scientia. Quo usque tandem Botanici, si quilibet tam absurda introducat nomina defendatque erronea mala, nec assumant numquam regulas? Ego nescio! Credo, quod D[ominus] Siegesbeck non omnia ponderavit in libra docimastica.[22]
Lipsiam Vestram prae alias omnes Academias [sic] in Germania videre flagro.[23] Iam cum abitum paro, resistunt omnes. Boerhaavius jubet manere. Clifford crumenam aperit aurumque ostendit. Botanici hic omnes et singuli me ad se vocant. Debeo tamen abire. Si non diu nimis detineor, v[olente] D[eo] Te et vestros Botanicos videbo, vobiscum loquar.
Gratias Tibi infinitas pro authoribus communicatis. Communicarunt jam mecum plus quam 200 libros, quos ante non noveram, Botanici per Europam varii. Si poteris pro me emere Heucheri Diss[ertationem] De magis,[24] rem mihi faceres gratissimam. Debeo forte aliquando et ego ex professo Magum age[r]e, ad minimum dare Magiam Lapponicam, adeo per orbem famosam, nulli vero claram.[25] Si scias alium scriptorem qui verus fuit magus, me certiorem facias. Ego novi nullum nisi Kaempferum.[26] Magia, ut a me sumitur, est physica experimentalis quae ex principiis physicis demonstrari nequit.
Bosei De motu pl[antarum] sensus aemulo numquam vidi[27]. Si istud argumentum sit rite elaboratum, certe maximi ponderis esset. Utinam & hanc pro me emere posses, ut eam ad meum accessum obtinerem. Solvam mox quidquid constet.[28]
Si umquam videas Tribuloidem, quaeso, examines, quot pistilla & stamina habeat, &c.
Ego nil novi habeo. Quae in Botanicis observavi, hac aestate videbis in Horto Cliffortiano. Libros novos nullos vidi.
Melocactus major nobis duplex est, sed alter aegrotans. Tenellos nullos habemus.
Quaeso, ubinam videbo methodum Rivinianam? Classes istas irregularium monopetalorum, tetrapetalorum, pentapetalorum habemus in Ordinibus ejus in folio,[29] sed ubi reliquas? Discedit enim ab eo et Heucherus & Knautius et Ruppius[e] & Hebenstreitius & Gemeinhart & Welschius & Tu. Ego modo quaererem recensionem nominum genericorum sub classibus secundum omnes ejus classes. Si hic permansero per mensem unum alterumve, dabo omnes methodos connexas et inde conclusiones. Proin, si haec mihi comparare posses, Tibi grates publicas et privatas agerem. Habeo tum omnes et universales & partiales methodos.
Quaeso meo nomine salutes optimos Viros D[omi]n[o]s Waltherum & Hebenstreitium.
Dab[am] ex Musaeo Cliffort[iano] 1737. Jul[ii] 28.
Quo anno accessit Leonhardus Ursinus ad Hortum Lipsiensem?
An Rivinus f[u]erit Ammanni successor, quique Rivini successor in Horto Lipsiensi sit?
Utinam & posses mihi dare Historiam Horti Wittenbergensis, quod facis nullus dubito cum certo certius poteris.
Utinam & aliorum Hortorum Germaniae Hortos cum suis historiis communicare posses.[30]
Linnaeus has received Christian Gottlieb Ludwig’s last letter through John Andrew. He has studied Ludwig’s Genera, which he obtained at the bookseller’s in Amsterdam.
When Linnaeus was in Leiden he saw, at Andrew’s, Ludwig’s opinions of his botanical characters. Linnaeus knows himself that his characters are deficient. He comments on Ludwig’s criticisms:
1. A too scrupulous determination of the criteria. Linnaeus points out that his characters are only generic descriptions. The description of the species is the better, the more criteria and characteristics it includes. This was aimed at in the generic descriptions. It is possible to determine the species by the name only.
2. Often did Linnaeus neglect the position. Linnaeus objects that the most natural position he gave in Fundamenta. It was presupposed in the interest of brevity, which is also the habit of the zoologists. They find it superfluous to describe the position of the eyes in the head, etc. (Fundamenta botanica 97).
3. More criteria confuse the memory. Linnaeus gave all the criteria that he observed, so that the genera could be determined in a reliable way. Otherwise, when more genera were found in the new world or the old one, these would be confused with Linnaeus’s.
4. The changing of well-established names should have been discouraged. Linnaeus came to a different conclusion and gave his reasons in Critica.
5. The names of the botanists should not be used. Linnaeus has given his reasons.
6. The variety of stamens and pistils. Whenever Linnaeus found varieties, he conscientiously recorded this. He chose the stamens as the basis of his method. He still would not consider it inferior but it is in no way a natural one. Ludwig will soon see all methods compared and then the merits of them.
5. Many signs escape an eye provided with a lens or magnifying glass. Linnaeus wonders, if Ludwig has found no signs.
Linnaeus draws no conclusions but only collects observations for future botanists.
Ludwig’s characters are excellent.
Albrecht von Haller occupies himself too much with the fruit.
Ludwig will see many errors in Hortus Cliffortianus, in which a new name was imposed on every species.
Linnaeus has called a plant Ludwigia, which has displeased Ludwig. Ludwig is wrong when he says that Linnaeus confuses the disciple with more learned botanists contrary to his principles.
Linnaeus sends his regards to Johann Heinrich von Heucher.
Linnaeus wonders whether Ludwig has received Flora Lapponica.
Linnaeus has now finished Hortus Cliffortianus. Only 420 pages have been printed. Linnaeus has quite a lot, which Augustin Friederich Walther has not got in his possession. But it is hard labour to send it.
Ludwig criticises Linnaeus’s signs, which cannot be applied to all species. But Ludwig has contributed only little himself. Regarding Myosotis, Cerasus, Grossularia and Acer his arguments are insignificant.
De Tournefort never confused Rhinantus or Elephas with Pedicularis. Crista galli belongs to Rhinantus species, completely separated from Pedicularis.
Ludwig has often remarked that Linnaeus’s signs are too strict and cannot be applied to all species. According to Linnaeus some will always be deficient.
In Epimedium, Ludwig has not observed the calyx. He calls the calyx “petals” and the petals “nectaries”.
Linnaeus gave a misleading characterisation of Melianthus. He will now give another. During his way to Amsterdam in 1735 he saw a budding flower, destroyed by the winter. Calyx for corolla was gathered, etc.
Linnaeus is very grateful to Ludwig for wanting to communicate his arguments.
Musa Cliffortiana was never for sale. Linnaeus’s employer published it at his own expense and only distributed it among his friends. A copy will be sent to Ludwig.
For two years Johann Georg Siegesbeck has promised Linnaeus his catalogue.
Ludwig cannot endure new names. Linnaeus wonders where the botanists are heading, if everyone can introduce absurd names and defend grave errors, and no rules are adopted.
Linnaeus is very eager to visit Leipzig before all other academies in Germany. Now when he prepares to go everyone objects. Herman Boerhaave asks him to stay. George Clifford opens his purse and shows Linnaeus his gold. All the same he must go.
Linnaeus is grateful for the authors that Ludwig has communicated to him. Various botanists from the whole of Europe have sent more than 200 books. Linnaeus would like to have Heucher’s dissertation De magis. Linnaeus will perhaps some time play the part of a magician, at least perform the Lapp magic, which is so famous throughout the world, though intelligible to no one. If Ludwig should know of any other author who was a true magician except Engelbert Kämpfer, he should tell Linnaeus. Magic, according to Linnaeus, is experimental physics, which cannot be demonstrated by the principles of physics.
Linnaeus has never seen Caspar Bose’s De motu plantarum sensus aemulo. He would like to have a copy.
If Ludwig should ever see a Tribuloides, he should examine how many stamens and pistils it has, etc.
This summer Ludwig will see Linnaeus’s observations in botany in Hortus Cliffortianus. He has seen no new books.
There are two specimens of Melocactus major, one of which is diseased, but no shoots.
Linnaeus would like to know where August Quirinus Rivinus’s method can be found. The classes of irregular monopetalous, tetrapetalous and pentapetalous flowers appear in Ordines. Johann Heinrich von Heucher, Christopher Knaut, Heinrich Bernhard Rupp, Johann Ernst Hebenstreit, Johann Caspar Gemeinhart, Christian Ludwig Welsch and Ludwig himself differ from Rivinus. Linnaeus would only like to examine the classification of the generic names subordinated to the classes in all his classes. If Linnaeus stays for one or two months, he will report on all the methods involved and his conclusions. Then he will have all the methods, both universal and partial ones.
Linnaeus sends his regards to Walther and Hebenstreit.
Linnaeus asks in which year Leonhard Ursin came to the Leipzig Garden.
He wants to know, if Rivinus has succeeded Paulus Amman, who is then Rivinus’s successor in the Leipzig Garden?
He would like to have Historia Horti Wittenbergensis and the other German Horti with their descriptions.
1. holograph (present location unknown). In 1949 it was in the possession of Oliver Barrett, Chicago. Photocopy in UUB. On the reverse of the last page there are notes by Ludwig concerning the books he was able to send.
1. Jönsson, A.-M., “The early correspondence between Linnaeus and Ludwig. An example of an early German criticism”, SLÅ (1996-1997), 137-147.
[a] MS1 Botanic<e>o
[b] MS1 <d>pplicari
[c] MS1 Cliffortian
[d] MS1 [added over the line]
[e] MS1 <Ruppe> Ruppius
[1] Def. pl.
[2] The background is the following: Linnaeus’s Genera plantarum was published in the beginning of 1737. Here Linnaeus reformed the nominal system. Ludwig received a copy of this work from Linnaeus, studied it in detail and found a number of points to criticise. On 8 April 1737 he writes a letter to a friend, a young student, by the name of J. Andrew and summarises his criticism in five points (which are later divided into six points by Linnaeus). Andrew in his turn informs Linnaeus himself. Linnaeus then makes a summary of Ludwig’s criticisms and writes the present letter to refute them. Ludwig would reply on 14 August 1737. Linnaeus’s draft (L.S., IX, 498) runs as follows:
Ludwig in literis ad D[ominum] Joh[annem] Andrew 1737, apr[ilis] 8.
Genera pl[antarum] Linnaei benevole mecum communicavit. Prorsus egregii sunt illi labores quos suscepit. In variis enim plantis exactas ejus observationes reperire jam jam potui, easdem in quam plurimis certas invenio. Interim hinc inde varia monenda erunt, quae cum authore communicabo, cum probe sciam ipsi veritatis studioso contradictiones amicorum non displicere. Erunt fortasse haec summa contrariae sententiae capita.
1. Determinatio scrupulosior notarum species quasdam, ubi hae notae deficiunt vel variant, non admittunt. Proportio ut plurimum incertior est sita. Situm neglexit non raro. Proportionem quanto accuratior quam par fuit determinavit.
2. Notae plures unius plantae exhibitae memoriam discentis confundunt. Memoriae causa auctoris est inventa.
3. Mutatio nominum nunc usitatorum erat dissuadenda. Nomina botanicorum vel rarissime vel numquam sunt adhibenda.
4. Varietatem staminum et stylorum optime scis. Ostendant eandem observationes Linnaei.
5. Multa signa et oculum armatum fugiunt, e. g. Senecio et varii flores compositi. Quidquid mihi sit, minime credas me meritis tanti viri aliquid detrahere velle. Veneror eum, qui tantis laboribus hactenus incognita in re herbaria detexit. Hoc tamen semper asseverare vellem, quod summus Botanicus non Tironibus scripserit. Cum igitur ille Doctor Botanicorum exstiteri[t], ego ex officii ratione Doctor Tyronum esse cupio et quibusdam plagulis &c.
[3] Fund. bot.
[4] Fund. bot., 11-12.
[5] Crit. bot.
[6] See Ludwig’s answer (LC370814-00).
[7] Ludwig noted “Critica” in the margin. In Crit. bot., 79-80, Linnaeus asserted that there should be a link between the flower and the botanist that it is named after: for example, Magnolia has handsome flowers which recall the splendid botanist Magnol (“Magnolia arbor foliis & floribus speciosissimis, a splendissimo Botanico”). But Dorstenia has insignificant flowers, faded and past their prime, as the works of Dorsten (“Dorstenia, cuius flores minus spectabiles, quasi obsoleti vel antiqui, ut Dorstenii opus.”). See below, n. 22.
[8] De min. pl. gen., 11 sqq.
[9] Ludwig added “in Gottenhof” after the word “studium”.
[10] Linnaeus, Hortus Cliffortianus, 501 pp.
[11] See Ludwig’s letters to Linnaeus of 24 May 1737 and 6 December 1737 respectively.
[12] See Ludwig’s letter to Linnaeus of 24 May 1737.
[13] Ludwig placed a question mark in the margin against “Signa”.
[14] Cf. Horace, Ep., 1, 6, 68-69: si quid novisti rectius istis, candidus imperti; si non, his utere mecum (“If you can write anything better yourself, do so. Otherwise concur!”).
[15] For this discussion and the following one about Rhinantus, Epimedium and Melianthus, see Ludwig’s letter to Linnaeus of 24 May 1737.
[16] De Tournefort, Institutiones rei herbariae.
[17] See Ludwig’s letters to Linnaeus, 10 December 1736, 30 April and 24 May 1737.
[18] De min. pl. gen., 12.
[19] Gen. plant., 114, no. 324.
[20] Linnaeus, Musa Cliffortiana. This work deals with the banana plant, which flowered for the first time at Hartekamp in January 1736 according to a letter to A. von Haller, 1 May 1737. See Br. o. skr., I:4, 352 with n. 2; I:5, 252-253 with n. 4, Uggla, “Linné och bananen”, and Broberg, “Linnaeus and Genesis”, 37-38.
[21] Siegesbeck, Primitiae florae Petropolitanae.
[22] In a letter to Linnaeus of 2 January 1738 Ludwig is very condescending about the scientific research of Siegesbeck and suspects that he is intending to criticise Linnaeus: “Siegesbeckius Heisteri vestigiis insistit (non dicam simia est). Haec sufficiunt ad ideam de hoc viro formandam [...] O pessima tempora, si illi qui nova genera formant, methodi leges nesciunt [...] Nescio adhuc, an ille contra te quaedam moliatur. Si vero aliquid susciperet, certe persuasus sum merita tua suis objectionibus magis dilucidari.” See Siegesbeck’s Botanosophiae verioris brevis sciagraphia, where he tries to refute Linnaeus’s sexual system. Linnaeus says himself in a letter to A. von Haller in March 1738 that after Siegesbeck’s criticism he was the laughing stock of the whole world. But Linnaeus would take his revenge. A little stinking weed was named Siegesbeckia. See above, n. 7.
[23] Linnaeus left Hartekamp for Paris in May 1738. He could not, however, afford to go to Germany and having stayed a month in Paris returned to Sweden.
[24] Heucher and Fabricius, Ex historia naturali de vegetabilibus magicis.
[25] Linnaeus realised the importance of cultivating his image and therefore often talked of his adventurous journey among the Lapps. See Broberg, “Olof Rudbecks föregångare”, 11-21, Magnus, Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, III:17, and Scheffer, Lapponia.
[26] See e.g. Kämpfer, Amoenitatum exoticarum politico-physico-medicarum fasciculi V.
[27] Bose and Bose, Dissertatio botanico-philosophica de motu plantarum sensus aemulo.
[28] Ludwig added “Lipsiae s.l. et a v vitam eius” after “constet”.
[29] Rivinus, Introductio generalis in rem herbariam.
[30] The purpose of Linnaeus was to obtain those plants which were missing from Hartekamp.