Documentation

Letters

-Search for letters
-Search in texts

Manuscripts

Editions

Links

Contact

C18

Link: linnaeus.c18.net/Letter/L0460 • Lorenz Heister to Carl Linnaeus, 30 April 1742 n.s.
Dated prid. Calend. Maji MDCCXXXXII. Sent from Helmstädt (Germany) to (). Written in Latin.

Viro Doctissimo ac Nobilissimo,
D[omino] Carolo Linnaeo,
S[alutem] P[lurimam] D[icit]
Laurentius Heisterus.

Cum ex D[omino] BruckmannoBrückmann, Franciscus Ernst
(1697-1753). German. Naturalist and
collector. Physician at Helmstädt,
later at Brunswick and
Wolffenbüttel. Father-in-law of
Friedrich Boerner. Correspondent of
Linnaeus.
intellexerim Te iterum desiderare catalogos meos plantarum horti nostri[1] atque etiam dissertationes Botanicas, quas edidi, ecce hic eas omnes. Misissem eas Tibi citius, si scivissem quo et per quam viam. In recentioribus, quas superiori anno edidi, meas meditationes, cogitationes et dubia quaedam una cum difficultatibus, quae mihi circa Systema Tuum et nominum bonorum mutationes[2] nimis frequentes suborta sunt, libere,[a][a] : MS1 [sc.] dixi sicuti Tu fecisti, attamen omni, qua fieri potuit, modestia, quamvis me saepe acerbius lacessiveris, eruditis proposui electionem eis relinquens, quaenam ex his sententiis ipsis magis arrideat et cum natura optime conveniat. Et licet in multis non temere,[b][b] : MS1 [sc.] dixi sed graves ob rationes in iis prolatas, Tecum non consentiam, haec tamen sententiarum diversitas nullas inimicitias inter nos concitare debet. Nam ob maximos Tuos labores, ut publice in eis professus sum, Te valde amo. Eruditi enim dissentire et tamen amici esse possunt.[3]

Gale illa, de qua ad D[ominum] Brukmannum scripsisti, mihi adhuc deficit. Si huius aliarumque plantarum semina, quae communicare potes et in his regionibus deficiunt, mecum communicare velis, pergrata ea mihi sunt futura. Ego vicissim, quae apud nos coluntur et quae longe maiori hic nunc adsunt copia quam catalogi mei recensent, ea, quae desiderabis et quorum copia adest, Tibi remittam.

Dissertationem de Sceptro Carolino[4] eiusque semina aliasque praestantiores dissertationes medicas, chirurgicas, anatomicas et botanicas, quae in Suecia ac praesertim Upsaliae prodierunt, itemque orationem Tuam inauguralem[5] habere aveo. Hinc rogo, ut quae ex iis invenire possis, per dom[inum] Bruckmannum mihi mittas. Ego vicissim alias, quae in Germania prodierunt, quarum maxima pars hic in Bibliopoliis nostris haberi potest, si eas mihi designabis, lubens quoque mittam. Ego in peculiari methodo Botanica elaboranda atque edenda iam occupatus sum.[6]

Vale!

Dab[am] Helmstadii Saxonum prid[ie] Calend[as] Maji MDCCXXXXII.

Ut videre atque cognoscere possis, quae semina et plantas adhuc maxime desidero, mitto Tibi duplicem desideratorum indicem, alterum secundum appellationes praestantiorum hucusque Botanicorum, alterum secundum Tuas ex Prodromo Fl[orae] Leid[enensis] Royensi.[7] Quaenam ex his mihi mittere poteris? Mihi perquam erunt grata atque ex iisdem indicibus etiam perspicere poteris, quibus ego iam sim instructus.

upSUMMARY

Lorenz Heister sends his catalogues of the plants in his garden and his botanical dissertations. Heister has criticised Linnaeus’s (sexual) system and changing of (botanical) names. He would be grateful for seeds of Gale and Linnaeus’s dissertation on Sceptrum Carolinum and other Swedish medical, surgical, anatomical and botanical dissertations.

upMANUSCRIPTS

a. original holograph (LS, VI, 459-460). [1] [2] [3]

upTEXTUAL NOTES

a.
MS1 [sc.] dixi
b.
MS1 [sc.] dixi

upEXPLANATORY NOTES

1.
2.
On 16 August 1741 Philip Caspar GoeckelGoeckel, Philip Caspar
(1710-1752). German. Physician,
Nuremberg.
defended Lorenz Heister’s dissertation, Meditationes et animadversiones in novum systema botanicum sexuale LinnaeiHeister, Lorenz Meditationes
et animadversiones in novum systema
botanicum sexuale Linnaei. Resp. Ph. C.
Goeckel
(Helmstädt 1741).
. In this dissertation Heister condemns Linnaeus’s sexual method as useless. On 17 October 1741 Linnaeus’s changes of botanical names were attacked in another dissertation, De nominum plantarum mutatione utili ac noxiaHeister, Lorenz De nominum
plantarum mutatione utili ac noxia Resp.
I. E. Sandhagen
(Helmstädt
1741).
. On 14 December 1741 Heister attacked Linnaeus a third time with the dissertation, De Aurantiis eorumque eximio usu medicoHeister, Lorenz De Aurantiis
eorumque eximio usu medico

(Helmstädt 1741).
, where the use of the genus of Citrus was criticised. See also Linnaeus’s letter to Christian Gottlieb LudwigLudwig, Christian Gottlieb
(1709-1773). German. Physician.
Professor of medicine in Leipzig. One of
Linnaeus’s early opponents.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
, 28 July 1737 n.s.Letter L0191 and Ludwig to Linnaeus, 14 August 1737 n.s.Letter L0206.
3.
See Linnaeus’s letter to Ludwig 28 July 1737 n.s.Letter L0191 and Ludwig to Linnaeus, 14 August 1737 n.s.Letter L0206.
4.
5.
On 25 October Linnaeus gave his inaugural address at Uppsala, Oratio qua peregrationum intra patriam asseritur necessitasLinnaeus, Carl Oratio qua
peregrinationum intra patriam asseritur
necessitas, habita Upsaliae [...] 1741
Octobr. 17, quum medicinae professionem
regiam et ordinariam susciperet

(Uppsala 1741). Soulsby no. 1354.
, on the necessity of travelling within one’s own country.
6.
In 1750 Heister made a new edition of Johann Heinrich Burckard’s Epistola ad Dominum Godofredum Gulielmum LeibnitiumBurckard, Johann Heinrich
Epistola ad Dominum Godofredum
Gulielmum Leibnitium, de plantis et arte
eas discriminandi, per Joannem Henricum
Burchard
(Wolfenbüttel 1702).
, in the preface of which he attempted to prove that the sexual system had been discussed long before Linnaeus. See Adriaan van RoyenRoyen, Adriaan van (1705-1779).
Dutch. Professor of botany, director of
the botanical garden of Leiden.
Correspondent of Linnaeus.
to Linnaeus, February 1751 and Linnaeus to Abraham BäckBäck, Abraham (1713-1795).
Swedish. Physician, president of the
Collegium Medicum, Stockholm. Close
friend of Linnaeus. Correspondent of
Linnaeus.
, 22 February 1751 o.s., 5 March 1751 n.s., where he says that he has heard from Holland that Heister had tried to attribute the paternity of his method to someone else.
7.