Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London - University Library

66 PUOC'KEiJlNGS OF THE
no more at the College, and where it \\as gone no one knew. When
I A'isited the College in 189 J, the Srcretary showed me Eichhorn's
catalogue of the portraits in l heir ])ossession. Under Linnaeus by
Krafft, it was said that the piiinting had been lost and it was not
known where it now v^as. I afterwards, with the kindly help of
the late Baron Nordenskjold, made a careful examination of the
portraits of Linne at the Royal Academy of Sciences. The wellknown
portrait presented by the artist, Eoslin, to the Academy
had the best position on the wall ; above it was a copy of the oilpainting
belonging to the Zoological Society of Amsterdam, a
three-quarters reproduction after the Clifford portrait. Above
that, high on the wall, was a portrait which 1 recognized to be like
the engravings of Krafft's painting. I suggested that it might be
the lost picture that had belonged to the Medical College. The
Baron had it brought down from the wall, and on careful examination
we found it was signed and dated "Krafft 1774," and on the
back of the canvas was written " Carl v. Linne 1774 setat. 67."
There could be no doubt that this was the lost painting.
Linne had his first paralytic stroke in May 1774, which obliged
him to relinquish the more active part of his professorial duties,
and to close his literary labours. The portrait exhibits no traces
of this malady, and ^^as probably painted before May.
Krafft's portrait may have been in the possession of the Academy
of Sciences before 1833, for Adam Afzelius, in his " Egenhiiudiga
Anteckningar af Linnaeus" published in that year, says (p. 67) that
the Eoyal Academy had Linne's portrait painted to put among its
founders, likewise the medallion Akrell had previously made in
wax, both very like. But Inlander, not Akrell, was the artist of
the medallion. The reference to the portrait may be that oF
Eoslin, but that was not painted for the Academy but was presented
to it. If for Eoyal Academy we substitute Medical College, the statement
o'ould apply to Krafft's portrait. But one cannot say from
the defective and erroneous statement w'hat Afzelius really meant.
The Linnean Society o^^•es to the generosity of the Eoyal
Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, a faithful reproduction of Krafft's
beautiful portrait.
There has just been published an admirable collotype, two-thirds
the size of the original, reproduced by J. Cederquist of Stockholm.
There is at the Medical College a copy by John von Breda of
this portrait. It is very softly painted ; the wrinkles and x^arts
on the face have been omitted. There are also some modifications
in the details,— the necklace (?J is tied in a single knot, and the
left hand holding the Linno'ci rests on the page of an open book.
Magnus Hallman, described as a student of Linne, made several
copies of Krafft's portrait. Two of these are to be found in the
house of Linne at Hammarby. Both are very poor reproductions.
One is not signed, the other has on the back of the canvas "Magn.
Hallman pinxit 1769." I have no doubt that both of them are
posthumons portraits based chiefly on Krafft, but with suggestions