Page - 105 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

105Enlightened and Jesuit Networks, and a New Node of Science One of Hell’s biographers regarded this part of the instruction as “ridicu- lously patronizing,” and attributed it to the influence of Van Swieten and Jo- seph von Sonnenfels (1732–1817)—by implication, to the pervasive regulatory gaze of the emerging enlightened state and its ambition of exercising unneces- sary supervisory functions over an independent man of science (who in this case was a Jesuit).49 The circumstances put this in a rather different light. The director, namely the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, to whom the periodic reports were due and Hell was answerable in general, was at this time no other than Franz, Hell’s former teacher and supporter as well as—according to Hell—the author of the instruction itself. The relationship between the two men appears to have been one of a senior and a junior member of the Society of Jesus, master and disciple, probably marked not only by mutual respect but also cordiality, consolidated by this time through more than a decade-long ac- quaintance and collaboration on various projects. Patronage may have been involved, but the instruction is certainly not patronizing. This is not to claim that the relationship was fully smooth. Though not much is on record, it is evi- dent from an elaborate letter addressed to the senior astronomer Delisle in Paris that Hell felt that the tasks assigned to him by Franz were slightly too demanding: “You will surely be amazed that Father Franz, who ought to know the chores of an astronomer, was able to place the burden of obeying to these instructions on the shoulders of one man alone,” Hell fumed. Without any helping hands, “no assistant, no secretary, and—worst of all—without any funds,” the imperial astronomer had to take care of all his tasks on his own. A final complaint put forward in the same letter was that Franz kept Marinoni’s journal of observations hidden: Hell states that he had not even been given permission to inspect them.50 As to the required reporting, unfortunately it must have been taking place orally (another sign that the dean’s supervisory functions over the imperial and royal astronomer were exercised in practice rather informally—true to the na- ture of their personal relationship), as there are no written traces of this in the Viennese University Archives. The relatively small number of documents by Hell and ones relating to him preserved there mainly concern extraordinary issues, such as the renovation of the university building including the observa- tory premises; the fate of books (including those on astronomy) belonging to 49 Ferenc Pinzger, “Hell Miksa (1720–1792),” in Stella Csillagászati Egyesület Almanachja 1927–re (Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926), 177–200, here 178. In regard of especially von Sonnenfels, this is a strange assumption, as he did not come to play any significant role in Viennese academic life until the 1760s. Cf. above, 94n13. 50 Hell’s letter to Delisle in Paris, dated Vienna, February 2, 1758 (Archives nationales, Paris, mar/2JJ/66).