Page - 126 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

Chapter 2126 As for correspondence, there is a single surviving letter from Hell to Boscov- ich, the wording of which yields clear evidence that the two were not close collaborators. In the letter, Hell thanks Boscovich for a work sent by the latter as a present (adding, “even though this gift, a product of Your Reverence’s deeply subtle intellect, was most welcome to me in itself, the most wonderful thing of all was that it made me aware that I, who had so often publicly stated my admiration for Your Reverence, was in fact kept in some sort of remem- brance”); he promises to send in return to Boscovich the latest volume of the Ephemerides astronomicae, containing Hell’s work on the use of Jupiter’s satel- lites for meridian determination; he congratulates Boscovich on his appoint- ment as professor in Pavia, and engages in other “small talk.” In short, flattery and humble respect permeate the letter, not the kind of familiarity and frank- ness that characterize Hell’s correspondence with most other colleagues.99 This single extant letter contrasts with thirty-six surviving letters addressed to Boscovich by Liesganig and thirteen by Scherffer, both Viennese Jesuits en- gaged in astronomy and related topics.100 It might be added that in his elabo- rate Aurorae borealis theoria nova (New theory on the aurora borealis [1776]), Hell refers to the theories and observations of a wide range of authors but avoids mentioning that the famous Boscovich had already treated the phe- nomenon in several works.101 Boscovich’s silence on Hell’s De satellite Veneris was thus “echoed” by Hell on that occasion. letter apparently addressed to an Italian astronomer (internal evidence points to the sec- ond half of the year 1765 as the time of writing), Hell goes into details concerning the De satellite Veneris, adding that: “If You get the occasion to meet Father Boscovich, I am con- fident that he at first sight will raise a lot of objections against my point of view, for he will attempt to defend his own opinion, which is in line with that of Hugenius, but rejected by me on pages 31 and 56. However, if he does so, I should think he will be chasing deer in the treetops.” wus, Manuscripte Hell, 3. 99 Hell to Boscovich in Pavia, dated Vienna, February 27, 1764. The letter can be traced in the online inventory of Boscovich’s correspondence, published by the Commissione Scienti- fica Edizione Nazionale R.G. Boscovich in Milan, http://www.brera.inaf.it/boscovich/ progetto-sito/Nuovo_catalogo_lettere.doc (accessed April 15, 2019; digital copy of the let - ter kindly provided by Luca Guzzardi). 100 Cf.  http://www.brera.inaf.it/boscovich/progetto-sito/Nuovo_catalogo_lettere.doc ( accessed April 15, 2019). 101 Hell, Aurorae borealis theoria nova […] 1776. Boscovich is known to have published works on the aurora borealis in 1738 (De aurora boreali, anonymous dissertation published twice in the same year, Rome); 1747 (Caroli Noceti e Societate Jesu: De Iride et Aurora boreali Car- mina Illustrissimo ac Reverendissimo Praesuli Bernardino Giruadio dicata. Cum Notis Jose- phi Rogerii Boscovich ex eadem, Societate, Rome); 1748 (“Dialoghi sull’aurora boreale del P. Ruggiero Boscovich della Compagnia di Gesù lettore di matematica nel Collegio Roma- no,” in Giornale de’ letterati per l’anno 1748, 192–202, 264–75, 293–302, 239–336, 363–68; also