Page - 130 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

Chapter 2130 reforms, especially in their Josephian guise.112 Already in 1762, right after his inauguration at Eger, we find him embracing the plans of his predecessor Fe- renc Barkóczy (1710–65)—who in 1762 was promoted to the archiepiscopal see of Esztergom—to develop the local seminary into a university. Although in 1763 Maria Theresa refused to authorize a new university, construction works continued, and in 1769 a medical academy was opened. The new observatory tower of Eger was not ready for use until 1776, but the rudimentary training that Balajthi received during his short stay with Hell, and the full formation as an astronomer given to another student, János Madarassy (1743–1814), sent to Vienna by Eszterházy in 1774, clearly served a grand purpose. Balajthi’s sojourn in Vienna was an occasion for the ambitious and influen- tial prelate and the imperial and royal astronomer to begin a correspondence that lasted, with some intervals, almost until Hell’s death. While not a single letter from the bishop seems to have been preserved, those from Hell to him reveal that Eszterházy relied extensively on Hell for obtaining equipment as well as general professional advice. Later on, he would ask Hell to arrange pur- chases of the best available instruments from England for the new observatory, and even to come to inspect the construction site in Eger in order to give in- structions face-to-face.113 For the time being, some “mathematical and physi- cal instruments for the public school” were ordered, and while duly reporting first on the financial implications and later on the acquisition of the requested items, Hell never missed the opportunity to reassure the bishop about the ded- ication and diligence of his student. He also expressed his joy over this occa- sion to serve his “fatherland” (patria), and promised to make the name of Esz- terházy known throughout the world of learning, and to spare no effort in ordering the instruments the bishop asked for.114 Unlike Trnava, with its university and astronomical infrastructure under the able governance of Weiss, Eger in the 1760s was certainly not yet in a position to be included in the purview of the Ephemerides, but Hell spared no time and effort in embracing and assisting a local initiative whose aim was to put the 112 László Kádár, “Eszterházy Károly racionalizmusa,” Vigilia 64, no. 6 (1999): 443–52, here 443–44. On Eszterházy, see further Béla Kovács, ed., Eszterházy Károly emlékkönyv (Eger: Érseki Gyűjteményi Központ, 1999), especially István Bitskey, “Püspökünk, példánk és tükörünk volt Eszterházy Károly életpályája és egyénisége,” 7–22. 113 Hell to Eszterházy in Eger, dated Vienna, November 25, 1774; August 22, 1775; April 23, 1776. fle, AV, 2629. The same emerges from Madarassy to Eszterházy in Eger, dated Vienna, January 27, 1776; March 3, 1776; April 6, 1776 (Vargha priv.). 114 Hell to Eszterházy in Eger, dated Vienna, August 6, 1762; September 21, 1762; October 24, 1762. Balajthi himself also informed his superior; Balajthi to Eszterházy in Eger, dated Vi- enna, [September] 21, 1762. fle, AV, 2629.