Page - 166 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

Chapter 3166 des temps was Europe’s astronomical almanac of the most illustrious pedigree, by the late 1760s the Ephemerides was emerging as a dynamic rival, and as we shall see, by the aftermath of the 1769 transit—when the original stakes of the controversy were undermined but Trébuchet still kept up the fight—the per- sonal animosity between Lalande and Hell was out in the public domain. There is no evidence to corroborate the assumption that Lalande was sending Trébu- chet into the field, but the possibility remains open. 4 “Quonam autem fructu?”: Taking Stock We now move beyond the 1761 transit of Venus as such, to take another look at Hell’s reputation as it developed during the course of the 1760s. Trébuchet’s gesture toward Hell’s stature even while engaging in a controversy with him leads us to the question of the returns on the investment into the fashioning of Hell’s observatory and Vienna as a node of astronomical knowledge. From the map of contemporary European astronomy as reflected in the pages of the Ephemerides, we turn to the question of the place of Hell, the Imperial and Royal Observatory of Vienna, and the Ephemerides itself on that map. Were one to judge merely by local responses, the imperial and royal astronomer was already “world famous in his home” by 1762, when the Wienerisches Diarium— an official gazette, no doubt prioritizing information reflecting positively on the Habsburg monarchy—reviewed Hell’s memoir of the transit of Venus and simply referred to him as “our renowned astronomer,” adding that “whoever is familiar with his works, is convinced well in advance that deep insight, reli- ability, order, and precision will be found in the present one.” The author of the review hastened to express his agreement with Hell’s view, advanced in the introduction, that the contemplation of the condition of astronomy in a state allows one to assess accurately the general progress of the sciences there— naturally implying that in Austria the situation was reassuring.92 The journal followed Hell’s activities in astronomy and other fields quite closely and re- ported on them from time to time, even before the sensational invitation from 92 WD, no. 54 (July 7, 1762): appendix, 9. It must be added that if, in our engagement with Hell’s report above, the “national” element was played down in order to enable a more nuanced assessment of the confessional element in the 1761 Venus transit enterprise, the review’s tone is unabashedly “Austrian.” The very first astronomer mentioned by name after Hell is “our Rieger” in Madrid, closely followed by “another famous Austrian astrono- mer” whose “rare efforts and services” should cause the reader delight—none other than the amateur Ehrmann zum Schlug. Right next to the report on Hell’s “Observatio,” the paper brings an account on Weiss’s Trnava observation reports.