Page - 249 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

249The Expeditio litteraria ad Polum Arcticum scholar’s objections.130 Hell asked Pray to include a critique of von Schlözer in his forthcoming Dissertationes historico­ criticae in annales veteres Hunnorum, Avarum et Hungarorum (Historical–critical investigations of the old annals of the Huns, Avars, and Hungarians, eventually published in 1774 in Vienna and again in 1775 in Bratislava).131 The hope that in this work Pray would highlight the contribution of the Demonstratio had already been expressed in one of the additions to the text of the Trnava edition of Sajnovics’s treatise: “Whether our eminent historian, Fa- ther Georgius Pray, adopted any of the claims put forward by these authors [i.e., various authors supporting the Finno-Ugrian theory], he will show him- self to the erudite world in his finely conceived Dissertationes, to be published soon.”132 Hell’s response to Pray on the interpretation of karjel, already men- tioned above, also records the disappointment of this expectation. While in the Dissertationes Pray revised his overall theory to include the Finns, besides the Huns, Avars, and Hungarians in the common narrative of origin from Chi- na, and acknowledged his debt on this point to Hell and Sajnovics, already at the beginning of the work he signaled disagreement with certain aspects of the Demonstratio, which in the elaboration turned out to be particularly the coat- of-arms and the etymology of Karjelia.133 Hell, probably familiar with the man- uscript of the Dissertationes, was fuming in his note to Pray. His strategy of dismissing the latter’s counterarguments—based on the lack of empirical evi- dence for the word-formations asserted by Hell on syllogistic grounds—is strongly anchored in stressing the superiority of his method of deduction based on “stringent formal logics and proof” characteristic of his own disci- pline.134 Hell almost addresses a threat to Pray on this account: “Therefore I must request the respected author to keep quiet […] unless he wishes to make an enemy out of me, the mathematician and thus the severest of critics.”135 130 Von Schlözer to Hell, February 29, 1772, published by Ferdinánd Mencsik, Magyar Törté­ nelmi Tár, 4th series, 6 (1905): 143–47. 131 Hell to Pray, February 5, 1772, elte EK, G 119. no. 162. 132 Sajnovics, Demonstratio (1771), 129. Cf. the tentative formulation in the 1770 edition, 82: “Whether Father Georgius Pray, the eminent author of the Annales Ungariae, has adopted any of their claims, I am as yet unable to tell.” 133 György Pray, Dissertationes historico­ criticae in annales veteres Hunnorum, Avarum et Hun­ garorum (Vienna: Bernard, 1774), 1, 18, 28, 43, 66–68. Cf. the discussion in Vladár, “Hell mint nyelvész,” 343–47. 134 In the letter mentioned above in n. 130, von Schlözer was also highly critical of the inflex- ibility of Hell’s method, e.g., his insistence that the “identity” means the sameness of all roots except borrowals and extinct words. 135 Coll. Prayana 18:25.