Page - 281 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

281Observing Venus and Debating the Parallax 26, 1770, his own way of publishing the datasets—by an open letter first, then in brief articles in the proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences in Stock- holm, and finally in a more elaborate dissertation—was superior to both the Jesuit of Vardø and the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg: In this way, it will become evident what elements of the observation are certain and settled and what are dubious. For, those who publish their data stripped of the circumstances in which they were obtained, can hardly be considered to serve the world of learning better than those who delay sharing their observations until they have had the occasion to com- pare them with the observations of others. Whereas the latter can hardly avoid being stigmatized by suspicion that they may have wished to pub- lish observations that were either made up or altered in order to fit those of others, the former leave the reader in suspense as to whether or not the datasets have been obtained under appropriate conditions. Both parties are all the more to blame when considering how crucial it is, in the com- parison of observations involved in the investigation of the solar parallax, to apply observations that are trustworthy in all respects.69 Although no names are mentioned, the identity of the “two parties” would be recognizable for all astronomers. A university dissertation was not necessarily shared with many outside the circle that witnessed the ceremony, but from Planman’s correspondence with Wargentin, it is evident that he expected his piece to be communicated to Hell: “It would hurt me, if he [i.e., Hell] should find himself offended by my disputation; however, my lack of awareness of what came to pass [in Vardø] will serve as my excuse,” he wrote in a letter shortly after the dissertation.70 The reaction of Planman, then, can be summed up as rather implicit and ambiguous. He found Hell’s behavior suspicious at first, but since the datasets from Vardø turned out not to match his own, the Jesuit could hardly be accused of having forged them on the basis of the Cajaneborg observations. There was also a discrepancy between the observers in Vardø. Although the observations of Sajnovics and Hell were almost identical, the moments recorded by Borch- grevink diverged by several seconds from the two Jesuits. Planman of course noticed this fact, and noted to Wargentin that “besides, the observations of 69 Anders Planman and Karl Gebhard Widqvist, Expositio observationum transitus Veneris per Solem, Cajaneburgi A:o 1769, D. 3 Junii factarum […] (Åbo: Joh. Christopher Frenckell, [1770]), [2]. 70 Planman to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated Åbo, June 22, 1770 (cvh).