Seite - 227 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

227The Expeditio litteraria ad Polum Arcticum northern light and magnetism or electricity, and concluded that it was a phe- nomenon of light being reflected in the atmosphere. With the benefit of hindsight, we can conclude that Hell had set up his mag- netic observatory far too late. In late April, May, and June, it is impossible to observe real aurorae because the sky is much too bright for that, even at mid- night. Thus, the Midnight Sun blinded Hell’s inquisitive eye. His conclusion was as follows: The northern light is, therefore, a purely optical phenomenon in our at- mosphere. It consists of frozen particles of moisture, of various shapes, most often flat, extremely smooth, and light, capable of densification as well as rarefaction. These particles float into the atmosphere at different distances from the Earth. They may be moved by any kind of movement in the air, for example, be tossed back and forth by winds. Furthermore, they can condense or disintegrate completely; in the manner of the light- est of clouds, they can be transported to various locations; heaped to- gether into a thousand forms they exhibit different optic patterns, etc., etc. This light of the north is usually caused by the rays of the Sun, at other times, by the rays of the moon, or even by a combination of rays from the two celestial bodies simultaneously. The rays in question are reflected in the surface of the variously formed, frozen particles. Some- times, the rays are both reflected and refracted simultaneously, depend- ing on the conditions such as light, color, or the shape of the patterns.57 As mentioned, the conclusions of Hell’s interesting, albeit mistaken Aurorae borealis theoria nova were presented as a lecture to the Royal Society of Copen- hagen as early as March 1770. It was printed in Vienna in 1776, and a German translation, with rather extensive interpretative commentary in the preface by the editor, Hell’s former student and professor in Breslau, Longinus Anton Jungnitz (1764–1831), appeared in 1792.58 Despite Hell’s explicit comparison of his findings with the discoveries of Copernicus,59 his theory, even when pub- lished in full, hardly acquired any acclaim. Wargentin’s associate, physicist Jo- han Carl Wilcke, immediately dismissed it, and nobody in Denmark–Norway appears to have embraced it; the academicians of Paris simply remained 57 Hell, “Aurorae borealis theoria nova,” 79–80. Translation in Per Pippin Aspaas, “Biographi- cal Introduction, Summary of Contents (manuscript version), Summary of Contents (Latin edition) and Summary of Contents (German edition),” Aurorae borealis studia clas­ sica 4 (2016): 1–17, here 12–13. 58 See Per Pippin Aspaas, “Biographical Introduction,” 4, 14–17. 59 Hell, “Aurorae borealis theoria nova,” 21–22.