Seite - 292 - in Maximilian Hell (1720–92) - And the Ends of Jesuit Science in Enlightenment Europe

Chapter 6292 His wording in private letters is even harsher. To Wargentin, Lexell writes that Hell in the De parallaxi Solis has proven himself to be “the worst charlatan possible […] not even endowed with sufficient theoretical knowledge to inves- tigate the question of the parallax.”111 His judgment on Lalande is no less severe: What sway prejudices hold over human beings, even in such matters where they should be led by their love of truth alone, I have had occasion to witness in Lalande […]. If every person who writes about this theme would act as honestly as him, one can easily find whatever parallax seems most agreeable.112 Another participant in the debate, Planman, followed the same line as Lalande and Lexell (who, however, did nothing to hold back his spite from Planman, either).113 In publications ranging from the beginning of 1771 until the end of 1774, he argued for parallaxes of around 8.24″, 8.43″, 8.51″, and finally 8.40″.114 The debate was at its hottest in 1772. In December of that year, Planman published a dissertation where he found the parallax to be exactly as Lalande had concluded and rejected Hell’s De parallaxi Solis as “a mishmash of errors” (errorum farraginem). The only data from Vardø that could possibly be used were those of the amateur Borchgrevink, he argued.115 In this turmoil, we find a single diplomatic voice: Wargentin, the network figure who stayed in close contact with all the participants in the quarrel. As Lalande, Planman, Lexell, and Hell attacked each other in public, they all confided their feelings to Wargentin as a neutral, yet influential and respected colleague. The Swede was unhappy with the strife, however, and tried his best to cool down the tempera- ture. In a letter to Hell’s confrère Weiss, dated Stockholm, March 9, 1773, Wargentin says: 111 Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg, September 7, 1772 (cvh). 112 Lexell to Wargentin in Stockholm, dated St. Petersburg, February 25, 1771 (cvh). 113 See Stén, Comet of the Enlightenment, 75–76. 114 Anders Planman, “Formuler, At Uträkna Parallaxens verkan för observerade in- och ut- gångs momenter, vid en Planets gång under Solen,” in kvah (January–March 1771): 66–74; Planman, “Om Solens Parallaxis, i anledning af Observationer öfver Venus i Solen, år 1769,” kvah (April–June 1772): 183–91; Anders Planman and Johan Kreander, Animadversiones Subitaneæ in Appendicem Hellianam ad Ephemerides anni mdcclxxiii, De parallaxi Solis (Åbo: Johannes Christoph Frenckell, 1772); Planman, “Förklaring på de Formler, at uträkna Parallaxens verkan, för observerade in- och utgångs-momenter vid en Planets gång un der Solen, som anfördes uti Handlingarne för år 1771,” kvah (October–December 1774): 306–19. 115 Planman and Kreander, Animadversiones subitaneæ, 12.