Maximilianus Hell (1720-1792) - Munin

Paradoxically, if Hell received invitation from a national government or ruler, the situation in
Catholic countries around 1766/67 makes a non-Catholic power more likely to have been the
inviter. One such power with colonies overseas would be the Dutch Republic. Indeed, the
Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (‘Dutch United East India Company’) is known to have
cooperated with Delisle concerning the planning of a Venus-transit observation from the
beaches of Batavia (present-day Jakarta) in 1761. By 1769, however, this situation had
changed. The resident amateur astronomer Johan Maurits Mohr (1716-1775) had in the
meantime, on his own initiative, constructed a private observatory and acquired high standard
instruments from Europe, without financial support from either the Compagnie or the state.
No other observations are known to have been made from Dutch colonies in 1769, and given
the business-oriented emphasis of the Dutch United East India Company, it appears unlikely
that it would be prepared to spend money on recruitment of foreigners for such a task. 25
Another possible inviter of Father Hell is the Imperial Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg.
As has been explained (Section II.2.2), the academicians of Russia started planning their
expeditions already in the spring of 1767, and they were quick to call for help from abroad.
With the strong links between the St. Petersburg Academy and the German-speaking world, a
tempting conjecture would be that the leading astronomer of the Austrian Empire might have
been among those invited. However, I have been unable to find evidence of contacts between
Hell and the Academy of St. Petersburg in this period. 26 One cannot rule out, however, that
Father Hell – or perhaps some correspondent of his – interpreted the general ‘call for
competence’ of Empress Catherine in the spring and summer of 1767 as a an invitation aimed
at the likes of himself. 27
In the end, it was the French astronomer Chappe d’Auteroche that went to Baja California
along with two Spanish observers. They succeed to observe the Venus transit, but most of the
company – Chappe included – perished soon after from an epidemic disease. Boscovich
stayed in Italy and saw nothing of the Venus transit, whereas Father Mayer upon advice from
25 Zuidervaart & Van Gent 2004; Van Gent 2005.
26 Hell did in fact cultivate some contact with members of the academy in St. Petersburg in the early 1760s, as is
evident from some volumes of the Ephemerides Astronomicae (cf. e.g. the appendix of Anni 1762 [Hell 1761,
pp. 92-94]). Among the manuscripts of Hell in Vienna, letters exchanged between Hell and Gerhard Friedrich
Müller as well as Joseph Adam Braun have been found (cf. Unprinted Sources, 1a and 1b): Müller to Hell, St.
Petersburg 6 June 1761; Hell to Braun, Vienna 8 February, 31 March, 10 April & 5 May 1761; Braun to Hell, St.
Petersburg 5 May 1761. These letters all concern the Venus transit of 1761. Unfortunately, evidence for Hell’s
correspondence in the years 1765-68 is far more meagre than for the period around 1761.
27 See Section II.2.2 above.
- 288 -