Sl.

 1  Circulation  of  Scientific  Knowledge  across  Baroque  Europe:  the  Jesuit  net  of  the  

Polish  Astronomer  Johannes  Hevelius  (1611-­‐‑1687)  

SL.  1.  Federica  Favino  –  University  of  Rome  La  Sapienza  

Sl.  2.  ‘To  the  historians  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Johannes  Hevelius  (1611-­‐‑1689),  is  

remembered   chiefly   for   constructing   long   but   useless   telescopes   and   being   on   the  

wrong   side   of   an   argument   with   Robert   Hooke   and   John   Flamsteed   about   the  

usefullness   of   telescopic   sights...   History   is   not   generous   to   losers,   and   as   a   result  

Hevelius  has  not  been  the  beneficiary  of  a  modern  biography  and  his  correspondence  

lies  largely  ignored  in  archives’.  

This  statement  of  1993  by  Mary  Winkler  e  Albert  Van  Helden  does  not  reflect  

scholarship   anymore.   Indeed,   in   the   last   decade,   Hevelius   has   attracted  

increasing  attention  from  scholars,  both  in  Europe  and  the  United  States.  

In   the   USA,   since   2000,   the   astronomer   has   been   the   subject   of   several   new  

researches  (most  of  all  aimed  at  PhD  dissertations!).  What  is  the  most,  in  Europe,  

after  centuries  of  oblivion,  the  16  volumes  of  Hevelius’  original  correspondence  -­‐‑  

over   2,700   surviving   letters   got   ready   for   printing   by   Helvelius   himself,   now  

housed   at   the   Bibliothèque   Nationale   de   France   and   the   Bibliothèque   de  

l’Observatoire  in  Paris  –  are  going  to  be  published,  both  on  line  and  on  paper.  

SL.   3   -­‐‑   Making   this   extraordinarily   rich   corpus   available   to   the   wider   scholarly  

community   is   the   task   of   a   major   collaborative   editorial   project   currently  

underway   in   France,   Germany,   and   Poland.   So   far   (June   2012),   the   project  

already   completed   its   first   phase,   i.e.   the   realization   of   a   comprehensive  

inventory   of   the   correspondence   and   the   generation   of   precise   descriptive  

  1  
metadata   for   each   document.   The   completion   of   the   digitization   phase   is  

announced  by  2013.  

Sl.   4   Even   this   mere   inventory   suggests   to   critically   approach,   at   a   ‘local’   i.e.  

continental   scale,   the   issue   of   early   modern   Europe   as   a   self-­‐‑referential   location  

in  the  rise  and  spread  of  modern  science.  The  recent  burgeoning  development  of  

books,  collective  works  and  international  conferences  has  built  on  the  recognition  

of   the   substantial   nexus   between   scientific   knowledge   and   any   kind   of  

“displacement”.  The  main  result  of  this  change  has  been  to  get  rid  (perhaps)  of  

the  ‘big  narrative’  of  the  modern  science  as  the  outcome  and  the  accomplishment  

of   the   European   superiority   on   the   world.   The   post-­‐‑colonial   studies   have   fairly  

enough   disclosed   the   ideology   which   undelays   the   paradigm   of   a   one-­‐‑way  

diffusion   of   early   modern   science   from   Europe   to   the   putative   extra-­‐‑European  

‘peripheries’.   Much   less   has   been   done   about   the   intra-­‐‑   European   regions.  

According   to   the   dynamic   STEP   network   (Science   and   Technology   in   the  

European   Periphery),   the   cleavage   between   European   center   and   ‘peripheries’  

still  dictates  the  scholarship  agenda,  by  playing  an  important  role  in  the  choice  of  

the   geographical   settings   selected   as   objects   of   study.   On   the   other   hand,   the  

increasing  scholarship  on  the  circulation  of  knowledge  across  the  ‘Old  continent’  

is  still  based  on  the  ‘diffusionist’  (i.e.  Basallian)  paradigm.  By  singling  the  center  

of   knowledge   construction   out   in   the   European   western   areas,   this   scholarship  

fabricates   the   ‘peripheries’   in   the   places   where   information   is   collected,   and   in  

doing   so,   it   suggests   an   opposition   between   a   center   -­‐‑   dynamic,   creative,   and   a  

producer  of  ‘modernity’  -­‐‑  and  a  passive  periphery,  uncertain  and  undeveloped.  

SL.   5.   Until   very   recently,   this   approach   also   dominated   the   scholarship   on  

Hevelius.   Indeed,   the   scanty   number   of   his   published   letters   is   not   enough   to  

  2  
explain  why  all  the  studies  concerning  Hevelius’  participation  in  the  circulation  

of  knowledge  deal  only  with  the  Royal  Society  of  London  and  with  Paris,  that  is  

the   crucial   point   for   astronomy   and   Royal   patronage   in   the   second   half   of   the  

Seventeenth   century.   After   all,   the   libraries   that   houses   Hevelius’   manuscripts  

have  always  been  opened  to  the  public!  And  the  priority  of  the  London-­‐‑Danzik  

route  is  endorsed  even  by  those  scholars  SL.6  who  re-­‐‑examined  the  dossier  from  

a   sociological   point   of   view,   on   the   basis   of   categories   like   ‘reputation  

management’,  ‘instruments  of  credit’,  ‘visual  rethoric’.  

Sl.  7  After  the  university  years  in  Leiden  and  a  travel  of  learning  in  England  and  

France,   since   1634   Hevelius   resided   permanently   in   Danzik,   in   those   years   an  

autonomous   town   within   the   Kingdom   of   Poland.   His   work   as   a   wealthy  

brewing   merchant   and   his   leading   role   in   municipal   administration   prevented  

him   from   traveling   abroad   again.   In   view   of   this,   the   radius   of   his   cultural  

mobility   entirely   overlaps   the   ‘virtual   space’   of   his   epistolary   network,   an  

unavoidable  resource  for  an  observation-­‐‑  based  knowledge  like  astronomy.  

Sl.  8  Even  at  a  glance,  the  geography  of  this  network  suggests  us  to  change  our  

point  of  view  in  order  to  put  in  the  right  perspective  the  role  of  the  ‘West’  in  the  

‘virtual  space’  attached  to  Hevelius’  site.  The  results  of  a  random  test  on  the  time  

range   1660-­‐‑1667   -­‐‑   the   years   of   his   dispute   with   the   French   astronomer   Adrien  

Auzout   over   the   comet   of   1664   –   for   instance,   suggests   to   move   the   attractive  

point  of  Hevelius’  interests,  to  ‘relocate’  the  focus  of  the  circulation  of  knowledge  

that  centers  on  him,  toward  the  coasts  of  the  Baltic  See.  Indeed,  more  than  50%  of  

his   epistolary   traffic   concerns   the   Hanseatic   basin   (from   Lübeck   to  

Königsberg⁄Kaliningrad),   20%   runs   geographic   Prussia;   Paris   is   a   relevant   point  

because  is  where  his  dear  fellow  Ismaël  Beaulliau  lives  and  where  a  wide  range  

  3  
of  courtiers  correspondents  reside,  with  whom,  by  the  way,  Hevelius  has  short-­‐‑

lived   contacts.   The   ‘Prussian   Lynx’   corresponds   with   London   as   much   as   with  

the   obscure   Jesuit   College   in   Breslaw   (4%),   Amsterdam   is   almost   out   of   his  

horizons   (1%)   and   DenHaag   covers   the   3%   of   his   correspondence   only   because  

Beauilliau  lives  there  for  a  while.  

Sl.  9.  The  forthcoming  Hevelius’  correspondence  on  the  web  will  allow  us  to  test  

the  possibility  of  a  dynamic  approach  to  “European  centrality”  –  that  is  a  vision  

of  European  knowledge  where  the  hegemonic  spaces  were  constantly  changing  

and  defined  the  shifting  borders  of  Europe  as  a  consequence  -­‐‑   from  the  relative  

periphery  mapped  by  Hevelius’  network.  In  the  mean  time,  I  want  to  attract  your  

attention  on  small  part  of  this  network,  that  is  the  epistolary  exchange  between  

Hevelius   and   the   Jesuit   Theodorus   Moretus.   The   extant   part   of   this  

correspondence  consists  of  19  letters  housed  in  the  library  of  the  Observatory  in  

Paris,   and   concerns   the   time-­‐‑range   1661-­‐‑1667,   that   is   the   same   time-­‐‑range   I   put  

through  the  random  test  above.    

Sl.   10.   Theodorus   Moretus   (1603-­‐‑1667)   was   a   Jesuit   mathematician   of   Dutch  

origin,  a  member  of  the  well  renowned  family  of  publishers  and  printers  Plantin-­‐‑

Moretus   of   Antwerp.   Pupil   in   Leuven   of   father   Gregorius   of   San   Vincentius,   in  

his   turn   pupil   of   the   founder   of   the   Jesuit   mathematical   school   Christophorus  

Clavius,   Moretus   had   spent   his   entire   life   as   a   lecturer   in   mathematics   at   the  

Jesuit  colleges  of  the  Bohemian  province  (especially  the  Clementinum  in  Prague),  

and  in  the  Polish  colleges.    

Sl.  11.  When  entered  in  contact  with  Hevelius,  in  1661,  he  has  been  residing  for  

two   years   as   a   lecturer   in   mathematics   and   philosophy   at   the   college   of  

  4  
Bratislava,   founded   in   1626   by   cardinal   Peter   Patzmany.   For   Hevelius,   the  

acquaintance  of  Moretus  was  the  legacy  of  a  long-­‐‑lived  literary  friendship  with  

Athanasius   Kircher,   whom   the   astronomer   met   for   the   first   time   in   1632   in  

Avignon   during   his   West-­‐‑European   travel   of   learning.   This   friendship   too   is  

documented,  by  eleven  letters  of  the  years  1647-­‐‑1654,  currently  housed  bot  at  the  

Observatory   Library   in   Paris   and   in   the   Archive   of   the   Gregorian   University   of  

Rome.    

S.  12.  To  be  in  touch  with  Moretus  meant  for  Hevelius  to  mobilize  for/to  his  own  

sake/favor   the   institutional   network   of   Jesuit   medium-­‐‑range   communication   in  

the  direction  of  Southern  Empire,  that  is  the  geographical  area  complementary  to  

the   one   drawn/covered   by   his   own   private   relationships.   [S13]   The   Moretus-­‐‑

Hevelius  correspondence  gives  evidence  of  the  multi-­‐‑tasking  role  played  by  the  

Jesuit  network  in  the  economy  of  the  scientific  knowledge  circulation  spreading  

from  Danzik  and  this  role  had  more  and  more  specific  tasks.    

At   a   general   level,   the   institutional   Jesuit   network   seems   to   work   as   whatever  

any  other  communication  infrastructure,  integrated  into  the  routes  of  the  traders,  

of   the   travelers   of   learning,   of   the   armies.   ‘Per   vestrae   Societatis   patres’,   for  

instance,   in   1650   Hevelius   sent   to   Kircher   in   Rome   a   copy   of   his   S.14.  

Selenographia,   sive   Lunae   descriptio   (1647),   an   unprecedented   detailed   illustration  

of  the  lunar  surface  in  its  various  phases.  Hevelius  asked  Kircher  to  send  himself  

the   same   safe   way   one   of   the   famous   45   palms   telescopes   built   in   Rome   by   the  

renowned   instrument   maker   Eustachio   Divini.   By   the   way,   to   lure   Divini  

Hevelius   promised   him   to   promote   his   devices   in   ‘these   lands’   in   order   to  

enlarge   his   market   toward   the   Northern   See.   In   March   1665,   again,   Moretus  

knew   about   Hevelius’   observations   of   the   comet   of   1664   by   some   novices   who  

  5  
traveled  Europe  by  coach  before  leaving  for  the  Indies.  

More  specifically,  the  Jesuit  network  offered  special  opportunities  to  close  

the   gaps   of   the   book   trade   and   to   enhance   its   distribution   structures.   In   1661  

Moretus  and  Hevelius  entered  in  contact  actually  because  of  a  books  issue.  And  

here   is   the   fact.   In   1652,   Hevelius   had   sent   10   copies   of   the   Selenographia   to  

another   Jesuit   and   mathematician   living   in   Bratislava,   Balthasar   Conrad,   who  

had   offered   to   help   the   official   distributor   of   the   work,   the   Danzic   printer   and  

bookseller   Georg   Forster,   SL.   15   to   put   the   Selenographia   on   the   Hungarian  

market.   Conrad   had   sold   only   3   copies,   4   Hungarian   ducats   each,   when   he  

moved  to  Glatz,  today  Klotzko,  in  south-­‐‑western  Poland,  to  become  the  rector  of  

the   local   Jesuit   College.   Therefore,   when   he   died,   in   1660,   the   same   year   as  

Forster,  Moretus  became  for  Hevelius  the  main  channel  to  retrieve  the  books  and  

the  money  (as  an  illustrated  book,  Selenographia  was  extraordinary  expensive).  Sl.  

16.   Moretus   himself,   then,   tried   to   put   Selenographia   on   the   Bratislavian  

bookmarket,  but  he  did  not  have  more  chance  than  Conrad,  since,  I  quote  him,  

‘rarus  hic  est  astronomus,  rarius  gometra  aut  nullus’.  [Sl.17]  

The   Company   of   Jesus,   no   need   to   say,   was   first   of   all   an   outstanding  

scientific  institution  and  a  mine  of  literary  talents.  Hevelius  did  not  miss  to  close  

every  letter  to  Kircher  with  warm  requests  for  information  on  forthcoming  books  

within   the   Company   –   Kircher’s   Musurgia,   Riccioli’s   Almagestum   -­‐‑   and   for  

astronomical  observations  from  Rome  and  Italy,  and  the  same  he  used  to  do  with  

Moretus.   Furthermore,   the   Jesuit   network,   especially   the   Bohemian   one,   could  

provide  Hevelius  with  something  very  special  even  compared  to  the  big  network  

of   scientific   ‘modernity’.   It   conserved   the   cultural   and   material   legacy   of   Tycho  

Brahe,   the   author   to   whose   lineage   Hevelius   pointed   to   certify   his   status   as   the  

  6  
reigning   authority   on   astronomy   and   the   keenest   celestial   observer   in   Europe.  

Ultimately,   his   arguments   against   Hooke   and   Flamsteed   dealt   precisely   on   the  

reliability   of   Tychonian   open-­‐‑sight   astronomical   instruments.   And   his  

admiration  for  Tycho  is  clearly  expressed  in  the  frontispiece  to  Machina  Colestis  (a  

work  of  1673).  [Sl.  18].    

Living   in   Prague,   in   the   Fourties,   Moretus   had   even   used   Tycho’s  

quadrants   and   sestants,   had   witnessed   the   sack   of   Tycho’s   instruments   by   the  

Danish   and   Swedish   troops,   and   was   aware   of   the   fate   occurred   to   the  

manuscript   astronomical   observations   left   to   Tycho’s   heirs   Sl.   19;   the   ones   that  

Hevelius   would   have   correct   and   publish   on   his   own.   When   was   known   that  

someone   named   Lucius   Barettus   was   going   to   publish   them,   Moretus   made  

available   to   Hevelius   the   whole   thick   Society’s   network   in   Austria,   Bohemia,  

Bavaria  and  Palatinate  in  order  to  look  for  this  Barettus.  After  a  long  research,  it  

turned  out  that  Barettus  was  actually  a  pseudonym  for  the  Jesuit  Albert  Curtz  of  

Augsburg,   whose   Historia   coelestis   would   have   been   published   in   1666,   under  

Hevelius’  supervision.  

Last  but  not  least,  the  epistolary  exchange  between  Hevelius  and  Moretus  

is   the   document   of   an   inter-­‐‑confessional   scholarly   friendship,   since   Hevelius  

belonged  to  the  German  Luteran  Danzik  oligarchy.  Thanks  to  Moretus’  unusual  

openness,   the   correspondence   offers   an   explicit   comparison   between   the  

respective   views   about   Copernicanism.   SL.   20.   In   1661,   when   he   knew   from   a  

Danzik   gentleman   on   visit   in   Bratislava   of   Ismael   Boulliau’s   copernicanism,  

Moretus  appealed  to  Hevelius  –  ‘Tolomee  nostrae  aetatis’  -­‐‑  for  a  public  statement  

against  Heliocentrism.    

  7  
 He  suggested  him  even  the  arguments:  it  is  more  reliable  that  a  split  turns  

toward  the  fire  than  the  fire  turns  around  the  split  (where,  by  the  way,  the  split  is  

the   Earth   axis);   it   is   not   true   that,   in   the   geostatic   cosmological   system,   the  

heavens  and  the  planets  would  have  to  turn  too  fast.  Indeed,  heavens  planets  are  

‘all  substances’  with  huge  accidents,  like  motion  is.  If  Copernicans  do  not  agree  it  

is  because  they  are  atheists,  infinitists,  and  claim  that  Nature  is  the  same  as  God.    

Hevelius,  who  got  the  letter  soon  after  his  first  wife’s  death,  answered:  ‘I  

will   be   short   like   somebody   who   would   have   to   extinguish   a   fire   during   an  

earthquake.  Nevertheless,  I  want  you  to  know  that  I  am  not  the  right  person  to  

contest  Boulliau,  since  I  think  that  his  opinion  is  much  more  true  than  the  other.  

So  far,  Heliocentrism  has  not  still  been  destroied,  neither  by  the  Bible  argument  

nor   by   the   argument   of   the   many   entities.   On   the   contrary,   you   will   see   with  

your  own  eyes  how  much  the  Aristotelian  blather  and  how  much  they  are  wrong  

when   you   will   look   at   my   observations   on   Mecury   and   Venus   running   on   the  

Sun’.  

In   conclusion,   as   you   already   know,   the   new   historiography   of   science  

came   to   question   the   category   of   ‘Scientific   Revolution’   itself.   Nowadays,   it   is  

taken  for  granted  that  ‘modern’  science  lies  into  ‘legally  constituted  corporations’  

like   trade   companies,   Empire   administrative   bureaus   and   religious   orders,   as  

much   as   into   the   Academies   and   the   laboratories   of   the   ‘heroes’   of   modern  

science.   At   a   glimpse,   Hevelius’s   ‘virtual   space’   seems   to   confirm   this   claim.   Sl.  

21  

  8