D O C U M E N T S 2 1 9 , 2 2 0 D E C E M B E R 1 9 2 0 3 2 3
people. How much more eagerly could I act for you and your own people! For me
personally—I hardly need to say so, I don’t want anything for it, I just find that the
lawyer in the family saves measures taken with other people, and this lawyer has to
look on passively while other people fatten themselves on the money they made off
you and are still making off you.
I would like to hear what you think of this matter. Of course I understand if these
ideas could appear unsavory to you at first, but the conditions up to now were surely
even more so! They should and must be remedied and can be as well, as soon as
you have created the preconditions for it and give a reliable family lawyer the op-
portunity to work for you instead of other people.
With warmest regards, yours,
Pauli
P.S. Could you inform me—in the event you do detect some salt in my long
speech—about everything you agreed on with Vieweg? For I only know about
vague outlines and nothing specific and would like to whittle it down to the legal
core. Publishers’ contracts are, for all their sanctimonious appearance, confounded
legal masterpieces!!, at the expense of intellectual workers.
219. To Harry Schmidt
Berlin, 2 December 1920
Dear Colleague,
In the enclosed I send you a letter by Dr.
Berliner.[1]
The arguments by Dr. Ber-
liner did in fact convince me. Thus I am not in a position to write the promised de-
fense and must request that you make no use in public of my earlier statements
about your booklet.
Very respectfully,
220. From Maja Winteler-Einstein
Lucerne, 6 December 1920
My Dears,
The letters from both of you drew me away from agonizing worries. I didn’t
know what was to become of all of you after the unpleasant experiences in Berlin
and [Bad]
Nauheim.[1]
Now you all seem to be continuing your lives and therefore
I can be content with that, since it was always harmonious and nice. Dear Albert, I