D O C U M E N T 1 0 9 A U G U S T 1 9 2 0 3 8 3
TLS. [7 005].
[1]Perot 1920; Henri A. Deslandres (1853–1948), Director of the Observatory in Meudon. For
more on the reception of Perot’s work, see Hentschel 1998, pp. 554–555.
[2]Schneider 1921; Ilse Schneider (1891–1990), later Rosenthal-Schneider, was a doctoral student
in philosophy, Greek, and physics at the University of Berlin.
[3]Reichenbach 1920. For Einstein’s appreciation of Schneider’s work, see Einstein to Ilse Schneider,
5 January 1920 (Vol. 9, Doc. 244).
[4]Einstein 1918k (Vol. 7, Doc. 13). The article was principally aimed at countering the criticism
against relativity put forward by Ernst Gehrcke and Philipp Lenard. For details, see Vol. 7, the edito-
rial note, “Einstein’s Encounters with German Anti-Relativists,” pp. 101–113.
[5]Gehrcke and Lenard had continued their criticism of Einstein since the publication of Einstein
1918k: see the reply Gehrcke 1919a and the discussions of observational evidence in Gehrcke 1919b,
1920a; Lenard had produced an expanded edition of his 1918 critique of relativity (Lenard 1918,
1920). Recently, on 6 August, Paul Weyland had published in the Tägliche Rundschau an article in
which he repeated Gehrcke’s earlier contention that the acclaim accorded to relativity was not due to
scientific merit, but rather because Einstein had managed to manipulate the press and the public
(Weyland 1920a). He further claimed that Lenard’s objections still stood unrefuted, and repeated
Gehrcke’s critique of observational evidence and his claim that not Einstein, but Paul Gerber, held the
priority for the explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury (see Vol. 7, the editorial note, “Ein-
stein’s Encounters with German Anti-Relativists,” pp. 101–113, and Einstein 1920f [Vol. 7, Doc. 45],
notes 12 and 13).
Weyland’s article was answered by Max von Laue in the same paper on 11 August (Laue 1920a).
This in turn solicited a reply by Ludwig Glaser, who reemphasized Gerber’s priority (Glaser 1920),
to which Laue yet again reacted on 17 August (Laue 1920b). More importantly, Laue’s second article
was followed by a rejoinder from Weyland, who announced a lecture series on relativity that was to
be held in the main auditorium of the Berlin Philharmonic. On 24 August, Weyland and Gehrcke were
to be the first speakers; more lectures, by Glaser and Oskar Kraus, were announced to follow on 2
September.
[6]Notices had appeared in Der Tag and Tägliche Rundschau (“Gegen Einsteins Relativitäts-
theorie,” 15 and 17 August, respectively) in which some twenty lectures against relativity were
announced, organized by the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Naturforscher zur Erhaltung reiner Wis-
senschaft e.V. (the same series as had earlier been advertised by Paul Weyland; see note 5). In all like-
lihood, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft consisted of only one member, namely Weyland himself, and had not
been registered as an “e[ingetragener] V[erein].” The announcement was repeated in a longer piece,
written by Weyland, in the right-wing Deutsche Zeitung of 23 August (Weyland 1920b); see also
Goenner 1993, Kleinert 1993, and Vol. 7, the editorial note, “Einstein’s Encounters with German
Anti-Relativists,” pp. 101–113.
[7]Gehrcke (1878–1960), a spectroscopist and Oberregierungsrat at the Physikalisch-Technische
Reichsanstalt, and also Paul Weyland, reproached Einstein for making propaganda for relativity (see
note 5).
109. To Edouard Guillaume
22. VIII. 20.
Lieber Guillaume!
Ich begreife den Anfang Ihres Briefes bis zu der
Formel[1]
t t 1 cos + =