D O C U M E N T 3 2 4 A U G U S T 1 9 2 2 2 5 9 324. From Moritz Schlick Kiel, 13 August 1922 Highly esteemed, dear Professor, Shipping the enclosed copy of the new edition of my short work Space and Time [Raum und Zeit] gives me welcome opportunity to write you a few lines.[1] This booklet has been altered somewhat in a few places and expanded if you would like to see any improvements made to these corrections, I would be grateful from my heart for a brief message it would be specially valuable for me to know whether you agree with the comments about the rotation problem on p. 77. I would so much have liked to hand you this copy in person during your last stay in Kiel, and it was very painful for me not to have the privilege of seeing you during that short visit.[2] Yet you were surely also seeking relaxation from the strenuous Berlin duties during those few days and so I did not dare to look you up when I learned of your presence here. Now the thought that I am not going to be able to meet you in September in Leipzig, either, hurts particularly much. I was very dis- mayed when I heard from Planck and Laue about your cancellation[3] and you can imagine how overwhelmed with disgust I was that (as Planck put it) a band of mur- derers was disrupting the program of the Leipzig convention. What a sad chapter this is. It reminds me of another affair that I would like to report to you about today. It concerns my successor here at Kiel (for I have now finally decided to go to Vienna as of the coming semester). At that time you were so kind as to draw my attention to Wertheimer at W. Koehler’s suggestions.[4] I first thought that W. would probably not be able to come into consideration because the University of Kiel could not offer him any institute for experimental psychology, but Koehler then reassured me about this point and persuaded me that Wertheimer was the right man to appoint even to a purely philosophical chair and he was not absolutely dependent on having an experimental institute. I then warmly supported him and it was possible to place him on the committee’s list of candidates. The faculty as a whole then struck him again (I remain silent about the suspected reasons), gener- ally dismissing the committee’s nominations, and in the end a single name remained on the list for submission to the Ministry: that of the Giessen full profes- sor, E. von Aster.[5] I consider this choice entirely fortunate because Aster is very capable and diligent, but I do not think nominating him as the sole candidate is jus- tified and so I enclosed a separate vote with the faculty’s letter to the minister in which I drew special attention to Wertheimer. I hope from my heart that it will help him somehow. Besides Wertheimer, I also supported H. Reichenbach very much but he found little favor with the faculty even though my fellow colleague Scholz