I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 6 l x i x peared in the London Times and the New York Times, as well as in the Observatory (Doc. 387). In Britain, Nature contacted Einstein for a copy in order to report on it (Abs. 835), a request that Einstein diverted to Eddington (Abs. 838). The latter in- formed Einstein a little later about the craze that his latest publication had stirred in London, where “one of our great Department Stores in London (Selfridges) has pasted up in its window your paper (six pages pasted up side by side) so that passers by can read it all through. Large crowds gather round to read it!” (Doc. 403). The paper is indeed a rather technical brief note, as Einstein soon pointed out, and “no occasion for anybody to be excited about it” as there will be “only a few mathematicians who will be inclined to read it” (Doc. 370). In a letter to Karl Kerkhof, he admitted that he himself might carry some responsibility for the ex- citement since he “may have alluded to it in speaking with one or another of my friends” (Doc. 373). Among them was Hans Reichenbach, who reported on the new approach in a column in the Vossische Zeitung before Einstein’s printed paper was actually issued, and thereby caused a deep rift between them (see sec. VI). In any case, it soon became clear that the brief paper would not be the last word on the theory. Already the published version carried an addendum, in which Einstein indicated a simpler way of looking at things. It also was soon criticized both by Müntz and by another collaborator, Cornel Lanczos. Müntz was not the only collaborator with whom Einstein discussed details of the teleparallel approach at this time. Since Jakob Grommer finally had found a posi- tion in Minsk and had left Berlin, Einstein was looking for other assistants. Cornel Lanczos had also been interested in the problem of motion in the general theory of relativity, and, with support from Max von Laue (Doc. 273), Einstein convinced Erwin Madelung (Doc. 274) to grant Lanczos a leave of absence so that he could spend a year with Einstein on a grant from the Notgemeinschaft. The collaboration between Lanczos and Einstein began in late 1928, even though in January 1929 there were still administrative issues with the grant payments (Abs. 845). Lanczos, much more than Müntz, pursued his own research interest in this collaboration, since, as Einstein wrote, Lanczos was “riding on a very similar hobbyhorse to mine” (Doc. 273), namely, an interest in derivations of the laws of motion. Indeed, Einstein had referenced Lanczos’s paper on the problem of motion in the context of general relativity in Doc. 91.[48] Despite Einstein’s high hopes for this new stage of elaborating the teleparallel approach, both Müntz and Lanczos soon found problems with it that Einstein had to react to (Doc. 366). He drafted a “Continuation” to the paper on “Unified Field