l x x x v i i i I N T R O D U C T I O N T O V O L U M E 1 6 [28] See “Report on Teaching and Research in and Publications by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem,” 1 September 1927, p. 19 (IL-RWW). [29] See Jüdische Rundschau, 9 December 1927. [30] On the complexity of the emergence of Einstein’s Jewish identity, see Rosenkranz 2011, pp. 9– 45. [31] See Jewish Daily Bulletin, 9 April 1929. [32] See Jewish Daily Bulletin, 14 April 1929. [33] See Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, 22 June 1926 (Vol. 15, Doc. 309). [34] See Kox 1993 and Kox 2019 for an analysis of the relationship between Einstein and Lorentz. [35] See Plesch 1947, pp. 215–216. [36] See Einstein to Ilse Einstein, 9 August 1925 (Vol. 15, Doc. 41). [37] See Vol. 15, Introduction, pp. liv–lvi. [38] See Vol. 15, Introduction, pp. lviii–lxi. [39] See Helen Dukas, diary, entry for 8 September 1930 [38 592.1], and Seelig 1960, pp. 321–322. [40] See Vossische Zeitung, 20 June 1927, EE, Berliner Tageblatt, 21 June 1927, ME, and Vorwärts, 21 June 1927. [41] See Introduction to Vol. 15, sec. II, as well as Lehmkuhl 2017 and 2019 for details. [42] See Einstein 1928 (Doc. 91), notes 7 and 33. [43] The idea likely only came to Einstein sometime after 8 May, for in a letter from that day to Paolo Straneo he still praises Kaluza’s five-dimensional approach as particularly important, and does not mention the alternative approach that he would publish only a month later (Doc. 186). [44] For Müntz’s biography, see Ortiz and Pinkus 2005. [45] See Doc. 5 and Ortiz and Pinkus 2005, p. 27. [46] In May 1929, Müntz was appointed Professor of Mathematics and Head of the Chair of Differ- ential Equations at Leningrad State University. He did, however, return to Berlin regularly and con- tinued to interact with Einstein after that. [47] See Kirsten and Treder 1979, p. 136. [48] See also Havas 1989, p. 250. [49] “Nieder mit den Franzosen,” Weitzenböck 1923b, preface, p. 1. [50] For further discussion of this episode, see Vizgin 1994, Goldstein and Ritter 2003, Goenner 2004, Sauer 2006, Sauer 2014. [51] See Reichenbach to Einstein, 15 June 1920 (Vol. 10, Doc. 57). [52] See, e.g., Einstein to Meyerson, 31 August 1927 (Doc. 40). [53] For a detailed analysis of Einstein’s position, see Lehmkuhl 2014. [54] See Giovanelli 2016 and 2018 for details and context. [55] Giovanelli 2018 argues that this is part of a larger development stemming from Einstein’s sid- ing (to some extent) with logical positivism to his embracing a more rationalist outlook in the context of relativistic field theory. [56] In fact, Einstein himself played some role in stirring up excitement concerning his new work (see Doc. 390, note 3). [57] For further discussion, see Hentschel 1990. [58] For full documentation relating to this episode and its outcome, see Rowe and Felsch 2019, pp. 276–352. See also Dalen 1990. [59] Rowe and Schulmann 2007, pp. 79–81. [60] Rowe and Felsch 2019, pp. 200–201. [61] Siegmund-Schultze 2011. [62] Reid 1970, p. 188 see Siegmund-Schultze 2016. [63] See Appendix L (New York Times, 15 March 1929, p. 3). [64] See Abs. 1107 and Jewish Daily Bulletin, 18 April 1929. [65] It is important to note that in the published English version, “Legende” was translated as “myth” (see Doc. 500). [66] See Plesch 1947, pp. 223–224. [67] See Berliner Tageblatt, 14 May 1929, EE, and Fölsing 1994, pp. 692–693. [68] See also circular by [Kurt Blumenfeld,] 28 February 1929 [Is-JeCZA, KKL4/69], Secretariat of the Ehrenkomitee für den Einstein-Wald to the Head of the Jewish Community in Ratibor, 8 May 1929 [69 786.2], and Einstein-Wald 1930, [n.p.]). [69] See also Die Yacht 50 (1929): 13.