D O C U M E N T 1 0 0 S E P T E M B E R 1 9 1 9 1 4 9
sophical Faculty II for a third cycle of relativity lectures in winter semester 1919/1920, submitted to
the Cantonal Department of Education on 27 May. Although the Department agreed on 8 July, it
raised concerns about approving yet a fourth cycle of lectures for the summer of 1920, given that,
among only fifteen students and twenty-two auditors who attended in summer 1919, most had come
from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. The dean communicated these reservations to Meyer
on 1 August 1919 (see entries for these dates in Calendar).
[17]Maja Winteler-Einstein and Paul Winteler; Frieda Huber; Elsa Maria Dann-Böhm; and Jose-
phine Tobler.
100. To Eduard Study [?][1]
[Berlin, 5 September
. . . Laue schrieb mir von Würzburg wegen Ihrer
Planck und Rubens
sind nicht hier
. . . Es ist sehr zu bedauern, dass die Politik an so ungeeigneter
Stelle bethätigt wird, und dass Sie deshalb den ausgezeichneten Paschen nicht be-
Ein Vergleich zwischen Cl Schäfer und Konen ist
Schäfer hat
sowohl in der Theorie als auch im Experiment zum wissenschaftlichen Fortschritt
erheblich beigetragen, was von Konen nicht behauptet werden kann. Schäfers Ar-
beiten beweisen, dass er einen sicheren Blick hat in der Wahl gegenwärtig lösbarer
und wichtiger Probleme, und dass er auch andere zu wertvoller Arbeit anzuregen
versteht . . .
PTr (Stargardt auction catalog 583 [28–29 November 1967], lot 454). [76 943.1]. The lot description
identifies the recipient as an unknown scholar.
[1]The identity of the recipient is based on the assumption that Study had asked Einstein to support
him in a separate vote against Konen for the successorship of Kayser at the University of Bonn; see
note 3.
[2]Dated by the lot description.
[3]A short list for the successor of Heinrich Kayser at the University of Bonn submitted to the min-
istry by the Philosophical Faculty on 26 June 1919 had not been agreed upon unanimously. Study and
Rudolf Steinmann, in a separate vote, criticized the emphasis on spectroscopic research that justified
the nomination of Heinrich Konen, a student of Kayser’s, listed secundo loco (see Doc. 45, note 1).
After soliciting extra opinions (see note 6), the ministry asked the faculty to extend its list and to eval-
uate Clemens Schaefer (1878–1968), Professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Breslau
(present-day Wroc¬aw) (GyBSa, I. HA, Rep. 76 Va, Sekt. 3, Tit. 4, Nr. 55, Bd. 7, Bl. 63). Four days
after the present letter, on 9 September, Wilhelm Wien wrote to the ministry, recommending Friedrich
Paschen, Johannes Stark, Christian Füchtbauer, and warning strongly against Konen. Another two
weeks later, on 24 September, Study and Hans Hahn (1879–1934), Professor of Mathematics, again
in a separate vote, endorsed Paschen’s placement primo loco, and also argued that Schaefer was very
good and better than Konen (ibid., Bl. 170, and Swinne 1989, p. 80). In his autobiography, Kayser,
who tried to place his student Konen as his successor, recalled staunch resistance from a mathemati-
cian, most likely Study (see Kayser, H. 1996, p. 280).
[4]Max Planck was on vacation in Bavaria until the end of September (see Doc. 73); Heinrich
[5]On 17 July, Hahn, who had missed the faculty’s sessions that decided on the first short list (see
Doc. 45, note 1), expressed doubts to the ministry about Konen, recommending instead Peter Debye
Previous Page Next Page