2 4 0 D O C S . 2 8 8 – 2 9 0 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 0 288. To Arthur Korn[1] 28 January 1920 [Not selected for translation.] 289. To Alexander Eliasberg Berlin, 30 January 1920 Highly esteemed Sir, Lately, so many analogous inquiries have been addressed to me that it is a cate- gorical necessity for me to decline them all.[1] I am in any case so overworked al- ready that I cannot think of taking on any new responsibility. In sincerely regretting not being able to meet your request, I am, with best wish- es for your new endeavor, very respectfully, A. Einstein. 290. From Paul Epstein Munich, 19 Scheuchzer St., 31 January 1920 Highly esteemed Professor, I am just in receipt of a letter from my friend Alexander Eliasberg requesting that I support his efforts in winning you over as an editor of Odeon.[1] Indeed, I can do so with an impeccable conscience: Thomas Mann and Hugo von Hofmannsthal, who are heading the literary section, need no recommendation, obviously, being among the most respected personalities of German literature. Thomas Mann’s po- litical views evidently do not coincide with yours, nevertheless the magazine is supposed to be apolitical and will even follow international tendencies. Moreover, based on what I know about Thomas Mann, I am convinced that his conservatism is not rooted in material interests: he is a bad thinker but an honest and honorable character.[2] If you balk at collaborating with someone of the likes of Carl Ludwig Schleich (about whom I know very little), the editors will surely react to your ob- jection by dropping him immediately.[3] So my task can only consist of informing you about the character of the editor A. Eliasberg, whom I have known since my childhood. Eliasberg is a Jew of nation- alistic bent, who stresses his Jewishness at every opportunity that presents itself. His name is emblazoned on the cover of the Jewish monthly Jüdische Monatshefte

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

Destination page number Search scope Search Text

loading

D O C . 2 8 7 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 0 2 3 9 beyond the pure arts and letters, and also to foster, to a prominent degree, the sci- ences, preferentially the natural sciences it does not restrict itself to an isolated audience and has no exclusive character but addresses the educated middle class. It does not feature politics directly and is international in the best sense. The Editorial Advisory Board is defined by the name Thomas Mann, who directs the literary affairs together with Hugo von Hofmannsthal.[2] For the sciences the editors unan- imously propose your name. (A further collaborator envisioned for this area is Carl Ludwig Schleich.)[3] Philosophy is represented by Count Hermann Keyserling (Darmstadt).[4] The poet Stefan Zweig sees to contacts abroad, mainly among the younger generation in France.[5] Critique of art and music rests in the hands of Oskar Bie, Erich Klossowski and Hans Pfitzner.[6] This new type of monthly, which will serve a very large readership, is character- ized by its emphasis on the sciences—of which your illustrious name serves as a symbol—which is much greater than is the case with existing general periodicals. Each issue should contain at least one purely scientific essay. Now, you, highly esteemed professor, are cordially invited by Thomas Mann, in the name of the Editorial Advisory Board, and by me, in the name of the editors, to agree to collaborate with us and to permit your name to be listed—next to the above-mentioned ones—among the select editors of the periodical. This initially only regards your approval in principle we shall inform you of the details of your collaboration as soon as the project has assumed palpable form. Awaiting your kind response in great suspense, I am, in humble expression of my utmost respect, Alexander Eliasberg. 287. From Anton Lampa Hadersdorf-Weidlingen near Vienna, 27 January 1920 Dear Mr. Einstein, I forward to you herewith a copy of a letter with which Prof. Wegscheider re- quested opinions on Ehrenhaft from Lorentz and Planck.[1] You will gather from it which points are to be considered and perhaps want to add to your recommenda- tion, which is probably already en route [2] this would, of course, be possible by means of a letter to Wegscheider, Vienna IX, 10 Währinger Street.[3] Cordial regards also from my wife,[4] yours, A. Lampa.

Previous Page Next Page

D O C . 2 9 0 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 0 2 4 1 furthermore, he has published a library’s worth of translations from Yiddish. That alone already shows that the editors of Odeon do not take any kind of illiberal stance. As an editor Eliasberg possesses two qualities that ought to facilitate work- ing with him very much. First, he has much experience in all technical issues of the book trade and is very diligent and energetic. Should you wish to have a greater in- fluence in the conception of the scientific section (which in the interest of the readers would be very welcome), you could do so with a minimal investment of work. For Eliasberg would be able to relieve you of all the correspondence and act on all your suggestions and vigorously pursue them, so you could limit yourself to establishing a program and assigning suitable authors without losing control of the magazine’s fate. The second quality worth mentioning is his modesty. He has no ambitions, least of all scientific ones, and not the slightest obstinacy. He is one of those rare people who always gladly and gratefully accept suggestions for improve- ment even in his own expertise. That makes business relations with him pleasant and completely free from tension and is one of the reasons for his popularity. There remains the question of whether a scientific section as is planned were jus- tified. I think that there undoubtedly exists a demand among the public for enlight- enment about the goals and successes of scientific research and that it would be in the interest of the readers as well as of science to open direct contact. Why should the broader public draw its information via the fractionate distillations offered by Hans Dominik or Ch. Nordmann, who draw their knowledge from Prometheus and similar publications, whose correspondents in turn might read professional journals but usually do no scientific research themselves?[4] There is a similar effort in France in the Revue du Mois edited by Borel, which, as far as I know, has no short- age of readership.[5] And I must admit that I consider the editors’ idea of asking you highly appropriate. For where else can one find a man who can survey beyond his own specialty into the neighboring and more remote fields of science and phi- losophy and whose name not only inspires unquestioning confidence among pro- spective collaborators but also finds fame and popular appeal among the public as a whole? I, at least, would be at a loss to name a second. Please forgive me for allowing my letter to become so lengthy. I still have to thank you for the kind support you granted me in your last letter to Meyer.[6] I ve- hemently protest, in the interest of Zurich, that you do not want to continue to per- form your Zurich lectureship.[7] As Meyer told me, though, we aren’t going to have to forgo personal communication with you completely. For it is possible that I shall remain in Zurich, since the mood in the faculty has become somewhat more favor- able after all, and the establishment of two professorships as suggested by you has moved within the scope of feasibility.[8] With respectful greetings, I remain yours very truly, Paul Epstein.

Previous Page Next Page

Page 1SELECTED TEXTS click to expand contents

Extracted Text (may have errors)

Help

loading