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