Handling Evidence in History: the case of Einstein's wife. Alberto Martínez

8/3/2019 Handling Evidence in History: the case of Einstein's wife. Alberto Martínez

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/handling-evidence-in-history-the-case-of-einsteins-wife-alberto-martinez 1/8

Sc hool Sc ien c e R e v ie w , Ma rch 200 5, 86(316 ) 49

Ma rt íne z Ha ndling e v iden c e in hi st o ry : E in st ein’ s w ife

Ha ndling e viden c e inhi st o ry : the ca s e of

E in st ein’ s w ifeA l b e rt o A . Ma rt íne z

Hist orica l c la ims in s c ien ce need to be ins pe c ted ca refu lly, just a swhen te st ing h ypo the s e s

H er e is a good story: a 26-year -old p atent cler k, havingstu died theo r etica l ph ys ic s la r gel y on hi s own ,pub lishes in a single year four extr aor din ary papersthat r evolutioni se physics. M ost of us belie ve, for many r easons, that t his st ory is tru e. We say t hat in1905 it ac tually happened , that it is history.

S till , we kno w t hat it is u nlikel y tha t a singlepersonin a single year ca n be so succ essf ulinph ysics.Acc or dingl y, some people h ave for mula ted hypo-the ses t o expl a in A lb ert E in st ein’ s pr od uc tivity.

R ecently, some h ave ar gued that he wor ked with asecr et coll ab or ator , his first w ife M ile va Ma r ic . Itwould be an extr aor din ary st ory. Fa mo us physiciststeals cr edi t f r om hi s mode st w ife. Such a story, if true, would be of gr eat inter est t o social histor ians,and it w ould serve as a vehi c le fo r r eaffi r ming ther igh ts of women and fo r encour aging fem ale studen ts

to study physics. In that sense, it’s a good story. B utis it tru e?

L ike m any extr aor din a ry st or ie s , it migh t b etemp ting to simpl y di sbelie ve it, to di smi ss it asfiction. B ut if you ar e a teac her , you may s oon findtha t some of your stu den ts ask you ‘ I s it tru e t ha t E in st ein’s wife co-a ut ho r ed hi s f a mous t heo r ies? ’B eca use, ther e ar e curr ently sever al book s and m anyInter ne t w eb sites t ha t asc r ib e to M ile va Ma r ic acontr ibuting r ole in the cr ea tion of E instein’s w or ks.

In 2003 , television sta tion s in the U nited S tatesand o ther countr ies began to br oadca st a documen taryca lled E inst ein’s W ife (see end-no te 1). It overviewedMa r ic’s life and highligh ted the ide a that per haps shec on tr ib ut ed to E in st ein’ s s c ien tifi c wor ks. T hepr og r amme was acc omp anied b y a PBS I nter ne twebsite (including var ious err ors) on Ma r ic’s life. Itfeatur es an online poll on whether s he collab or atedwith E instein. It asks: ‘Wa s it r ea ll y possible for Albert a lone t o p r od u c e a ll t he phenomen a l ph ys ic sgene r a t ed d ur ing 19 05? ’ C urr ently, 75 pe r cent of the

people polled r e sponded th a t Ma r ic indeedcollab or ated with E instein. The website beckons: ‘ Did M ileva Ma r ic c ollab or a t e wit h E inst ein? Y ou Decide!Ta ke our online poll .’ A s if history w er e a matter of demo cr atic votes.

Ca r l Sa gan used to say: ‘e xtr a or din a ry c la imsr equir e e xtr a or dina ry eviden ce’. So let’s analyse someof the ‘e viden ce’ that t he pr oponen ts of Ma r ic havehighligh ted. B y doing so, teac hers and l aypersons ca nincr easingl y disting uish the var ious deg r ees to whichmisinfo r ma tion ca n be misconstru ed as history.

ABSTRACTAcc ording to a n online Inte rne t s ite , 75 pe r cen t

of people polled belie ve tha t Albe rt E inst ein’sfirst w ife, Mileva Ma ric, c on tributed to his fa mo usworks of 19 05. The a utho r reviews cla ims t ha tha ve a ppe a red in book s , tele vis ion a nd on theInte rne t, con ce rning the role of Ma ric a sE inst ein’s a lleged collab ora tor. He critica llyillustr a te s ho w ce rta in de riva tive acc ountsintrod uce inacc urac ies w hen a ttemp ting tocon vey hist ory. A s ca le of dist inctions a mongdifferen t kinds of do cumen ta ry e viden ce isout lined , to help te ac he rs a nd stu den tsdifferen tia te be tween mo re o r less fa llib le

s ource s of hist orica l informa tion.



Ha ndling e viden c e in hi st o ry : E in st ein’ s w ife Ma rt íne z

50 Sc hool Sc ien c e R e v ie w , Ma rch 200 5, 86(316)

E viden c e in c on text

In the 198 0s , old le tters between E instein and Ma r icwer e made p ublic b y mem bers of their f amily. In someof those letters , wr itten ar ound 19 00 , E instein br iefl ya lluded to pr oje cts on which the two seem to havec oll ab or a ted. H e us ed e xpr ess ion s su ch a s ‘our r esea r ch’, ‘our pa per ’ and , most inter esting , ‘our w or k on r ela t ive mot ion ’ (R enn and Sc hulmann , 199 2: 41 ,39). Spec ia lists in hi story of ph ysics wer e f ascinatedbut conc luded tha t su ch le tters ar e just t oo vague, a nddo no t estab lish tha t Ma r ic c on tr ibuted in any of E instein’s publica tions. S till, plen ty of non- specialistsa lso began to ponde r r ole s that Ma r ic conceivab lycould have played.

C onside r an example. C hr istophe r Jon B jer kne s,author of Albert E inst ein : t he in corr igi b le pla gia r ist (2002 ), claimed that ‘W e ha ve dir ect eviden ce f r om Albert ’s own pen t ha t t he wor k on r ela t ivity t heo rywa s a c ollab or a t ion between M ileva a ndhim ’ (p. 201).H e cited the sugge stive le tter . Tr anslated , the sentencein question r eads: ‘ H ow ha pp y a nd p r oud will I be ,when we bot h t oge t her ha ve br ough t our w or k on t her ela t ive mot ion vict or iousl y t o its end! ’ (S tac hel , 198 7:282, tr ans. A M .). N on- specialists migh t hastily con-c lude that this letter r efe rs t o the theo ry of r ela tivity.

B ut it doe s not. O ne impo rtant poin t that B jer kne somi ts is that the le tter w as wr itten in 19 01. B y nome ans did E instein h ave the theo ry of r elativity in1901. A t that t ime , he belie vedin the e ther and soughtways t o de tect its r elative mo tione xper imen tally. Thispr ob lem of ‘ t he r ela t ive mot ion ’ was a widespr eadconcer n; many people a imed to solve it. E instein

attemp ted m any appr oac hes untilhe ab ruptly devisedhis theo ry in 19 05.

N everthele ss , the le tter constitutes eviden ce thatE instein shar ed the aspir a tion with Ma r ic, a t least at atime mid way t hr ough the ten- year pr ocess dur ingwhich he ponde r ed q uestion s on r elative mo tion. It iswell kno wn that his obstinac y ca rr ied him thr ough.B ut w hat ab out her ? We kno w that she f ailed collegeexamin ation s tw ice. She then aba ndoned he r plan toob tain the teac hing deg r ee. We also kno w t hat sheaba ndoned he r effo rts t o do a P hD thesis (fo r mo r eon Ma r ic, see S tac hel , 199 6).

C h a ritab le e xa gge ra tion s

O ne wr iter , D or d K rst ic (1991) , claimed tha t ‘F r omt he s pr ing of 1898 unt il t he f a ll of 1911 , M ileva wor ked d a il y a t t he sa me t ab le wit h Albert – quiet l y , mode st l y ,a ndne ver in p ub lic view’ (p. 98). This is a speculativeexagge r ation. T he two could no t w or k ‘d a il y a t t hesa me t ab le’ beca use, of course, they wer e no t alwaysat the same pl ac e. For example , f r om mid-19 00 u ntilD ecem ber 1902 t hey lived mo stly in diffe r ent cities,even in diffe r ent countr ies. M or eover , the twodidno tleave any wr itten e viden ce that they r egular ly w or kedtoge the r on ph ys ics on ce the y r euni ted in B er n ,

Switzer land.R egar dless, K rstic wr ote: ‘ Almost s imult a neo usl y ,

Ma r ie C ur ie opened t he doo r in t o t he wor ld of r a dioph ysics a nd r a dio chemi stry a nd M ileva E inst einbr a vel y bega n t o e x plor e t he secr ets of qua ntum a nd r ela t ivity – t he field s t ha t even t od a y we ca ll mode r n ph ysics’ (p. 85). D oes it sound like a good story?

W hat r ole did M ileva play once she lived withE instein in B er n? It is w ell kno wn that E instein andtwo f r iend s, M or itz Solovine and C onr ad Hab icht, hada discuss ion g r oup tha t the y ca lled ‘ the O lympi a

Aca dem y’. Thei r r eading s and di scuss ion s wer e veryinfl uen tia l in E instein’s de velopmen t. N owadays ,some wr iters c la im tha t Ma r ic too was an ac tiveparticipant. In the tele vision p r ogr amme , E inst ein’sW ife, the n arr ator says :

Ma ur ice Solo vine wr it es: M ileva would sit int he cor ner d ur ing o ur mee t ing s list eninga tt en t ivel y. She occa sion a ll y joined in. I found her r eserved , but int elligen t , and c lea r l y mor eint er est ed in ph ysics t ha n in ho usewor k.

W he r e did the p r od uc ers of the sho w ge t t hi sinfo r mation? The sour ce ca n be tr ac ed to the book E inst ein in lo ve, wher e D enni s O ver bye wr ote:F ig ur e 1 Albe rt E inst ein a nd hi s first w ife Mileva

Ma ric, ab out 191 0 .





Ma rr ia ge ha d ma de M ileva a de f ac t o member of t he O l ympia Aca dem y , and Solo vine la t er r eca lled he r s itt ing q uiet l y in t he cor ner d ur ingt he mee t ing s a t t hei r a pa rt men t , follo wing t hea r gumen ts but r a r el y con tr ibut ing. H e found he r r eserved but int elligen t , and clea r l y mor eint er est ed in ph ysics t ha n in ho usewor k.(O ver bye, 2000 : 110)

T hi s passage sound s pl aus ib le. S in ce A lb ert andM ileva now lived toge ther , it is easy t o ima gine thatM ile va no w pa rt ic ip a ted to some e xt en t in themee ting s of the Aca dem y. B ut w hat is the e viden ce?W hat Solo vine ac tua ll y wr ote was onl y t ha t onceE instein and Ma r ic marr ied :

T ha t event did no t effec t a n y cha nge s in our

mee t ing s. M ileva, int elligen t a nd r eserved ,list ened t o us a tt en t ivel y , but never int ervened inour discuss ion s.(Solovine , 195 6: xii, tr ans. A . M .)

C omp a r e thi s passage to the de r iva tive acc ounts .W r iters have skewed the hi story. Solo vine did no twr ite that Ma r ic ‘occa siona ll y’or ‘r a r el y’ contr ibuted ,nor t hat s he was ‘clea r l y mor e int er est ed in ph ysicst ha ninho usewor k ’. Ther e is no e viden ce that she wasan ac tive participant. In none of the corr esponden cebetween E instein , Hab icht, a nd Solo vine , doe s Ma r icappe ar as a ‘member ’ of the Aca dem y, nor even inMa r ic’s own le tters.

So r eaders bewar e. M or eover , err ors lur k even inr eliab le plac es. For example , the C olle c t ed p a pers of Albert E inst ein (K lein , K ox and Sc hulmann, 1993: 617)state that the Aca dem y began in Ea ster of 19 03. B utthat is a mistake. T he mee ting s began in the Spr ing of 1902 , mon ths befo r e M ileva lived in B er n (see , for example , S olo vine , 195 6: vi).

E instein h ad lively discuss ion s w ith Solovine andHab icht. H e a lso gr ea tly enjo yed di scuss ing hi sr esear ch with hi s close f r iend M ichele B esso, whosehelp he ac kno wledged in hi s first paper on r elativity.W ha t ab out di scuss ion s w ith Ma r ic ? C on side r asta temen t tha t he r pr oponen ts never c ite. P hilippF r a nk , a c olle a gue a nd f r iend who in terv ie wedE in st ein fo r a b iog r aph y, no ted tha t Ma r ic ‘wa st ac itur n a nd r et icent ’ and that ‘W hen he [E inst ein ]wa nt ed t o t ell he r , as a fello w s pecia list , his ide a s ,which over flowed f r om him , her r eac t ion wa s so sca nt a nd f a int , t ha t of t en he j ust did no t know whet her s he

wa s int er est ed or no t ’ (F r ank , 1949 : 39, 44 , tr ans.A .M .).

C he c king the s our c e s

In her book , I n t he sha dow of Albert E inst ein : t hetr a gi c life of M ile va E in st ein- Ma r ic , D esa nk aTr buhovic-G jur ic (19 69 / 199 3: 79) claimed that theR uss ian ph ys ic ist Ab r am Joffe , in hi s a rt ic le ‘Inr emem br ance of A lbert E instein’ , poin ted o ut t hat the1905 papers w er e or igin ally s igned ‘ E instein- Ma r ic’.

Follo wing Tr buhovic-G jur ic, E van Ha rr is Wa lke r wr ote a letter to P h ysics T od a y, pub lished in 1991 ,r eiter ating the claim. Wa lke r claimed tha t, r egar dingthe 19 05 papers , Joffe no ted that ‘T hei r a ut hor w a s E inst ein- Ma r it i’ (Wa lke r , 1991 : 123). T hat phr ase isWa lke r ’s tr a nsla tion f r om a n a rt ic le of 1955 inRussian. Further mor e, M ichele Zac kheim , inhe r book

E inst ein’s d a ugh t er (1999 : 19) , sta ted that ‘ Abr a m F . J offe , a Russ ia n sc ien t ist , wr ot e in M eeting s w ithPhysicists : my r emini scences of fo r eign ph ysicists ,t ha t t hr ee or igin a l ma nuscr ip ts , inc luding t he onede scr ib ing t he S pec ia l T heo ry of Rela t ivity , wer esigned “ E inst ein- Ma r ity” .’ L ikewise, B jer knes (2002 :195) stated that ‘ J offe ( I offe) r ecounts t ha t t he pa per wa s s igned “ E inst ein- Ma r ity” .’ Further mor e, in 2003the claim tha t Joffe c ited Ma r ic’s name on the 19 05manuscr ipts w as a ir ed in the television p r ogr amme , E inst ein’s W ife. A nd , the comp anion website (see end-

note 1) claims that ‘t her e is a t lea st one p r int ed r epo rt in which J offe de c la r ed t ha t he pe rs ona ll y sa w t hena mes of two a ut hors on t he 19 05 pa pers : E inst eina nd Ma r ity’.

To add cr edi b ili ty t o thei r c laims, wr iters w hoascr ibe such wor ds t o Joffe of ten add that he was asucc essf ul and r espectedph ysicist. Hence they attemp tto ar gue by appe als to author ity a long with allusion sto pur ported eviden ce. B ut w hat did Joffe ac tuallywr ite?

F irst , Zac kheim and o thers ar e wr ong in claiming

that inhi s book M eet ings wit h ph ysicists Joffe claimedanyt hing ab out ho w t he 19 05 manus c r ip ts w er esigned. H edidno t even claim to have ever seen them.A s for the article ‘ In r emem br ance of A lbert E instein’ ,pub lished in 1955 , it w as an ob ituary for E instein.L iter ally tr anslated , it r eads:

I n t he yea r 1905 , in A nnals of Physics , t her ea ppea r ed t hr ee a rt icles , t her eu pon beginningt hr ee mo st impo rt a nt , r ele va nt dir ect ion s in t he ph ysics of t he 20t h century . T hose wer e: t het heo ry of Br ownia n mot ion , t he pho t on t heo ry of ligh t a nd t he t heo ry of r ela t ivity. T hei r a ut hor –unkno wn unt il t ha t t ime , a bur ea ucr a t a t t he





Pa t en t O ffice in Ber n , E inst ein- Ma r ity ( Ma r ity – t he la st na me of his wife , which b y Swisscust om is a dded t o t he la st na me of t hehusba nd). (Joffe , 1955 : 187, tr ans. A . M .)

T hi s pa ss age sho ws t ha t, fo r exa mple , Wa lke r ’s‘tr ansla tion’ i s a gr oss mi sr ep r esen ta tion : ‘T hei r a ut hor w a s “ E inst ein- Ma r it i” .’ L ikewise, a few other wr iters have distorted Joffe’ s w or ds to make it seemas thoughhem ade a c ontr oversial c laim. It is u nusu althat Joffe this one time h appened to r efe r to E insteinb y t he n a me ‘ E in st ein- Ma r ity ’. B ut t ha t s implepe c uli a r ity doe s no t en ta il tha t he a sc r ib ed a nyauthorship to E instein’s w ife. It is clear tha t Joffeme a nt t ha t t he a ut ho r w a s one pe rs on , a m a leemplo yee at the p atent offi ce, namel y A lbert E instein.

S till , pr oponen ts of Ma r ic have tr ied to makesome thing o ut of the f ac t tha t Joffe h appened to wr ite‘Ma r ity’ instead of ‘Ma r ic’. For example , Wa lke r c la imed tha t Joffe j ust had to have seen an or igin alpaper , with the n ame Ma r ity on i t, b eca use otherwisehe would no t have kno wn the alter native spelling of Ma r ic, since it ‘a ppa r en t l y is no t found in a n y of t he E inst ein b iog r a phie s’ (Wa lke r , 1991 : 123). A ga in ,Wa lke r w as wr ong. The name ‘Ma r ity’ appe ars , for example , in Ca r l Seelig’ s w ell-kno wn b iog r aphy of E instein p ub lished in 1954 (p. 29). M or eover , when

Joffe fi rst s ought to mee t E instein in Switzer land , hehappened to mee t Ma r ic (Joffe , 1967 : 889). A t thetime , she used the n ame E instein- Ma r ity.

T he ke y poin t r em ains the same. Joffe did no tc la im that Ma r ic co-author ed or collab or ated in anyof E instein’s papers. A nd he did no t claim that her name was on the o r igin al manuscr ipts or that he e ver saw any su ch m anuscr ipts. In multiple pl ac es thr ough-out his ca r eer , like anyone el se, Joffe ac kno wledgedE instein fo r having author ed the f amo us w or ks of 1905.

In a particular ly ca r ele ss conf usion , the p r oducersof E inst ein’s W ife and the comp anion website pictur eda f r agmen t of a page that r eads tha t the a rt icles wer e‘signed E instein- Ma r ity’, pur portedly wr itten by Joffe.B ut t he p agepi ctur ed is instead f r om a popular scienceb ook f r om 19 62 , b y a R uss ia n wr i te r , Da niilSemeno vich Da nin , who , again , did no t even claimto have ever seen the o r igin al ma nuscr ipts or to havekno wn anyone who had (Da nin , 1962 : 57).

Suppo se, imagine , that s ome cr edi b le indi vidualac tually had claimed to have seen m anuscr ipts t hatli st ed Ma r ic a s c o- aut ho r . W ould tha t con st itut e

eviden ce? It w ould onl y constitute the testimon y of a n a lleged witne ss . F urt he r eviden c e would b er equir ed to substantiate the claim. L ikewise, imaginethat a f amo us s cien tist, or per haps a wealthy wr iter ,gets divor ced. A nd suppo se that t hen the ex-spouseclaims to ac tually have been the true author of somewor ks. Such alleg ation , b y itself , wouldno t constitutea ut ho rs hip. W e migh t r epl y : ‘T ha t is a ser io usa lleg a t ion. W ha t eviden ce do you ha ve t o su pport it ? ’

Lac king e viden ce, some wr iters cultivate r amp antspeculations. For example , B jer kne s (2002 ) claimsthat E instein p r obab ly st ole the cr edi t f r om Ma r ic a ndthat she , in tur n, pr obab ly plagiar ised the ide as f r omother wr iters.

W ho re a lly s a id wh a t?In he r book , Zac kheim (1999) claims that ‘ M ileva a nd Albert ’s s on Ha ns Albert t old P et er M ichelmo r e , an E inst ein b iog r a pher , t ha t M ileva helped Albert “ solvecert a in ma t hema t ica l pr oblems” .’(p. 19). Is Zac kheimclaiming that Ma r ic spoke with M ichelmo r e? We mustr eject that imp r ession beca use M ichelmo r e ne ver me tMa r ic . B etter sy ntax w ould be: ‘ Ha ns Albert E inst ein ,son of M ileva a nd Albert , t old P et er M ichelmo r e ...’.

M ichelmo r e (19 62 ) wr ote tha t, while E instein

stru ggled to sol ve puzz le s of r el a tive mo tion inele ctr odynamics, ‘ M ileva helped him solve cert a inma t hem a t ica l pr ob lems , but nobod y could a ssist wit ht he cr ea t ive wor k , t he flow of f r esh ide a s’ (p. 45 ).

B ut is it tru e that Ha ns A lbert r eally t old that t oM ichelmo r e? We do no t kno w. It is conceivab le thathe did. B ut str ictly s peaking , the hi stor ica l eviden cedoes not certif y the claim. We kno w w hat M ichelmo r epub lished. We do no t kno w for certain what parts of it w er e r eally told to him by Ha ns A lbert. H e visitedandin terviewed Ha ns A lbert for tw o days in February

of 19 62 , in Ca lifo r ni a . In hi s b ook , M ichelmo r eadmi tted that Ha ns A lbert never saw or pr oof r ead themanuscr ipt for the book :

he a nswer ed a ll m y quest ion s , and wa it ed while I wr ot e down t he a nswers . H e did no t a sk t ocheck m y no t es , or edi t m y book. H e trust ed me. I t wa s t he sort of na ivet é his f a t her ha d. T ha nk G od for a ll na ive people , and I use t he wor d inits nob lest s ense. (p. vii)

U nfo rtu na tel y, when in terv ie wee s do no t c he c k

wr iter ’s acc ounts , err ors a nd in acc ur ac ie s of tenincr ease.





A long side c orr ec t and ver ifi ab le st a temen ts ,M ichelmo r e’s book a lso includes incorr ect info r m-ation. For example , he men tioned that while E insteinstu died at the Polytechni c in Z ur ich he bef r iended‘ Ma ur ice Solo vine , a F r enchma n t a king t he ph ysicscours e’ (p. 36). B ut ac tua lly, M or itz Solo vine wasR om anian, bor n and ed uca ted in R om ania, until hemo ved , not to Z ur ich, b ut to B er n, wher e he me t andbef r iended E instein in 19 02 , almo st tw o years af ter E instein h ad gr aduated at Z ur ich. M ichelmo r e alsowr ote that once M ileva fell in lo ve with E instein , b ythei r final year of college , ‘ H er pers ona l a mb it ionha d f a ded ’ (p. 36). B ut w e kno w f r om le tters that sher emained in ter estedin a ca r eer at least u ntil mid-19 01.Such inacc ur ac ies detr ac t f r om the cr edi b ili ty of anauthor ’s w or ds.

Years ago , John S tac hel , edi tor of the C olle c t ed pa pers of Albert E inst ein , enq uir ed whether M ichel-mo r e’s f amil y happened to po sses M ichelmo r e’smanuscr ipt or ide ally the no tes f r om the in terviewwith Ha ns A lbert. T he answer w as neg a tive. If wehad the no tes f r om the in terview, then pe r haps w emigh t kno w w ha t Ha ns A lb ert a pp a r en tly t oldM ichelmo r e.

Fac ed with such amb iguities, eac h hi stor ian mustde c ide whe the r t o b elie ve , di sr eg a r d , or a t le ast

inc

or po r a

te, a

gi ven pa

ssa

ge in toa

hi st or ica

lr econstru ction. Personally, in a manuscr ipt that I a mfini shing on the or igin s of special r elativity, I choseto in cor por ate M ichelmo r e’s su gge stive wor ds ab outM ileva . B ut I hope that r eaders w ill r ealise that t hesentence in question i s not necessar ily a pho togr aphof the e vents that happened. It is but a passing claimtha t appe ars in a pop ular b iog r aphy wr itten by anauthor who onl y interviewed a son of the indi vidualsin question , a b iog r aphy that w as not pr oof r ead bythe indi viduals discuss ed in i t or by the in terviewee.

It w as wr itten and p ublished almo st 60 y ears af ter theeven t in quest ion. Ha ns A lbert him self could no tpossib ly testif y to such an event, since he was a one-year -old bab y in the spr ing of 19 05. H ence, if heac tua lly s poke such wor ds in 19 62 , he was mer elyvoic ing a c onje c tur e or echoing wor ds v oiced bysomeone el se. T he poin t is to di stinguish this kind of indi r ec t c la im f r om e viden ce f r om the hi stor ica lmomen t.

Sever al documen ts s hed ligh t on Ma r ic a r ound1905. For example , K rst ic pr ovided this tr anslation

of a letter f r om Ma r ic to her f r iend H elene Sa vic,wr itten af ter the19 05 papers w er e published( see end-note 2):

M y husba nd s pend s a ll of his f r ee t ime a t home ,of t en pl a ying wit h t he bo y; but ... I would like t or ema r k t ha t t his , t oge t her w it h his officia l job, isno t t he onl y wor k he doe s – he is wr it ing a gr ea t number of scien t ific pa pers . (K rst ic, 1991 : 94)

A s usu al in he r letters t o her intimate f r iend , M ilevamade no claim of wor king on sc ien ce herself , ever since she lef t college. N ow notice the ellip sis in thequotation ab ove. W hat did K rst ic omi t? A n uncuttr ansla tion of the or igin al letter w as pub lished l ater by a gr andson of H elene Sa vic (see end-no te 3). Itr eads:

M y husba nd of t en s pend s his lei sur e t ime a t

home pl a ying wit h t he li tt le bo y , but t o give himhis d ue , I must no t e t ha t it is no t his onl yocc u pa t ion a side f r om hi s officia l ac t ivit ies; t he pa pers he ha s wr itt en a r e a lr ea d y mount ingquit e high. (Popo vic, 2003 : 88)

So we see tha t K rst ic c hose to omi t a phr ase in whichMa r ic he rs elf f urt he r ac kno wledged E in st ein’ slab ours; s he gave him hi s due cr edi t.

L ikewise, on 3 Septem ber 1909, when E insteinwas r eceiving m uch r ecogni tion f r om ph ys ic ists ,Ma r ic wr ote to her f r iend ‘ I am very ha pp y for hissucc ess , beca use he r ea ll y doe s deserve i t ’ (Popo vic,2003 : 98).

F ig ur e 2 E inst ein with his w ife a nd s on , ab out 19 04.





D ist ing u is hing a mong s our c e s

S tuden ts and layperson s may lac k a c lea r u nde r -standing of the exten t to whi ch diffe r en t sour ceswarr ant diffe r ent deg r ees of cr edi b ili ty. Ther efo r e, itseem s us ef ul to ill ustr ate such diffe r ences. H istor ianssome time s disagr eeon what weigh t to attr ibute to anyone do cumen t, but I ca n a t least s ke tch my ownoutlook.

T he li st in B ox 1 descr ibes some of the diffe r entkind s of info r mation that may exist pertaining to thegene sis of a scien tific wor k. To disting uish them , Iha ve r a nked them in o r de r of p r oximi ty t o thehistor ica l event, the in stance of scien tific c r eativity.T he g r eater the n umber of an item , the less cr edib ili tyI would tend to ascr ibe to it as a likel y sour ceofp r eciseinfo r mation ab out t hat momen t in time.

T his list is no t exhaust ive. M y a im is onl y todisting uish among some diffe r ent kind s of info r m-a tion. T he line follo wing i tem 5 sets a b ound a rybetween e viden ce gene r ated d ur ing the p r oduction of the scien tific wor k and var ious kind s of hind sigh t andconje ctur e.

In this sca le, the biogr aphy wr itten by M ichelmo r ef a lls on le vel 18. In con tr adist inc tion , a le tter byE instein to hi s f r iend C onr ad Hab icht, wr itten in Ma yof 19 05, while he was dr af ting the p aper on r elativity,counts as eviden ceofle vel4. That letter , which histor -ians cite of ten , is a pr ecious t hough narr ow w indo wto the cr eative momen t. Ther e ar e many diffe r ent kind sof info r mation between the two, to which we ascr ibevar ious deg r ees of r eliab ility.

For example , in 19 22 E instein deli ver ed a lectur ein K yoto, Ja pan, titled ‘H ow I c r eated the theo ry of r elativity’. H e deli ver ed i t in G er man without having

wr itten it down, a

nd, a

s he spoke,

it wa

s tr ansl

atedinto Ja panese. The tr anslator kep t notes that wer e soon

pub lished in Ja panese. In m y sca le , I would r ank thisJa panese r endi tion of the le ctur e as being of le vel 13.It is ‘do ub ly indi r ect’ in the sense that E instein didno t wr ite it, and tha t w e onl y have the version inJa panese. It is not a very late do cumen t in E instein’slife , so that w e may imagine that for getf ulness per hapsdid no t distort his acc ount v ery much. B ut st ill , thetr a nsc r ip t w a s no t pr oof r ea d b y E in st ein. L esscr edi b le , for instance, migh t be a documen t plac ed in

level 14. C onside r one such example : a letter wr ittenin 1948 by M ichele B esso. A t 74 years of age , heasked whether E instein’s ear ly r eading of a b ook byE r nst Mac h, follo wing B esso’s su gge stion , had beenat the r oot of E instein’s thoughts ab out clocks andme a sur ing r od s w hen c on c ei ving the theo ry of r elativity (B esso and E instein , 1972 : 386). E insteinr eplied in the neg a tive. H e ac kno wledged a gr ea tinfl uence of Mac h on hi s intelle ctual developmen t ingene r al. B ut he no ted that his r eading of Da vid H ume ,which he di scuss ed with Solo vine and Hab icht, had

beenofg r eater impo rtance (B esso and E instein , 1972 :391).

B ox 1 Sca le of likely reliab ility forinforma tion s ource s

1 Origina l note s a nd d ra fts of the s cien tist ’slab ours a nd rumina tions

2 Con tempo ra ry priva te dia ries of the s c ien tist ,pee rs , or friend s

3 Con tempo ra ry do cumen ts su ch a s lette rs t ofriend s

4 Con tempo ra ry acc ounts of st a temen tsa mong s cien tists a nd pee rs

5 Ma nus cripts , the o rigina l s c ien tific work ——————————————————————6 Ea rly re tros pe ctive acc ounts by the s cien tist

7 Ea rly inte rviews of the s cien tist , proofre a d by

the s cien tist8 La te r re tros pe ctive acc ounts by the s c ien tist

9 La te r inte rviews of the s cien tist , proofre a d bythe s cien tist

10 S yst em a tic inte rviews by hist oria ns ,psy chologi sts , or othe r s pe cia lists

11 Informa l inte rviews of the s c ien tist

12 Re collections t ha t e xist only in a n indire ctform , su ch a s a tra ns cribed le ctur e

13 Re tros pe ctive acc ounts t ha t e xist only in ado ub ly indirect form

14 La te re collections by a n intima teac qua inta nce

15 Biogra ph y ba s ed on in te rviews , a pp roved bythe s cien tist a nd in te rviewee s

16 Acc ount ba s ed on m u ltiple inte rviews but no tproofrea d by the in te rviewee s

17 Acc ount of inte rviews w ith a c los e rela tive o rpee r, proofre a d by tha t pe rs on

18 Ma te ria l ba s ed p a rtly on in te rviews from arela tive , pee r, or ac qua inta nce

19 Rough tra ns la tions of b iogra phie s or s our ce s20 He a rs a y, la te indi re ct acc ounts of wha t

s omeone a llegedl y told s omeone el s e





R eaders ca n iden tif y how t he diffe r en t c la im sab out Ma r ic f all at var ious levels in the li st ab ove.A ny documen t, even a documen t f r om le vel 1 , ca ninclude err ors , omi ssion s, inacc ur ac ies or even lie s.L ikewise, info r mation of all kind s ca n in clude trut hf ulclaims, of course. The impo rtant poin t is to r ealisetha t the f urt her a documen t st ands away f r om theper iod i t pur portedly descr ibes, the mo r e layers of po tentia l inacc ur ac y. Inacc ur ac ies ca n exist in thetr anslation , r ewor ding , inter pol ation , a nd so fo rth. Aletter wr itten , even de ca des later , by a participant inthe events in question , ca n still be very info r mative,even thoughpl ac ed at level14 , though we should stillbe ca r ef ul with its contents. M or e so, an even later acc ount, b y someone who was not pr esent at the e ventsin q uest io n , in vol ves gr ea te r u nc ert a in t ie s .U nfo rtunately, we ca nno t always confi r m or r ef utea ll su c h unc ert a in tie s . B ut w e sho uld a t le a stac kno wledge them.

Teac hers should ca r ef ully gr ant diffe r ent deg r eesof trust t o var ious s our ces. M ost r eaders dono t usu allyhave the time o r oppo rtunity to r esear ch and e xaminethe va lidi ty of a gi ven sour c e of info r m a tion.N evert hele ss , one sho uld c ultiva te a mode r a tescepticism , especially against outst anding stor ies thatr eson a te with wha t w e would pe rs on a lly like tobelie ve. We ca n teac h studen ts t hat histor ica l claimssho uld b e in spe c ted ca r ef u ll y, as w hen test inghypotheses in scien ce. Too of ten , wr iters enamo ur edwith a sen sa tion a l c onje c tur e tend to mi sr ea deviden ce. Tooof ten , they seek no t to test a hypothesis,but t o confi r m it. B ut w hat makes a good story, or plausib le fiction , is not necessar ily what makes goodhistory.

E nd-no te s1 E inst ein’s W ife was pr oduced by an A ustr alian comp any, M elsa F ilm s, in association with the A ustr alian

B r oadca st ing C or po r a tion and O r egon P ub lic B r oadca st ing in the U ni ted S ta tes. Web site: http : // www .pbs.or g / opb / ein stein swife /

2 K rst ic (1991 : 94) d ated this letter as being f r om ‘ t he very beginning of 19 06 ’.

3 Popo vic (2003 :88) d ated this letter as being f r om D ecem ber 1906 , appar ently follo wing no tes by JulkaSa vic, see p. xi. T he hi stor ians w ho edi ted T he colle ct ed p a pers of Albert E inst ein Vol. 5 (K lein , K ox andSc hulmann. P r inceton : P r inceton U niversity P r ess, 199 3) also dated the le tter as being f r om D ecem ber 1906 , owing to its contents (see p. 45). Popo vic’s tr anslation i s a liter a l r ende r ing of the o r igin al in G er man(copy a t the E instein A r chive, item 70-724; someone wr ote ‘juli 1906’ on the le tter itself).

R efe ren c e sB esso, M . and E instein , A . (1972) C orr es pond a nce 1903 –

1955 , with no tes and tr anslation s by P. Speziali. Pa r is:H er mann.

B jer kne s, C . J. (2002 ) Albert E inst ein : t he in corr igib le pla gia r ist . D owners G r ove, I llinoi s: XTX I nc .

Da nin , D . S . (1962) N ei zbe zhno st str a nnogo mi r a . M oscow:M olod aia G var dia, G osudarstv enaa ja B ib lio teka SSSR .

F r ank , P. (1949) E inst ein , sein le ben und seine zeit . R epr int(19 79) B r aunschweig / W iesba den : F r ied r . Vieweg & S ohn.

Joffe , A . F. (1955) Pa mia ti A lberta E insteina . U s pekhi fi zicheskikh na uk , 57 (2), 187.

Joffe , A . F. (1967) 2nd edn. Begegn ungen mi t P h ysiker n.Leipzig : B . G . Teubner . Tr anslation f r om the or igin al(1962) V str echi s fi zik a mi moi vos pomin a niia o

za ru be zhn ykh fi zik a h. M oskow: G osudarstv eno ye IdatelstvoF iziko- Ma tematitsheskoi L iter a tury.

K lein , M . J., K ox, A . J . and Sc hulmann , R . (199 3) T hecolle ct ed pa pers of Albert E inst ein , Vol. 5. P r inceton :P r inceton U niversity P r ess.

K rst ic, D . (1991) M ileva E instein- Ma r ic . In Ha ns Albert E inst ein : r emini scences of his life a nd o ur life t oge t he r ,E instein , E . R . A ppendi x A, pp. 85–99. Iowa C ity, I owa:Iowa I nstitute of H ydr aulic R esear ch.

M ichelmo r e, P. (1962) E inst ein : pr ofile of t he m a n. N ewYor k: D odd , M ead & C omp any.





O ver bye, D . (2000 ) E inst ein in lo ve: a scien t ific r oma nce.N ew Yor k: P eng uin B ook s.

Popo vic, M . ed. (2003 ) I n Albert ’s sha dow: t he life a nd lett ers of M ileva Ma r ic, E inst ein’s first w ife. Ba ltimo r e,Ma ryland / London , E ngl and : J ohn s H opkin s U niversityP r ess.

R enn , J . and Sc hulmann , R . ed. (199 2) T he lo ve lett ers .P r inceton : P r inceton U niversity P r ess. (L etters of A lbertE instein to M ileva Ma r ic, 4 A pr il 1901 and 27 Ma r ch 19 01,r espectively, tr ans. Shawn Smith.)

Seelig , C . (1954) Albert E inst ein , eine dok umen t a r ische Biog r a phie . Zur ich / S tutt gart/ W ien : E ur opa Ver lag.

Solovine , M . and E instein , A . (195 6) Lettr es à Ma ur iceSolo vine . Pa r is: Ga uthie r -Villars.

S tac hel , J . ed. (198 7) T he colle ct ed pa pers of Albert E inst ein ,Vol. 1. P r inceton : P r inceton U niversity P r ess.

S tac hel , J . (199 6) A lbert E instein and M ileva Ma r ic: acollab or ation that f ailed to develop. R epr inted in S tac hel , J .(2002 ) E inst ein f r om B t o Z , pp. 39–55. B oston / Ba sel / B er lin , B ir khauser .

Tr buhovic-G jur ic, D . (199 3) I m Sc ha tt en Albert E inst ein s ,d a s tr a gische Leben de r M ileva E inst ein- Ma r ic. B er n / S tutt gart/ W ien : Pa ul Ha upt. Tr anslation f r om the o r igin al(19 69) U senc i Albert a A jnst a jna . K rus evac: Ba gdala .

Wa lker , E . H . (1991) L etter : M ileva Ma r ic’s r elativistic r ole.P h ysics T od a y, 44 (2), 123.

Zac kheim , M . (1999) E inst ein’s d a ught er : t he Sea r ch fo r Lieser l. N ew Yor k: R iver head B ook s/ Peng uin Putnam.

A lb e rt o A . Ma rt íne z is Weis ma n Instru ctor in Hist ory of Sc ien ce a t the Ca lifornia Inst itut e of Te chnolog y.E -ma il: ma rtine z@ hss .Ca lte ch.ed u

Documents

Handling Evidence in History: the case of Einstein's wife. Alberto Martínez