Mileva Marić: The

Other Einstein
A short film written
and directed by Alana
Cash (Vibegirl
Productions)

A critical examination of
the film by Allen Esterson.

"Mileva Marić: The Other

Einstein", whose writer
and director has also made
films on Anna Freud and
Marie Curie, is worth
detailed analysis because
it contains claims about
Marić's alleged
collaboration on Einstein's
epoch-making work in
physics in the early period
of his scientific career
some of which are in wide
circulation and stated as
fact in a number of books.
This provides another
opportunity for subjecting
these claims to close
scrutiny.

Before moving on to
significant contentions it
is worth noting a couple of
less important errors and
misconceptions in the
early section of the film.
The narrator states that in
the period when Marić
attended a Serbian
secondary school in Novi
Sad (1886-1892) she
"earned the nickname 'the
holy one' because she was
consistently at the head of
her class". Why academic
prowess would lead to
such a nickname is
obscure, and indeed Marić
biographer
Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić
reports that the reason she
was called "Svetac" (the
Saint) was on account
of her reserved and
pacific character (1988, p.
22). The narrator goes on
to say, oddly, that "She
would later learn that
Albert Einstein had the
same nickname in school",
though this is not recorded
in any of the major
biographies of Einstein,
nor in any of the many
others I have read. These
errors are compounded a
little later when the
narrator says that "Each
had earned nicknames
because of their superior
intellect".

The narrator reports that

in the summer 1896 Marić
enrolled at the Zurich
University Medical School
to study medicine, but
after one semester she
acted on her first
preference for studying
physics. Dr Rudolf
Mumenthaler (Swiss
Federal Institute of
Technology [ETH,
formerly Zurich
Polytechnic] Library),
then takes up the story
and states that the final
diploma she obtained at
the Swiss Higher Girls'
School in Zurich for the
academic year 1895-1896
did not suffice for her to
gain entrance to Zurich
Polytechnic, so in late
summer she entered and
passed the Polytechnic
entrance examinations.
On this he is mistaken in
that he makes no mention
of the fact that Marić
passed
the Matura (university
entrance level
examinations) in the
spring of 1896 at Bern
Federal Medical School
(which enabled her to
enter the Zurich
University Medical School
immediately afterwards).
Normally obtaining
the Matura would suffice
for entry to Zurich
Polytechnic, but for some
reason Marić was required
to take
the mathematics entry
examinations, for which
her grade average was a
moderate 4.25 (on a scale
1-6) (Trbuhović-Gjurić
1988, pp. 33, 35, 60).

In the detailed critical

examination below
statements made in the
film will be in bold type,
followed by my comments.

Narrator: In many
ways Albert and
Mileva were alike…
and now [at Zurich
Polytechnic] they were
seeking the same
degree.

The four-year course for

which they enrolled in
1896 was not for a degree.
It was to obtain a diploma
to teach physics and
mathematics in secondary
school.

Narrator: At the end of

her first semester at
Swiss Poly Mileva left
for the University of
Heidelberg to audit the
lectures of Philipp
Lenard, a famous
professor of theoretic
physics.

Lenard was primarily

an experimental physicist:
http://www.nobelprize.or
g/nobel_prizes/physics/la
ureates/1905/lenard-
bio.html
(It was actually after a full
academic year at the
Polytechnic that, in early
October 1897, Marić went
to Heidelberg.)

Note: The brief discussion

of the Lienard-Wiechert
equation by a physicist
that occurs at this point
has nothing to do with
Lenard.

Regina Balmer Capella

(editor, Paul Haupt
publishers): She
arrived in Zurich as
one of the first women
to make their studies
in mathematics and
she was a brilliant
student…"

The oft-repeated claim

that Marić was a brilliant
student needs closer
examination. She certainly
obtained excellent grades
in physics and
mathematics in her final
year at the high school she
attended in Zagreb from
1892-1894. That was two
years before she enrolled
at Zurich Polytechnic,
immediately prior to
which she had attended
the Higher Girls' School in
Zurich in 1895-1896. Her
biographer Trbuhović-
Gjurić provides details of
her teachers and subjects
studied, but does not
record her 1896 leaving
diploma grades. Nor does
she record Marić's grades
for
the Matura examinations
she took in 1896. All we
have at this time are her
grades in the mathematics
component of the
Polytechnic entrance
exams, for which she
obtained a very moderate
grade average of 4.25 on a
scale 1-6. So we are not in
a position to say she was a
brilliant student at pre-
university academic level,
and her grades in the
Polytechnic mathematics
entrance examinations do
not indicate that she was.
Moreover, her end-of-
semester grade average for
the first year at the
Polytechnic was a rather
low 4.2, and she failed to
achieve a 5 in any of the
five topics she took that
year, hardly indicating she
was a brilliant student.
(Trbuhović-Gjurić 1988,
pp. 26, 33, 35, 43, 60.)

Regina Balmer
Capella: …and then
she met Albert and in
the beginning they
shared the work, they
shared the studies,
and just after she came
back from
Heidelberg… she
realised that she was
in love with Albert,
and then she began to
go behind him, and
began to aim for his
work and not any
more for her personal
work.

Here we're in the realms of

"it must have been so" (to
explain Marić's eventual
failure to obtain a teaching
diploma). There is no
evidence for Capella's
contention that Marić
began to neglect her own
studies and aim for
Einstein's work. They
mutually enjoyed studying
together, and Einstein was
keen to share his extra-
curricular reading with
her, but there is nothing to
demonstrate that she
subordinated her
academic work to his. On
the contrary, such
evidence we have (in their
student correspondence)
indicates that she was a
conscientious student who
studied hard (at her
parents' home) prior to
examinations. Several
letters testify to Einstein's
regularly encouraging her
in her studies – in these
early years of their
relationship he harboured
the expressed wish that
they would eventually
forge a joint future
devoted to science. (That if
anything Einstein
supported Marić rather
than the other way round
is suggested by Einstein's
writing to her in late 1901:
"Soon you'll be my
'student' again, like in
Zurich." [Letter, 19
December 1901])

It is worthy of note that

Marić's end-of-semester
grade average for the first
year at the Polytechnic
was 4.2 (scale 1-6),
whereas her grade average
post-Heidelberg (1898-
1900) during which time
she became emotionally
involved with Einstein was
a considerably improved
5.1 (Trbuhović-Gjurić
1988, p. 43). Even
allowing for the fact that
she was stronger in the
subjects (e.g., physics
topics) studied in the
second half of the course,
this hardly indicates that
she subordinated her
studies to Einstein's.

Narrator: Einstein
attended lectures [at
the Polytechnic] of
Hermann Minkowski
on his development of
four dimensional
space-time and from
this they [Einstein and
Marić] began to
formulate the basis of
the special theory of
relativity.

Einstein did not use

Minkowski's four
dimensional space-time
concepts in his 1905
special relativity paper. As
Cornelius Lanczos writes
on Einstein's paper, "today
these questions are
handled in a totally
different way, having at
our disposal the four
dimensional Minkowskian
approach, which was not
available in 1905" (The
Einstein Decade, 1974, p.
136). In any case Einstein
did not begin to formulate
his theory as published in
1905 for several years after
attending Minkowski's
lectures. As for Marić's
supposed involvement,
there is not a single letter
of hers that expresses any
ideas on, or indeed any
particular interest in, the
ideas on the
electrodynamics of moving
bodies with which Einstein
regaled her in some half-
dozen of his letters during
their student years. Nor is
there any indication in
Einstein's letters of her
mentioning the topic in
her letters that were not
kept by him at the time, as
surely there would have
been given his enthusiasm
for the subject.

Narrator: Professor
Wilhelm Fiedler
intimidated Marić and
gave her an
unsatisfactory grade in
projective geometry.

Like numerous such

contentions one finds in
the literature, this sounds
plausible – until one
examines the evidence.
First, it is evidence-free,
another contention of the
"it must have been so"
variety. Second the
documentary evidence is
inconsistent with the
contention. Fiedler
lectured on three topics,
descriptive geometry,
projective geometry and
geometrical location. Of
these, it was only in
projective geometry that
Marić obtained a poor
grade (3.5). Are we to
suppose Fielder
intimidated her in this
subject, but not in the
other two for which she
received respectable
grades (grade 5 in
geometrical location)?
That geometry was not her
strong point is evident
from two other directions.
In the Polytechnic
entrance mathematics
examination she took in
1896, her grade average in
descriptive geometry was a
rather poor 3.75 (scale 1-
6). And in a letter to
Einstein at the time she
was "cramming" for her
intermediate diploma
exam in late summer
1899, she described
geometry material as "the
hardest to master" – and
indeed she obtained only
3.75 in projective
geometry, while achieving
a moderately good grade 5
in analytic geometry.
(Trbuhović-Gjurić 1988,
pp. 60, 61, 70.)

Narrator: Einstein
often skipped classes
to work in the
laboratory where
Mileva would join him
to work on their own
experiments.

When Einstein skipped

classes it was mostly in
order to follow up his
extra-curricular interests
in theoretical physics. The
above can only refer to the
work they were
doing individually (not joi
nt experiments) in the
laboratory for their
respective dissertations,
both on heat conduction.
(Letters, Einstein to Marić,
30 August/6 September
1900; 13 September 1900;
28 May 1901.)

Narrator (on the final

diploma examinations
in 1900): Although her
grade point average
was passing,
inexplicably Marić was
denied a diploma by
the Board of
Examiners.

It is quite extraordinary
that at this point no
mention is made of the
fact that in the
mathematics component
of the final diploma
examinations Marić's
grade was a very poor 2.5
(scale 1-6). (No other
student in their small
group obtained less than
5.5 for this exam.) Far
from it being inexplicable,
this alone suffices to
explain why she failed to
obtain a teaching diploma
in 1900. Given in addition
that her grade average for
the end-of-semester
grades in the
mathematical topics
differential and integral
calculus, analytic
geometry, projective
geometry and differential
equations was a very
moderate 4.2, it is entirely
explicable why the Board
of Examiners declined to
award her a diploma for
teaching mathematics and
physics in secondary
schools. (Note: Marić's
grade average for the final
diploma examinations was
4.0 (scale 1-6), which
might have earned her a
diploma were it not for her
very poor grade in the
mathematics component,
theory of functions.)
(Trbuhović-Gjurić 1988, p.
64.)

Narrator: It is likely
that she experienced
the bias of professors
who did not see a
future for a woman in
the sciences.

Having failed to disclose

the manifest reason
for Marić's failure to
obtain a diploma, the film
now resorts to an
evidence-free "it must
have been so" explanation.
In regard to the suggestion
that the examiners "did
not see a future for a
woman in the sciences", it
should be emphasized
(never stated in the film)
that the qualification was
for teaching physics and
mathematics, not for a
career in science. Even if
they had a bias against a
woman taking up a
scientific career, there is
no reason to suppose they
would object to her
teaching the subjects.
Moreover, according to
Marić's close friend
Helene Kaufler (later
Savić), prior to the
examinations the physics
professor Heinrich Weber
had provisionally offered
Marić a post as an
Assistant (though Kaufler
wrote to her mother that
Marić did not wish to take
up the offer, preferring
instead to apply for a
position as a librarian at
the Polytechnic.). (Popović
2003, p. 61.)

In any case, John Stachel

has documented from the
ETH records that some
women had already
graduated from the
mathematics and physics
teaching diploma section
at Zurich Polytechnic (and
no doubt several more
from the science teaching
diploma section as a
whole). (Stachel 2002, pp.
30)

Narrator: A year after

graduation Albert had
not obtained a
permanent
job because of his poor
grades and bad study
habits.

It is not the case that

Einstein's final diploma
grades were "poor" – in
none of the four subject
topics examined in 1900
did he obtain less than a 5.
(This was not the case with
any of the other four
candidates in their group;
Einstein's grade average
was pulled down to 4.91 by
his relatively low grade of
4.5 for his dissertation.) In
any case, it seems unlikely
that most prospective
employers would enquire
into the precise grades
rather than taking note
that he had been awarded
the diploma. The physics
professor Heinrich Weber,
with whom the strong-
willed Einstein was on bad
terms, had failed to offer
him an assistantship, and
he strongly suspected that
Weber was unwilling to
provide potential
employers with a
favourable reference.

Narrator: [Late 1901]

Albert continued to
write asking about the
health of the unborn
baby and making
reference to the
theories that he and
Marić were
developing. [Quoting
from an Einstein
letter]: "I will be so
happy when we are
together again and can
bring our work on
relative motion to a
successful
conclusion."

There is no evidence that

Marić played any role in
the ideas being developed
by Einstein which he was
reporting to her at that
time. Indeed, Marić had
been studying for her
second attempt at the
diploma in the first half of
the year, and working on
her dissertation that she
hoped to develop into a
Ph.D. thesis through to
October/November 1901,
when she decided to give it
up. After her second exam
failure in July 1901, now
some three months
pregnant she had
immediately gone to stay
with her parents in Serbia,
where she remained most
of the following year
having given birth to a
baby daughter in January
1902. In this whole period,
from March 1901 through
most of 1902, the couple
scarcely saw each other,
and the idea that they
were working together on
the theoretical notions
Einstein was reporting in
his letters doesn't bear
serious consideration.
The reading of the
quotation above from a
letter Einstein wrote to
Marić (27 March 1901)
exemplifies the failure by
proponents of the
contention that Marić
contributed substantively
to Einstein's work on
advanced physics to
present all the relevant
evidence. First, there is the
failure to consider the
context of the quoted
sentence (of which more
below). More important,
whereas this
one unspecific allusion to
"our" work in relation to
the electrodynamics of
moving bodies is
frequently cited, almost
invariably there is no
mention of the half-dozen
other letters in the period
from August 1899 through
December 1901 in which
Einstein writes of his ideas
on the subject,
providing specific
details of what he is
working on. As Stachel
writes:

In summary, the letters to

Marić show Einstein
referring
to his studies, his ideas, hi
s work on the
electrodynamics of moving
bodies over a dozen times
(and we may add a couple
more if we include his
letter to Grossmann), as
compared to one reference
to our work on the
problem of relative
motion. In the one case
where we have a letter of
Marić in direct response to
one of Einstein's, where it
would have been most
natural for her to respond
to his ideas on the
electrodynamics of moving
bodies, we find the same
response to ideas in
physics that we find in all
her letters: silence.
(Stachel 2002, p. 36)
In regard to the context of
the above frequently
quoted sentence, the
background is one in
which the couple were
now separated with little
prospect of their being
together in the immediate
future. Roger Highfield
and Paul Carter quote the
whole paragraph, in which
Einstein is seeking to
reassure Marić of his
continuing love,
observing: "By italicizing
the key sentence, one
shows how it sat
marooned, not in one of
Einstein's many passages
of close scientific
argument, but amid an
outpouring of reassurance
that his love for Mileva
remained absolute despite
their separation" (1993, p.
72). I would add that the
unspecific sentence should
also be seen the light of
Einstein's frequent
attempts to interest Marić
in his extra-curricular
work, his long-term hope
being that they would have
a joint future devoted to
science.

For Stachel's discussion of

this whole issue see the
Bibliography (below),
under Stachel (2005).

Narrator: Believing an
illegitimate daughter
would affect his
position at the Patent
Office, Einstein
convinced Mileva to
return to Novi Sad in
November 1903 and
relinquish their 17
month old daughter to
adoption.

This is nothing but

surmise. It may be the
case, but in fact no one
knows the circumstances
in which Mileva gave up
her infant daughter, or
even that
she was adopted. It is
quite possible that she
died. (In September 1903
Einstein wrote to Marić,
who was with their
daughter at her parents'
place: "I'm very sorry
about what has befallen
Liserl. It is so easy to
suffer lasting effects from
scarlet fever. If only this
will pass.")

Narrator: While
Einstein was at his
desk at the patent
office, Mileva
submerged herself in
reading scientific
journals and
conducting research.
When Albert returned
home they worked
together until well
after midnight. Shortly
after the birth of Hans
Albert in 1904 the
couple completed
three papers on
Brownian motion, the
photoelectric effect,
and special relativity.
[…] In Vojvodina they
finished the forth
paper, the one
containing the famous
equation E = mc2.

There is no serious
evidence for any part of
this. For an examination
and rebuttals of such
claims, see Esterson
2006(a).

Insofar as these claims are

not simply articles of faith
for people who are
determinedly convinced
that Marić was a close
collaborator on Einstein's
work regardless of
refutations
of specific erroneous or
unsubstantiated claims
(e.g., see Joffe story
immediately below), they
are highly imaginative
extrapolations of third or
fourth hand vague general
statements obtained from
proudly Serbian friends
and acquaintances of the
Marić family obtained
more than fifty years after
events they purport to
reveal, with all the well-
documented unreliability
of such supposed
evidence, made even more
dubious by the fact that
they come from interested
parties. (See Trbuhović-
Gjurić 1988; Krstić 2004;
Highfield and Carter's
assessment of such
statements is that they
amount to no more than
"home-town folklore"
[1993, p. 110].) What is
never explained is
why Marić (as alleged)
would have been freely
talking of her working
with Einstein to some
relatives and their friends
on visits to her parents'
place in Novi Sad, Serbia,
yet never so much as
hinted to her closest friend
Helene Kaufler Savić that
she was assisting Einstein,
though letters she wrote
to Savić in the relevant
period profusely describe
her current activities.
(Popović, M. 2003, pp. 56-
89.) In some fifteen letters
Marić wrote to
Savić during the years
leading up to the
publishing of Einstein's
celebrated 1905 papers,
not one of them mentions,
or remotely hints at, her
being involved with
Einstein's researches. Nor
do her words about
Einstein's work on physics
sound like those of
someone who was
collaborating with him:

December 1900: "Albert

wrote a paper in physics
that will probably soon be
published in the Annalen
der Physik. You can
imagine how proud I am
of my darling."

December 1901: "Albert

has written a magnificent
study, which he has
submitted as his [doctoral]
dissertation… I have read
this work with great joy
and real admiration for my
little darling, who has such
a clever head."

December 1906: "My

husband often spend his
leisure time at home
playing with the little boy,
but to give him his due, I
must note that it is not his
only occupation aside
from his official activities;
the papers he has written
are already mounting
quite high."

As John Stachel writes on

this issue:

In [Marić's] case, we
have no published
papers; no letters with a
serious scientific content,
either to Einstein nor to
anyone else; nor any
other objectiveevidence of
her supposed creative
talents. We do not even
have hearsay accounts of
conversations she had
with anyone else that have
a specific, scientific
content, let alone a
content claiming to report
her ideas. (Stachel 2002,
p. 36.)

Narrator: All four

papers were published
in 1905. One of the
assistant editors
at Annalen der
Physik recalls seeing
Mileva's name as
author on the original
documents. Why she
was not co-author
upon publication is not
explained.
This paragraph is only too
characteristic of the poor
level of historical
scholarship of the film. It
even adds one more error
to an already erroneous
story. This, as told
by Trbuhović-Gjurić, is
that the Soviet scientist
Abraham Joffe stated in
his "In Remembrance of
Albert Einstein" that
Einstein's three epoch-
making 1905 articles
in Annalen der
Physik were originally
signed "Einstein-Marić".
She goes on to say that at
that time Joffe was an
assistant to Wilhelm
Röntgen, who as a
member of the board of
the journal that was
responsible for examining
submitted articles, had
asked his assistant to
participate in the work,
and Joffe had thus seen
the manuscripts.
Unfortunately Trbuhović-
Gjurić does not cite Joffe's
actual words, nor
distinguish her own
contentions from those
supposedly made by Joffe.
(Trbuhović-Gjurić 1988, p.
97.)
In fact an examination of
the passage in question,
from an obituary of
Einstein, shows that Joffe
did not state that he had
seen the original
manuscripts, nor that it
was signed "Einstein-
Maric". (Stachel 2005, pp.
liv-lxiii.) Nor is there any
evidence that Röntgen (an
experimental physicist)
was asked to review the
original papers, or that
Joffe (who in the
paragraph in question
explicitly attributed the
authorship of the articles
to Einstein, describing
him as a clerk at the
Patent Office in Bern) had
ever seen them. In Joffe's
book "Meetings with
Scientists" there is chapter
on Röntgen in which he
alludes to the time when
he was a graduate student
of Röntgen's and was
advised to study what we
would now call the
prehistory of relativity
theory. Had Joffe had the
opportunity to see
Einstein's original 1905
manuscripts it is
inconceivable that he
would not have mentioned
the fact in this context.
(Joffe 1967, pp. 23-24.)
For a full refutation of the
story about Joffe, see the
Bibliography under
Stachel (2002); see also
Alberto Martinez (2005).
Incidentally, this
erroneous story of
Trbuhović-Gjurić's is just
one of the several
unreliable or
unsubstantiated
contentions in her book.

Narrator: [In 1911]

Albert entertained a
proposal from the
German University in
Prague. Mileva
adamantly opposed
the move… Albert
would not receive a
raise and the physics
department was not
exceptional, yet over
Mileva's objections
Albert accepted the
job.

The statement that

Einstein would not receive
an increased salary is
erroneous. The offer from
Prague was twice his
current salary, and some
60 per cent higher than
the enhanced salary
proposed by the University
of Zurich to try to retain
his services. The narration
also fails to report that at
Zurich he was only an
assistant professor,
whereas in Prague, at what
Einstein described as "a
magnificent Institute", he
was given a full
professorship. (Fölsing
1997, pp. 273, 278; Neffe
2007, p. 160)
Narrator: In Prague…
the apartment was
dirty and insect-
infested.

This statement, evidently

based on Michelmore's
unreliable popular
biography of Einstein (see
below), exaggerates even
his account (Michelmore
1963, p. 49). In a rather
sensationalised passage
about conditions in
Prague, Michelmore writes
of a single incident when a
fire broke out in the maid's
room one night, and after
Einstein had emerged
from the room after
dousing the fire with water
he was supposedly
"crawling with fleas". All
this shows is that the
maid's room had fleas
(probably originating in
her second-hand mattress
[Highfield and Carter
1993, p. 135]), not that the
whole apartment was
either "insect-infested" or
dirty.

Major biographies, while

noting that hygienic
conditions in Prague were
well below the standards
of Zurich, provide a
somewhat different
picture of their household
situation. On arriving in
Prague the Einsteins
moved into a spacious
modern apartment with
electricity in place of the
kerosene and gaslights of
Zurich. In addition, the
substantially increased
salary enabled them to
employ a live-in
housemaid for the first
time. (Fölsing 1997, p.
278; Neffe 2007, p. 160)

Narrator: [In Zurich in

1912] Now Einstein
turned to Marcel
Grossman for help on
the mathematics for
the General Theory of
Relativity. Mileva was
jealous and angry. As
an Einstein biographer
wrote, "Mileva was as
good at math as
Grossman."

First, there is not the least

evidence that Marić was
jealous and angry that
Einstein requested
Grossman to help him
with the specialist
mathematics he needed to
develop General
Relativity. The implication
in this passage is that
previously he had turned
to his wife for assistance
with mathematics, but
there is again no serious
evidence that this was the
case.[1] As we have
seen, Marić's grades in
mathematics throughout
her time at Zurich
Polytechnic left something
to be desired, and her
weakness at the subject
resulted in her failing to
obtain a diploma. She
received lower grades than
Grossman in every single
mathematics topic that
they both took for their
intermediate and final
diploma examinations
(Collected Papers, vol. 1,
docs. 42, 67; Trbuhović-
Gjurić 1988, p. 63); the
notion that she was as
good as mathematics as
Grossman, who became a
full professor of pure
mathematics at the
Polytechnic at the age of
29, does not bear serious
examination. The
assertion is made (p. 31) in
a short popular biography
by the non-specialist
writer Peter Michelmore
that contains several
factual errors, and
includes imaginative
scenarios with invented
dialogue, which
immediately places it
outside the bounds of
serious biography. It is
simply not good enough to
recycle an assertion
merely on the basis that it
is stated in a book
regardless of reliably
documented evidence to
the contrary, and the
nature and
trustworthiness of the
book itself.

Narrator: Desperately
unhappy [in 1914 in
Berlin where Einstein
had been appointed
professor at the
University of Berlin
and Director of the
Institute of
Theoretical Physics],
Mileva returned to
Zurich with her two
children… World War
1 became an excuse for
Albert not to visit or
send money.

This is completely untrue.

First, Einstein sent quite
generous sums of money
per annum to Marić on a
quarterly basis, as the
letters between Einstein
and Marić in the relevant
period demonstrate
(Collected Papers, vol. 8,
docs. 33, 40, 58, 200).
Again, while, given their
strained relationship,
Einstein had no wish to
see Marić, more than a
score of letters up to the
end of 1916 alone testify to
his desire to keep contact
with his boys and to his
interest in their activities.
As Highfield and Carter
observe, "It remains
remarkable how diligently
Einstein strove to keep
contact with his sons
during 1915, for this was
the year in which his
scientific labours [on
General Relativity]
reached their fiercest
intensity" (1993, p. 173).
In fact he did manage to
arrange visits to Zurich on
some three occasions, one
of which involved a hiking
trip with Hans Albert in
1915.
As they negotiated a
divorce they agreed
that, should he receive
the Nobel Prize, the
money would go to
Mileva.

In fact the terms of the

divorce agreement
stipulated that the
anticipated Nobel Prize
money would be deposited
in a Swiss bank trust fund
in Marić's name, with the
proviso that she had no
authority over the capital
without Einstein's
consent, but that she had
free access to the interest.
In the event of her death
or remarriage the trust
fund monies would go to
their two boys. (Collected
Papers, vol. 8, doc. 562)

Narrator: "[Marić]
never clamoured for
the fame that was
bestowed on her ex-
husband. Given
Mileva's natural
shyness and her need
to hide her first
pregnancy, it is
understandable that
she never asserted her
co-authorship with her
husband."

What the relevance

of Marić's need to hide her
first pregnancy is to this
issue is obscure. In any
case, there is a much more
straightforward reason
than stated here why
Marić never asserted her
co-authorship of Einstein's
papers: she did not co-
author any of them. As
historian Robert
Schulmann and historian
of physics Gerald Holton
have written, "All serious
Einstein scholarship has
shown that the scientific
collaboration between the
couple was slight and one-
sided":
http://www.nytimes.com/
1995/10/08/books/l-
einstein-s-wife-
173995.html

Footnote

1. Proponents of the co-

authorship thesis
frequently assert
that Marić assisted
Einstein with the
mathematics for the 1905
special relativity paper
(e.g., Troemel-Ploetz
1990). Leaving aside that
the mathematics in that
paper is not beyond the
capability of any
competent university
physics student, Einstein's
abilities in conventional
mathematics can be
judged from the Zurich
University 1905 "Expert
Opinion" on his Ph.D.
dissertation. Professor of
physics Alfred Kleiner
noted: "The arguments
and calculations to be
carried out [in the
dissertation] are among
the most difficult ones in
hydrodynamics, and only a
person possessing
perspicacity and training
in the handling of
mathematical and physical
problems could dare tackle
them." As "the main
achievement of Einstein’s
thesis consists of the
handling of differential
equations, and hence is
mathematical in character
and belongs to the domain
of analytical mechanics"
Kleiner sought the opinion
of the mathematics
professor Heinrich
Burkhardt. Burkhardt
reported that what he
checked he "found to be
correct without exception,
and the manner of
treatment demonstrates a
thorough command of the
mathematical methods
involved" [Burkhardt's
emphasis]. (Collected
Papers, Vol. 5, doc. 31)
Bibliography

Einstein, A. (1987). The

Collected Papers of Albert
Einstein. Vol. 1. Princeton
University Press. (Vol. 5,
1995; Vol. 8, 1998)
Fölsing. A. (1997). Albert
Einstein. New York:
Viking Penguin.
Highfield, R. and
Carter, P. (1993). The
Private Lives of Albert
Einstein. London: Faber &
Faber.
Joffe,
A. (1967). Begegnungen
Mit Physikern. Leipzig: B.
G. Teubner.
Krstić, D. (2004). Mileva
& Albert Einstein: Their
Love and Scientific
Collaboration. Radovljica:
Didakta.
Michelmore, P.
(1963). Einstein: Profile of
the Man. London:
Frederick Muller.
Neffe,
J. (2007). Einstein: A
Biography. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Popović, M. (2003). In
Albert's Shadow: The Life
and Letters of Mileva
Marić, Einstein’s First
Wife. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Renn, J. and
Schulmann, R. (eds.)
(1992). Albert Einstein
and Mileva Marić: The
Love Letters. Trans. by S.
Smith. Princeton
University Press.
Stachel, J.
(2002). Einstein from ‘B'
to ‘Z'. Boston/Basel/
Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Response to Senta
Troemel-Ploetz and Evan
Harris Walker, pp. 31-38:
http://www.esterson.org/
Stachel_Einsteins_letters.
htm
Stachel, J. (ed.) (2005).
Einstein's Miraculous
Year: Five Papers That
Changed the Face of
Physics. Princeton
 University Press.
Appendix to Stachel's
"Introduction", on the
Joffe story, pp. liv-
lxxii: http://www.esterson
.org/Stachel_Joffe.htm
Trbuhović-Gjurić, D.
(1988). Im Schatten Albert
Einsteins: Das tragische
Leben der Mileva
Einstein-Marić. Bern:
Paul Haupt.
Troemel-Ploetz,
D. (1990). "Mileva Marić-
Einstein: The Woman
Who Did Einstein's
Mathematics." Women's
Studies International
Forum, Vol. 13, no. 5, pp.
415-432.

Articles

Esterson, A. (2006a).
"Mileva Marić: Einstein's
Wife":
http://www.esterson.org/
milevamaric.htm
Esterson, A. (2006b).
"Who Did Einstein's
Mathematics? A Response
to Troemel-Ploetz":
http://www.esterson.org/
Who_Did_Einsteins_Mat
hematics.htm
Martínez, A. A. (2005).
"Handling Evidence in
History: The Case of
Einstein's
Wife." School Science
Review, March 2005, 86
(316), pp. 49-56:
https://webspace.utexas.e
du/aam829/1/m/Maric_fi
les/EvidenceMaric.pdf

Allen Esterson
January 2012

.... ... ... ...

Mileva Marić:
Einstein’s Wife 2
The PBS “Einstein’s
Wife” website is an
exercise in
misinformation
concerning the claims
that Mileva Marić
made substantive
contributions to
Einstein’s early
scientific work.
By Allen Esterson
[Note: The article
below is a critique of
the original
"Einstein's Wife"
website. After the PBS
Omsbudsman upheld
a complaint that the
website contained
numerous historical
errors and
misconceptions, PBS
commissioned Andrea
Gabor to completely
revise it. However,
Andrea Gabor's own
writings on this
subject leave much to
be desired, and the
website still contains
several errors.]

Below is a detailed
examination of the
material on the
original PBS
"Einstein's Wife"
website.

The link “About the

Program” on the PBS
“Einstein’s Wife”
website provides the
following statement:
“The PBS presentation
of Einstein’s
Wife consists of a one-
hour documentary
film and companion
Web site. These
tandem features
explore the historical
facts of Mileva Marić’s
life, and examine her
dual roles as Albert
Einstein’s domestic
and scientific partner.
Given these facts, each
observer must then
decide, on their own,
whether or not
Einstein robbed Marić
of her due.”
These words might
lead one to expect an
objective presentation
of the evidence.
However, the
“Einstein’s Wife”
homepage belies the
implied
disinterestedness by
misrepresenting the
historical facts from
the very start:
“Einstein’s
autobiographies never
mentioned his first
wife. The world only
learned of her
existence through the
first release of
Einstein’s private
letters in 1987.”
The first thing to note
is that Einstein did
not write an
autobiography in the
normal sense. In his
“Autobiographical
Notes” for the
volume Albert
Einstein:
Philosopher-
Scientist he stated
that his scientific and
philosophical views
comprised the
essential part of a life
such as his. That
being the case, he
made no mention
whatsoever of any
personal or family
matters. He also wrote
a late
autobiographical
sketch in which he
does
mention Marić.[1] Fur
thermore, the most
cursory research
reveals that numerous
biographies of
Einstein written
before 1987 mention
Mileva Marić, often
providing
considerable detail
about her life.[2] The
assertion that her
existence was
unknown prior to
1987 is manifestly
false.
Note that while it is
taken as given that
Marić was “Einstein’s
scientific partner”, we
are also told: “The
debate remains open,
in part because it
appears that
Einstein’s executrix
systematically
destroyed potential
evidence.” Now
nowhere in the
documentary, or on
the PBS website, do
they attempt to
provide any evidence
for this serious
allegation. Gerald
Holton has described
how he played an
important role in
organizing the
Einstein Archive soon
after Einstein’s
death.[3] Princeton
University Press made
microfilm copies of
everything in the
Archive, and the
initial editor of
the Collected Papers
of Albert
Einstein project, John
Stachel, created a
Duplicate Archive
(now housed in the
Library at Princeton
University), to which
other documents have
been added. When, in
accordance with
Einstein’s will, the
Einstein Archive was
transferred to the
Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Robert
Schulmann, one of the
Associate Editors of
the project, discovered
that six letters from
Einstein to his cousin
(and later second
wife) Elsa dating from
1912-1915 were
missing. It is not
known what
happened to these
letters. (It is possible
that Helen Dukas, one
of the two Trustees of
the Einstein estate,
may have destroyed
the letters, which
contain passages
denigrating Marić and
revealing of his
relationship with Elsa
when he was still
married to Marić.)
However, copies had
already been made,
and have been
published in volume 5
of the Collected
Papers.[4] In any
case, this has no
bearing on the
question of Marić’s
alleged contributions
to Einstein’s work,
and there is no
evidence whatever to
support the PBS
website suggestion
that documents were
“systematically
destroyed” to conceal
“potential evidence”
on this issue.
Mileva’s Story
The contents on the
website as a whole
generally maintain
this same level of
tendentious
misrepresentation of
the facts. Let’s start by
examining the
material in the link
“Mileva’s Story”. In
relation to the period
at the end of their
studies at Zurich
Polytechnic and the
immediate aftermath
we are told of
Einstein: “He
demands all her time.
She sacrifices her
studies as well as her
friends. In the
summer of 1900, they
both fail their final
exams. He somehow
gets a diploma…”
There is no evidence
for the contention that
Einstein demanded all
Marić’s time in that
period. In letters to
Marić he encouraged
her in her studies,
e.g., “You must
continue with your
investigations – how
proud I will be to have
a little Ph.D. for a
sweetheart…”[5] Nor
is there evidence that
it was his fault that
Marić came to neglect
her friends. Soon after
their marriage in
January 1903 she
wrote to her friend
Helene Kaufler: “I am
even closer to my
sweetheart, if it is at
all possible, than I was
in our Zurich days; he
is my only company
and I am happiest
when he is next to me,
and I am often angry
at the boring [patent]
office that takes so
much of his
time.”[6] To suppose
this is other than
Marić’s choice is to
impugn her capability
of making her own
decisions.
Worse is the false
information that
Einstein failed his
diploma exam. In fact
he obtained an overall
average grade of 4.91
(with grades ranging
from 1 to 6,
approximating to
78%), and was
awarded a diploma by
the Zurich Polytechnic
Conference of
Examiners.[7] (It has
been suggested that a
grade 5 was required
for a pass, but there is
no evidence to
support this
contention.)[8] Marić
obtained an overall
average grade 4.00
and was not awarded
a diploma.
In the section headed
“Married life” we are
told in relation to
Einstein’s celebrated
1905 papers that in
that year Marić told a
Serbian friend, “We
finished some
important work that
will make my husband
world famous.” Where
does this quotation
come from? It occurs
in a biography of
Mileva Marić by
Desanta Trbuhović-
Gjurić (except that she
says Marić told
her father – the
change in recipient in
the report on the PBS
website illustrates
how stories get altered
on the re-
telling.)[9] But
Trbuhović-Gjurić
provides no reference
for the quoted words.
Her research was
undertaken among
the Marić family and
acquaintances more
than half a century
after the events in
question, and mostly
comprises third or
fourth hand rumours
and gossip that cannot
possibly be verified. In
short, there is no
serious evidence that
Marić ever said the
words quoted on the
website.
We do
have documented com
ments by Marić from
this period. In 1906,
after reporting the
antics of their infant
Hans Albert in a letter
to Helene Kaufler she
wrote of Einstein that
“the papers he has
written are already
mounting quite
high”.[10] There is no
indication here, or in
any of her letters, that
she played any role in
the writing of
Einstein’s papers. We
also have information
indicating that
even before her first
diploma exam failure
Marić had given up
any ambition to follow
a scientific career. In
July 1900 Kaufler
reported to her
mother that Marić had
been offered a
assistantship at the
Polytechnic, but did
not wish to accept it,
preferring instead to
apply for a post as
librarian.[11]
The tone of the
reporting on the PBS
website is illustrated
by the statement that
in 1909 Einstein
“corresponds with a
former lover”. The
facts are that in 1909
Einstein received a
letter at his University
address from Anna
Meyer-Schmid, a
woman with whom, a
decade before when
he was 20 and she 17,
he had had a brief
holiday
flirtation,[12] so the
assertion that she was
a “former lover” is
false. She had read
about his
appointment to a
professorship in her
local paper in
Switzerland and wrote
to congratulate him.
Einstein responded
briefly and quite
innocuously,[13] and
a reply from her was
intercepted by Marić.
There is no evidence
that Einstein had any
sexual double-dealing
in mind.
In the next paragraph
we are told that in
1912 “Albert has a new
math collaborator,
Marcel Grossman”,
the clear implication
being that prior to
that time Marić had
been his collaborator
in mathematics. There
is again no evidence
that this is the case. In
fact it was Marić’s
weakness in
mathematics that was
the main reason she
failed her diploma
exam: In 1900 her
grade for the maths
component of the
exam was less than
half that of the other
four candidates.[14]
In a paragraph about
the finalization of
their separation
(which Einstein
precipitated in 1914),
we are told: “Mileva
agrees to a divorce, on
the condition that any
future Nobel Prize
money will be hers.
Oddly, Albert agrees.”
The implication,
spelled out more
directly elsewhere on
the website, is that
Marić was requesting
her due, in that she
made significant
contributions to his
1905 papers. Not only
is there is no record of
Marić’s ever having
made any claim of this
kind even during their
acrimonious divorce
process, it was
Einstein who
proposed that she
should receive any
future Nobel Prize
money in order to
overcome her
resistance to a
divorce. (In fact the
money was to be put
in trust for their sons,
with Marić enabled to
draw on the interest.)
It is absurd to suggest
that there was
anything “odd” about
this: Einstein had
wanted a divorce for
some time and was
desperate to overcome
Marić’s resistance,
and he had a good
salary as Director of
the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute in Berlin in
1919. [See update on
Nobel Prize money
below *]
The Science
There is not much to
say about the material
concerning Einstein’s
1905 papers under the
sub-heading “The
Miraculous Year”,
other than concerning
the following
statement: “Unlike
Mileva, Einstein
doesn’t like dealing
with statistics. But the
work of 1905 has
given Albert a mantle
of leadership in the
new field of relativity
theory. He is revolted
by the statistical
nature of the work
that others are
producing on the basis
of his discoveries. He
doesn’t like the
randomness of it all,
and expresses his
feelings with the
famous
pronouncement, ‘The
good God does not
play dice with the
universe’.”
This paragraph
reveals considerable
ignorance on the part
of the writer. Leaving
aside the implication
that Marić liked
dealing with statistics,
for which there is no
evidence, Einstein
made important
contributions to
statistical
physics.[15] The
quotation provided
has nothing to do with
immediate
developments from
Einstein’s 1905
papers, but relates to
his views on the
philosophical
implications of
quantum mechanics
developed some two
decades later.
The Mileva
Question
After marveling that
Einstein could have
achieved so much in a
short time “without
computers”, the writer
questions whether he
could really have done
it alone:
“There are several
credible scientists who
believe Mileva may
have collaborated on
at least some of the
1905 papers. Among
her supporters is
Abram Joffe (Ioffe), a
respected member of
the Soviet Academy of
Sciences. From 1902
to 1906, Joffe was
working in Munich as
an assistant to W. C.
Röentgen [sic]. Since
Röentgen was a
member of
the Annalen der
Physik editorial
board, Joffe could
easily have seen the
original manuscripts
of the 1905 papers.
Unfortunately, Joffe
died in 1960, before
anyone had much
interest in Mileva. But
there is at least one
printed report in
which Joffe declared
that he personally saw
the names of two
authors on the 1905
papers: Einstein and
Marity (a
Hungarianized form
of Marić).”
Once scarcely knows
where to begin to
correct this farrago of
misconception and
misrepresentation.
Joffe did not contend
that Marić
collaborated on the
1905 papers. Above
all, he did not declare
that he personally saw
the names of two
authors on the 1905
papers; in fact he
never claimed to have
seen the original
manuscripts at all.
Refutation of such
claims have been
published by the
Einstein scholars
Alberto Martínez and,
in considerable detail,
John
Stachel.[16] What
Joffe actually wrote,
in an obituary of
Einstein, was the
following:
“In the year 1905,
in Annals of Physics,
there appeared three
articles, thereupon
beginning three most
important, relevant
directions in the
physics of the 20th
century. Those were:
the theory of
Brownian Motion, the
photon theory of light
and the theory of
relativity. Their
author – unknown
until that time, a
bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern,
Einstein-Marity
(Marity – the last
name of his wife,
which by Swiss
custom is added to the
last name of the
husband).”[17]
It is evident that Joffe
did not claim that he
had seen the original
manuscripts, nor that
Marić was a co-author
of the 1905 papers; on
the contrary, he writes
that the author was “a
bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in Bern”,
in other words, Albert
Einstein. Clearly, had
Joffe intended to
indicate that the
papers were co-
authored he would
have referred to “the
authors” (in the
plural) and provided
two separate names.
The webpage in
question purports to
support the claim with
a fragment of a page
in which a few words
in Cyrillic script are
shown among which
the name Einstein-
Marity can be read.
But, as both Martínez
and Stachel point out,
the fragment is not
from anything written
by Joffe, but actually
comes from a popular
science book by Daniil
Semenovich Danin.
Again, Danin makes
no claim that the
articles were co-
authored by Marić,
and certainly not that
he had seen the
original manuscripts.
(For a full account of
the utterly misleading
way that this
supposed evidence is
presented both in the
documentary and the
PBS website material,
see Stachel’s
comprehensive
refutation of the story
in Einstein’s
Miraculous Year:
Five Pages That
Changed the Face of
Physics, 1905, pp. liv-
lxiii.)[18]
The webpage
continues: “There are
also tantalizing clues
in the letters Mileva
exchanges with
Albert, and with their
friends. On the other
hand, Mileva never
demanded any public
credit for the work of
1905, and never
claimed she was
Einstein’s
collaborator.” The
claims made that
passages in Einstein’s
letters in the period
1898-1903 indicate
collaboration on his
researches leading to
the celebrated 1905
papers have been
rebutted by Stachel in
considerable
detail.[19] What is
meant by “tantalising
clues” in letters to
“their friends” is not
spelled out, and one
can understand why.
In none of the
surviving letters of
Marić’s to friends is
there the least
suggestion that
Einstein’s published
papers were anything
other than his own
work. It is not just
that Marić never
demanded public
credit, she never gave
the slightest hint that
she was, or had been,
working with Einstein
on the 1905 papers.
On the contrary, on
occasions when she
mentions Einstein’s
papers she
unequivocally
attributes them to
him.[20]
It is now stated that
“the editors of The
Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein have
claimed neutral
territory”. This is
disingenuously
expressed. Editor
John Stachel and
associate editor
Robert Schulmann of
the first volume of the
CPAE have
unequivocally stated
that they do not give
any credence to the
contentions that
Marić made
substantive
contributions to
Einstein’s work, but of
course would
acknowledge that they
cannot prove a
negative.
At this point readers
are invited to vote:
“YOU DECIDE: Take
our online poll.”
Immediately above
the place where
viewers register their
vote appears the
following:
“If the original
manuscripts of
Einstein’s 1905 papers
are ever found, the
mystery might be
solved. In 1955, a
Soviet physicist (now
deceased) claimed
that he personally saw
the original
manuscripts, and that
Mileva’s name
appeared as co-
author.”
It says much about the
writers of the PBS
website material that
they should attempt to
directly influence the
voting in this way with
an emphatic assertion
that is utterly false.
(As we have seen,
Joffe did not claim to
have seen the original
manuscripts, nor did
he write that Marić’s
name appeared as co-
author.)
PBS Classroom
Lessons
I shall now examine
the website material
provided for high
school students by
PBS, at the homepage
link “Classroom”.
Here we are
introduced to “three
lesson plans, designed
for science and social
studies classes in
grades 6 through 12”:
“The lesson plans are
intended as a
supplement to
classroom viewing of
the Einstein’s
Wife documentary,
but can also be used
as independent
teaching tools.”
Lesson 1: Mileva
Marić Einstein
This is presented as
having the object of
introducing students
to Marić’s “scientific
accomplishments, and
her break from the
scientific community”.
Many of the activities
required of the
students relate to the
“Einstein’s Wife”
documentary and PBS
website material that
frequently provide
false or misleading
information. When
the producers of the
material get on to
specific information
about Einstein’s work
their partisan aims
become all to
apparent in their
instructions to
teachers, e.g.:
“Continue questioning
to confirm that…he
did have a partner
both in his scientific
research and in his life
about which the
general public knows
very little – his first
wife Mileva Marić
Einstein.”
The students are
instructed to play the
DVD of the “Einstein’s
Wife” documentary,
and stop at the
required places. The
instructions to
students are
interspersed by the
relevant passages
taken from the
documentary. As is
characteristic of this
project, most of this is
tendentiously
misleading. I shall
take up individual
points as they arise.
Students are first told
to review the part of
the documentary that
recounts Marić’s early
educational
experiences. Teachers
are then told:
“Encourage students
to understand that she
was a gifted scholar
and scientist prior to
meeting Albert
Einstein.” This is
grossly misleading.
When Marić met
Einstein she had
recently graduated
from a girls high
school in Switzerland,
and had spent one
semester studying
medicine at Zurich
University. She had
consistently obtained
high grades in maths
and physics in her
pre-University level
education, as have
many thousands of
students who would
never be described as
“gifted scholars and
scientists”. Marić’s
exam results at the
Polytechnic were
generally mediocre: in
the intermediate exam
she was fifth out of the
six students in her
group,[21] and she
twice failed the final
diploma examination.
That teachers are told
to encourage students
to “understand” that
she was a gifted
scientist before she
even commenced the
Polytechnic diploma
course says much
about the nature of
this PBS project for
high school students.
But, of course, if the
true facts about her
lack of achievement at
the Polytechnic were
to be spelled out it
would undermine the
grandiose claims
made about her
supposed
contributions to
Einstein’s work.
The students are told
in relation to Marić’s
short period at
Heidelberg University
for the winter
semester of 1897-
1898: “She is very
focused and doesn’t
even respond to
Einstein’s letters.” In
fact at that stage there
was no emotional
relationship between
them, and from
Marić’s belated
response we know
that Einstein wrote
only one letter to her
in the autumn of 1897,
in which he had said
that she shouldn’t
reply until she had
nothing else to do and
was bored.[22] And,
contrary to the
impression being
created here, a letter
from Einstein dated
February 1898 shows
that he was equally
tardy in replying to
Marić.[23]
Students are also told:
“She is excited and
intrigued by the
research of the
professors. She shares
her knowledge with
Albert in their
correspondence.” The
notions in these two
sentences can only be
based on the single
surviving letter that
Marić wrote to
Einstein in that
period. That letter
concludes, after much
personal material,
with a rather naively
expressed half
paragraph reporting a
lecture by Professor
Philipp Lenard on
fairly elementary
notions relating to the
kinetic theory of
gases.[24] There is
nothing to indicate
she even has
knowledge of Lenard’s
research (which at
that time was on
cathode rays), and to
suggest that the letter
indicates that “she
shares her knowledge”
of such work with
Einstein displays a
high level of ignorance
of physics.
The PBS Lesson
reports: “She and
Albert continue with
their research, and
barely scrape by in the
traditional academia.
In the end, Albert
receives his diploma,
but Mileva is denied
hers because of marks
slightly below
Albert’s.”
The implication of the
first sentence is that
Marić is engaged on
extra-curricular
research. But whereas
Einstein’s letters to
Marić frequently
enthuse about his
ideas relating to his
own researches in
physics, there is not a
single letter from
Marić that indicates
that she herself is
working at any project
on her own account,
other than the
dissertation
associated with her
diploma exam.
Equally misleading is
the assertion that
Marić’s marks were
“slightly below
Albert’s”. As we’ve
already seen,
Einstein’s overall
average was 4.91 out
of 6, compared to
Marić’s 4.00, giving
Einstein around 18%
advantage over her (1
being the lowest
grade), hardly narrow.
The next suggestion to
teachers is that the
students be asked how
Einstein and Marić’s
research continued,
with the unjustified
assumption that they
worked together on
Einstein’s theoretical
investigations. The
students are asked to
stop the DVD after
viewing a section at
the end of which
several sentences
from various letters of
Einstein’s are quoted
in which he refers to
“our” work and so on.
As Stachel has shown
in painstaking detail,
Einstein’s occasional
use of inclusive
language on such
occasions indicates no
more than that he had
come to think of their
future life together as
a joint project of
which his researches
were his
contribution.[25] And
it should be kept in
mind that Einstein
and Marić read
physics books
together, as well as
working together on
subject matter
relating to their
studies and to their
diploma dissertations,
which were both on
thermal conductivity;
also that Marić was
engaged in
investigations herself
in this period – those
required for her
dissertations that
were part of the
diploma examinations
that she attempted
twice.
The Lesson reports
that, following her
failure in her diploma
exam in 1900, Marić
“studies to retake her
exams and study for a
Ph.D. and she is
offered a position with
a notable professor
[Weber] over
Albert...Mileva
continues her
research in the
Professor’s
laboratory”.
There is much that is
omitted here.
Einstein’s failure to be
offered a post as
assistant was almost
certainly a
consequence of the
bad relationship he
had with Professor
Weber at the
Polytechnic. As for the
offer of a position to
Marić, her friend
Helene Kaufler wrote
to her [Kaufler’s]
mother on 14 July
1900 that Marić was
“offered an
assistantship” (which
must have been
conditional on her
obtaining the
diploma), but “she did
not wish to accept it”,
preferring to apply for
a position as librarian
at the
Polytechnic.[26] The
information in the
Lesson that “Mileva
continues her
research in the
Professor’s
laboratory” gives the
impression that this is
extra-curricular work,
whereas the research
she was doing in
Weber’s laboratory
was actually for her
diploma
dissertation.[27]
The Lesson now
alludes to subject
matter in the letters
“that makes us think
they were discussing
and sharing ideas”,
but make no mention
of the fact that,
whereas Einstein’s are
frequently full of his
ideas on the physics
he is working on,
there is not one of
Marić’s that contains
any of her own ideas
on these topics. Her
comments on her own
work solely concern
her Polytechnic
studies and
dissertation project.
Among the “Learning
Activities” that follow
students are asked to
“Describe [Mileva’s’]
research”. One
wonders how the
students can be
expected to answer
this, given that all the
information we have
concerning Marić’s
specific scientific
activities is contained
in the letters, and the
only research of hers
that is mentioned
there pertains to her
Polytechnic diploma
dissertations. Any
other suggestions
relating to Einstein’s
published work can
only be speculation,
without a single
document of Marić’s
to support it.
Among the “Cross
Curricular” activities
at the end of this
Lesson, students of
English are invited to
write an essay
contrasting the
information they find
elsewhere to the
information in the
Einstein’s Wife
documentary and
companion website,
and to explain why
there are
discrepancies.
However, when we
turn to the
recommended books
in the Resources link,
out of the eight books
cited only one is by a
physicist who has
knowledge of the
physics material in
question, and he
makes no attempt at a
comprehensive
examination of the
claims for Marić’s
collaboration (Holton,
1996). Holton does
cite a fuller
examination of the
claims, published in
1996, but this is
notable for its
omission from the
Resources booklist:
Stachel, J. (1996),
“Albert Einstein and
Mileva Marić: A
Collaboration that
Failed to Develop”,
reprinted in Stachel
(2002), pp. 39-55.
(See note 8.) Critiques
of claims made in
“Einstein’s Wife” and
the accompanying
PBS website have
been published by
John Stachel and
Alberto Martínez, and
teachers and students
are strongly advised to
read these before
assuming that they
can rely on the
material with which
they have been
presented. [See
Stachel (2005),
Martínez (2005),
details note 16 and
Bibliography.]
Lesson 2: Two
Women of Science
Misleading material
continues to be
presented to the
students in abundance
in Lesson 2. We are
told that two women
“broke through the
male-dominated
academic world to
study physics at the
highest levels.” One of
these is Marie Curie,
and, supposedly, the
other is Mileva Marić
Einstein. The website
asserts as if it were an
established fact that
Marić “collaborated
with Albert Einstein
for years as a student
and then as his wife”,
despite the absence of
a single document by
her that shows that
she contributed to any
of his published work.
The information
provided is if anything
even more egregiously
misleading than what
has gone before on
this website. Students
are asked to replay
extracts from the
DVD, the teacher is
then provided with
leading questions to
ask, and then supplied
with the requisite
‘information’ to
supply to the students
lest they fail to give
the ‘right’ answer. For
example, they are told
to note the “Einstein’s
Wife” documentary
stating that when
Marić came back from
Heidelberg in 1898
“she brought back
more than herself to
Albert Einstein”, at
which point they are
told: “They published
some early works
together and
conducted research
together. They shared
information through
their writing. She
brought back
information that
served as part of the
foundation of
quantum mechanics.”
There is not the
slightest evidence that
any of Einstein’s early
publications were co-
authored by Marić
(and letters of Marić’s
to Helene Kaufler
indicate that they
were not). The
statement that Marić
brought back from
Heidelberg University
information that
served as the
foundation of
quantum mechanics is
ignorant nonsense, as
has been shown in the
passage concerning
Lenard above. The
implication of the
statement about “the
foundation of
quantum mechanics”
is that this is a
reference to the fact
that Lenard was one
of Marić’s lecturers at
Heidelberg University
(in 1897), and that a
few years later Lenard
published results of
experiments on the
photoelectric effect.
One of Einstein’s 1905
papers explained the
theoretical basis of
Lenard’s results in
revolutionary terms,
using the notion of
light quanta
introduced tentatively
by Planck in another
context in 1900. There
is no possibility that
anything Marić might
have told Einstein
about her lessons in
relatively elementary
physics in that early
period of her time at
University level bears
any relationship to
Einstein’s later work.
That this is presented
here as factual
information is a
measure of the
massive ignorance of
the writers of the
material on the
website about physics
matters.
Later in the material
the students are led to
replay the wholly
misleading section in
“Einstein’s Wife”
concerning the
supposed joint
signatures of Einstein
and Marić on the 1905
papers, and told to
stop the documentary
at the point where
they see a document
in Russian and hear,
“Why was Mileva’s
name removed when
the papers were
published?” As shown
above, the claim about
the Russian document
is completely false.
Moreover, as Stachel
has pointed out, the
alleged chicanery
would involve rather
more than the
removal of Marić’s
name; all first person
plural pronouns in the
three papers would
have had to have been
changed to first
person singular
pronouns. In the
absence of any
evidence, the
implication that Max
Planck and other
eminent editors
of Annalen der
Physik were party to
such machinations is
absurd, as well as
being an outrageous
slur on their integrity.
At this point the
teachers are told:
“Discuss with students
their own opinion
about Mileva. She had
the education and the
ability to conduct the
research. They worked
closely together for
years, but she is not
always listed on the
papers.”
Only people entirely
ignorant of the nature
of Einstein’s 1905
papers could write
that someone who had
twice failed her
teaching diploma
exam, with especially
poor marks in the
mathematics
component, and for
whom there is not a
single document
indicating work of her
own on advanced
physics, “had the
education and ability
to conduct the
research”. By such
criteria many
thousands of
graduates, let alone
failed graduates, could
have matched
Einstein’s
achievements. For
non-physicists it is
virtually impossible to
conceive of the
prodigious nature of
Einstein’s
achievements in 1905.
These achievements
and those that
followed, would,
within a decade,
propel him to the
upper echelons of
theoretical physicists,
and then on to pre-
eminence amongst
them, widely regarded
by physicists as
worthy to be ranked
alongside Newton.
People like Senta
Troemel-Ploetz (1990)
seem to think that
because Marić spent
four years on a course
for teaching
mathematics and
physics in secondary
schools she “had the
education” to enable
her to make
contributions to
Einstein's theoretical
work. But Einstein
had been interested in
ideas at the
contemporary borders
of physics since he
was sixteen (when he
wrote an essay “on the
state of the ether in a
magnetic field”), and
by his early twenties
was already dealing
with an
extraordinarily
elevated level of
physics.
Note the way that the
notion that Einstein
and Marić “worked
closely together” on
his physics theories is
presented as a fact,
and that the statement
that Marić was not
“always” listed on the
papers subtly implies
that the (erroneous)
story about her being
co-author of the 1905
papers is also
historical fact.
The Lesson jumps to
the couple’s
separation and
eventual acrimonious
divorce in 1919,
highlighting claims by
Evan Harris Walker in
the documentary that
Einstein kept secret
that proceeds from
any future Nobel Prize
award would go to
Marić and their sons.
Teachers are told to
ask their students “to
predict why he would
have agreed to give up
that money”, and to
ask “Why would he
have then tried to hide
it?”. Now in the
documentary Walker
provides no evidence
that this was in fact
the case, and none of
the numerous
Einstein biographies
has made this
allegation.
Characteristically, it is
credulously accepted
here, and used to
imply that Einstein
would want to keep it
secret because it
would indicate that
Marić made
contributions to the
1905 papers. The idea
that Einstein, who had
a good salary in
Berlin, was prepared
to agree to the
condition Marić
received the proceeds
of a future Nobel Prize
in order to overcome
her resistance to
divorce is not
presented as a
possible explanation.
As throughout the
PBS Lessons, only one
interpretation,
however unsupported
by evidence, is
allowed for teachers
and students, that
being the one that
takes as given the
partisan view of
events being
promoted by the
documentary and the
PBS website material.
At this point students
are told to go to the
PBS website and vote
on the question “Did
Mileva Help?” So
having provided
teachers and students
with a one-sided view
of the issue, replete
with misconceptions
and misinformation,
there is a pretence
that students are now
registering a view
based on a thorough
investigation of the
evidence. Such a
procedure is closer to
brainwashing than to
disinterested
educational practice.
Lesson 3: Society’s
Expectation of
Women
The misinformation
characteristic of much
of the PBS website
material is,
unsurprisingly, also
found in Lesson 3. In
the brief “Overview”
that introduces the
Lesson students are
told: “Mileva Einstein-
Marić was, in many
ways, a pioneering
woman in the world of
physics. She and her
husband, Albert
Einstein, studied and
contributed to the
then developing field
of Quantum Physics.”
Reiterating what has
already been stated,
there is not a single
document by Marić to
support the
contention that she
contributed to
Einstein’s theories,
least of all to his 1905
paper on the
photoelectric effect in
1905. It was in that
paper that Einstein
extended Planck’s
concept of light
quanta in a way that
was revolutionary.
There was no
“developing field of
Quantum Physics” at
the time. That only
followed as
a consequence of
Einstein’s paper.
Most of this third
Lesson is devoted to
general issues relating
to women in society,
and Marić’s
experiences as
presented through the
distorting lens of the
“Einstein’s Wife”
documentary is used
as an example for
study. Within this
section students are
told things which
illustrate the
ignorance of the
writers concerning the
subject matter. For
instance, they are told
that the lecturer at
Heidelberg University
that “she studied
with” (i.e., whose
lectures she attended
for one semester in
1897-1998), was “a
pioneer in quantum
physics”. This is
completely erroneous.
The lecturer in
question, Lenard, was
an experimental
physicist whose most
notable achievements
were the results he
obtained investigating
cathode rays and,
around 1900, on the
photoelectric effect.
He was not a pioneer
in quantum physics.
The erroneous
information
concerning Lenard is
then compounded
when we are told that
after Marić returned
from Zurich “she and
Albert focused on
studying the more
cutting edge physics
that she had learned
with Lennard [sic],
and they began
skipping classes.” The
scientific ignorance of
the writer of this
material is again on
display in the absurd
contention that Marić
had learned “cutting
edge physics” from
Lenard when she
attended his lectures
in Heidelberg at the
beginning of her
second year of study.
Moreover, while she
engaged with some of
Einstein’s extra-
curricular interests
when they studied
together, there is no
evidence that Marić
neglected her
Polytechnic studies to
do so, nor that she
began skipping
classes. As already
noted, there is not one
surviving letter to
Einstein during her
time at the
Polytechnic that
contains any ideas of
Marić’s. On the
contrary, although
Einstein’s letters
frequently display his
excitement over extra-
curricular physics
projects he is working
on, apart from brief
references to her
Polytechnic studies,
Marić’s letters are
almost entirely about
personal matters,
even those which are
in direct response to
letters of Einstein
enthusing about a
topic in physics.
The teachers are told
that students will
answer the following
questions: “What was
the outcome of
Mileva’s exams? How
did Albert perform on
these exams? What
happened to each of
their exam grades?”
The information on
this then spelled out
for the benefit of the
teachers is that “they
both failed their
exams” but “Albert’s
grades were rounded
up to a passing mark
and Mileva’s grades
were not.” As already
noted, this is
completely false. (To
reiterate, Einstein had
an overall grade of
4.91 out of 6 (lowest
grade 1), around 78%.
Marić’s grade was
some 18% below this.)
It is entirely in
character that the
final item of alleged
factual information in
the third of the PBS
Lesson plans is as
grossly misleading as
most of the rest of the
material on the PBS
website.

For a more detailed

examination of the
claims about Mileva
Marić,
see: http://www.ester
son.org/milevamaric.
htm

March 2006

* Update July 2006:

With the release of a

new batch of Einstein
correspondence
twenty years after the
death of Margot
Einstein, Einstein’s
step-daughter, new
information about the
Nobel Prize money
became available.
Associated Press
reported information
provided by Barbara
Wolff, an archivist at
the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem's
Einstein Archives, as
follows:

The letters also

provide the full story
of Einstein's prize
money for the 1921
Nobel prize in physics.
Under the terms of his
divorce from Mileva,
the entire sum was
have been deposited
in a Swiss bank
account, and Mileva
was to draw on the
interest for her and
the couple's two sons,
Hans Albert and
Eduard.

It's been known for

some time that there
was a problem with
Einstein's discharge of
the agreement, but the
details weren't clear.
The new
correspondence shows
he invested most of it
in the U.S., where
much of it was lost in
the Great Depression.
This caused great
friction with Mileva,
who felt betrayed
because he didn't
deposit the entire sum
as agreed, and
repeatedly had to ask
him for money, Wolff
said.

Ultimately, however,
he paid her more
money than he
received with the
prize, she added.

Contrary to the claims

on the PBS “Einstein’s
Wife” website, it was
Einstein who
suggested that his
future Nobel Prize
money should go to
Marić, as is evident
from a letter (31
January 1918) in
which he made this
proposal among other
financial inducements
in order “to do
everything to make
this step [a divorce]
possible” (Collected
Papers Volume
8 [Eng. trans. A. M.
Hentschel], 1998, p.
456). (In fact the
capital was to be held
in safe-keeping in
Switzerland for their
children, with the
interest going to
Marić.)

Allen
Esterson’s website.
Brian,
D. (1996). Einstein: A
Life. New York: Wiley.
Clark,
R. (1971). Einstein:
The Life and Times.
New York: World
Publishing Company.
Danin, D.
S. (1962) Neizbezhnos
t strannogo mira.
Moscow: Molodaia
Gvardia,
Gosudarstvenaaja
Biblioteka SSSR.
Einstein, A. The
Collected Papers of
Albert
Einstein. Princeton U
niversity Press.
Einstein, A. “On the
Investigation of the
State of the Ether in a
Magnetic Field.”
In The Collected
Papers of Albert
Einstein, Vol.
1(English translation).
A. Beck (translator)
and P. Havas
(Consultant),
Princeton University
Press, 1987.
Einstein, A. (1949).
“Autobiographical
Notes.” In Albert
Einstein:
Philosopher-Scientist,
ed. P. A. Schilpp,
Evanston, Ill.: Library
of Living
Philosophers, Inc.
Einstein, A. (1956
[1954]).
“Autobiographische
Skizze.” In C. Seelig
(ed.), Helle Zeit –
Dunkle Zeit: In
memoriam Albert
Einstein, Zurich:
Europa Verlag, 1956.
Einstein, E. R.
(1991). Hans Albert
Einstein:
Reminiscences of His
Life and Our Life
Together. University
of Iowa, 1991.
Esterson,
A. (2006). Mileva
Marić: Einstein’s
Wife.
Esterson,
A. (2006). Who Did
Einstein’s
Mathematics: A
Response to Troemel-
Ploetz.
Frank,
P. (1948). Einstein:
His Life and Times.
London: Jonathan
Cape.
Fölsing, A. (1990).
“Keine ‘Mutter der
Relativitätstheorie’.”
Die Zeit, Nr. 47, 16
November 1990. (See
English
translation here.)
Fölsing, A.
(1997). Albert
Einstein. (Trans. by E.
Osers.) New York:
Penguin Books.
Highfield, R. and
Carter, P.
(1993). The Private
Lives of Albert
Einstein. London:
Faber and Faber.
Hoffman, B. and
Dukas,
H. (1973). Albert
Einstein, Creator and
Rebel. London:
Granada.
Holton, G.
(2000). Einstein,
History, and Other
Passions: The
Rebellion Against
Science at the End of
the Twentieth
Century. Harvard
University Press.
Joffe, A. F. (1955).
Pamiati Alberta
Einsteina. Uspekhi
fizicheskikh nauk, 57
(2), 187.
Joffe, A. F. (1967).
2nd
edn. Begegnungen
mit Physikern.
Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner. Translation
from the original
(1962) Vstrechi s
fizikami moi
vospominaniia o
zarubezhnykh fizikah.
Moskow:
Gosudarstvenoye
Idatelstvo Fiziko-
Matematitsheskoi
Literatury.
Krstić, D.
(1991). Appendix. In
Elizabeth R.
Einstein, Hans Albert
Einstein:
Reminiscences of His
Life and Our Life
Together, University
of Iowa, 1991, pp. 85-
99.
Martínez, A. A.
(2004). "Arguing
About Einstein's
Wife". Physics World,
April 2004.
Martínez, A. A.
(2005). Handling
Evidence in History:
The Case of Einstein’s
Wife. School Science
Review, March 2005,
86 (316).
Michelmore, P.
(1963). Einstein:
Profile of the
Man. London:
Frederick Muller.
Overbye, D.
(2000). Einstein in
Love: A Scientific
Romance. New York:
Penguin Books.
Pais, A.
(1982). Subtle is the
Lord: The Science and
the Life of Albert
Einstein. Oxford
University Press.
Pais, A.
(1994). Einstein Lived
Here. Oxford
University Press.
Popović, M.
(2003). In Albert's
Shadow The Life and
Letters of Mileva
Marić, Einstein’s First
Wife. Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Pycior, H. M.,
Slack, N. G., and
Abir-Am, P.
G. (eds.)
(1996). Creative
Couples in the
Sciences. Rutgers
University Press.
Renn, J. and
Schulmann, R.
(eds.) (1992). Albert
Einstein and Mileva
Maric: The Love
Letters. Trans. by S.
Smith. Princeton
University Press.
Seelig, C.
(1956). Albert
Einstein: A
Documentary
Biography. London:
Staples Press.
Solovine, M. and
Einstein, A.
(1987). Albert
Einstein: Letters to
Solovine. New York:
Philosophical Library.
(Originally published
in French: Lettres à
Maurice
Solovine. Paris:
Gauthier-Villars,
1956.)
Stachel, J. (1989).
Letter, Physics Today,
February 1989, pp. 11-
13.
Stachel, J. (1996).
“Albert Einstein and
Mileva Marić: A
Collaboration that
Failed to Develop.” In
H. M. Pycior, N. G.
Slack, and P. G. Abir-
Am (eds.), Creative
Couples in the
Sciences, Rutgers
University
Press. Reprinted in
Stachel, J.
(2002), Einstein from
‘B’ to ‘Z’,
Boston/Basel/Berlin:
Birkhauser, pp. 39–
55.
Stachel, J.
(2002). Einstein from
‘B’ to
‘Z’. Boston/Basel/
Berlin: Birkhäuser.
Stachel, J. (ed.)
(2005). Einstein’s
Miraculous Year:
Five Papers That
Changed the Face of
Physics. Princeton
University Press.
Talmey, M. (1932).
“The Relativity Theory
Simplified And the
Formative Period of
its Inventor.” New
York: Falcon Press.
Trbuhović-Gjurić,
D. (1983). Im
Schatten Albert
Einsteins: Das
tragische Leben der
Mileva Einstein-
Marić. Bern: Paul
Haupt. (The German
language edition is an
edited version of the
book by Trbuhović-
Gjurić originally
published in Serbo-
Croat in Yugoslavia in
1969.)
Trbuhović-Gjurić,
D. (1991). Mileva
Einstein: Une
Vie (French
translation of Im
Schatten Albert
Einsteins: Das
tragische Leben der
Mileva Einstein-
Marić). Paris:
Antoinette Fouque.
Troemel-Ploetz, S.
(1990). “Mileva
Einstein-Marić: The
Woman Who Did
Einstein’s
Mathematics.” Wome
n’s Studies
International Forum,
Vol. 13, No. 5, p. 419.
Walker, E. H.
Letter, Physics Today,
February 1989, pp. 9-
11.
Walker, E. H.
Letter, Physics Today,
February 1991, pp.
122-123.

NOTES

[1] Einstein, A. (1956

[1954]). “Autobiograp
hische Skizze.” In C.
Seelig (ed.), Helle Zeit
– Dunkle Zeit: In
memoriam Albert
Einstein, Zurich, 1956.
[See also Trbuhović-
Gjurić, D. (1983), p.
47; Trbuhović-Gjurić,
D. (1991), p. 55.]
[2] For example:
Frank, P.
(1948). Einstein: His
Life and Times.
London: Jonathan
Cape; Seelig, C.
(1956). Albert
Einstein: A
Documentary
Biography. London:
Staples Press;
Michelmore, P.
(1962). Einstein:
Profile of the
Man. New York:
Dodd, Mead & Co.;
Clark, R.
(1971). Einstein: The
Life and Times. New
York: World
Publishing Company;
Hoffman, B. and
Dukas, H.
(1973). Albert
Einstein, Creator and
Rebel, London:
Granada.
[3] Holton, G.
(2000). Einstein,
History, and Other
Passions. Harvard
University Press, pp.
174-175.
[4] Personal
communications from
John Stachel and
Robert Schulmann.
[5] Renn, J. and
Schulmann, R. (eds.)
(1992). Albert
Einstein and Mileva
Marić: The Love
Letters. Trans. by S.
Smith. Princeton
University Press, p.
32.
[6] Popović, M.
(2003). In Albert’s
Shadow The Life and
Letters of Mileva
Marić, Einstein’s First
Wife. Johns Hopkins
University Press, p.
83.
[7] The Collected
Papers of Albert
Einstein, Vol. 1, eds. J.
Stachel et al,
Princeton University
Press, 1987, p.
247; The Collected
Papers of Albert
Einstein, Vol.
1 (English
Translation). A. Beck
(translator) and P.
Havas (Consultant),
Princeton University
Press, 1987, pp. 140-
141.
[8] Stachel, J.
(2002). Einstein from
‘B’ to ‘Z’. Boston:
Birkhäuser, p. 32.
[9] Trbuhović-Gjurić,
D. (1983). Im
Schatten Albert
Einsteins: Das
tragische Leben der
Mileva Einstein-
Marić. Bern: Paul
Haupt, p. 75; French
edition: Trbuhović-
Gjurić, D.
(1991), Mileva
Einstein: Une
Vie (trans. from the
German by N.
Casanova). Paris:
Antoinette Fouque, p.
105. (The German
language edition is an
edited version of the
book by Trbuhović-
Gjurić originally
published in Serbo-
Croat in Yugoslavia in
1969.)
[10] Popović (2003),
p. 88.
[11] Popović (2003),
pp. 60-61.
[12] Collected Papers
Vol. 1 (English trans.
A. Beck and P. Havas,
1987), p. 128.
[13] Collected Papers
Vol. 5 (English trans.
A. Beck and D.
Howard, 1993), p. 115.
[14] Collected Papers
Vol. 1 (Stachel et al,
1987), p. 247; CP1 Vol.
1 (Beck & Havas,
1987), pp. 140-141.
[15] Pais
(1982), Subtle is the
Lord: The Science and
Life of Albert
Einstein, Oxford
University Press, pp.
55-107.
[16] Martínez, A. A.
(2005). Handling
Evidence in History:
The Case of Einstein’s
Wife.
 School Science
Review, March 2005,
86 (316), pp. 51-52;
Stachel, J (ed.)
(2005), Einstein’s
Miraculous Year:
Five Papers That
Changed the Face of
Physics. Princeton
University Press, pp.
liv-lxiii.
[17] Martínez (2005),
pp. 51-52; another
translation is given in
Stachel (2005), p. lvi.
[18] See also Martínez
(2004).
[19] Stachel (2002),
pp. 27-28, 33-36.
[20] Popović (2003),
pp. 70, 88.
[21] Highfield, R. and
Carter, P. (1993). The
Private Lives of
Albert Einstein.
London: Faber and
Faber, p. 50.
[22] Renn &
Schulmann (1992),
pp. 3-4.
[23] Renn &
Schulmann (1992),
pp. 4-5.
[24] Renn &
Schulmann (1992), p.
4.
[25] Stachel (2002),
pp. 26-38.
[26] Popović (2003),
pp. 60-61.
[27] Popović (2003),
p. 60.

... ... ... ...

What I'm Reading: The Other Einstein,
Marie Benedict
Share

Published: December 12, 2017

Author: Stacy A. Nyikos ’90

Watching National Geographic’s period drama, Genius, which in its first season told the story
of Albert Einstein, held a fascinating surprise for me: his first wife, Mileva Maric. She, too,
was a talented physicist. So when I came across a historical novel about her, The Other
Einstein by Marie Benedict, I jumped on the opportunity to learn more.

Halfway through the book, though, I began to feel uneasy. By the end, I was in an all-out
battle with the boundaries of truth-stretching. In part, the difficulty is a reflection of my
struggle with today’s political climate. Truth has always been a tenuous commodity in
politics, but its value currently seems to be at an all-time low. Fortunately, one of literature’s
great perks is that it enables me to grapple with hard issues in a less stressful setting than
politics.
First, the premise:

The Other Einstein, a story told through letters, begins as Maric travels from her home in
Serbia to study at the university in Zurich, Switzerland, where she soon meets fellow physics
student Einstein. They fall in love and have an affair; she gets pregnant, flunks her exams —
twice — and never completes her doctoral degree. Eventually Einstein and Maric get married
and raise two sons while reshaping the entire field of physics — and drifting apart. The novel
ends with the couple’s divorce.

Some of Maric’s struggles are ones I’ve experienced firsthand. I completed my Ph.D., albeit
in political science, and during the year I finished and defended my thesis, I had my first
child, albeit while married — but after being warned by a male member of my dissertation
committee not to get pregnant. Maric’s story resonated on so many levels. I wanted to know
all of it.

However, many of the facts about her life are lost in the folds of history. Researchers aren’t
sure what happened to the couple’s first child — a daughter named Lieserl, who disappears
from the records within two years of her birth. We also don’t know what role Maric played in
Einstein’s academic work. Some biographers posit she was at least a collaborator; others
suggest she was the mathematical brains behind his theories, including the theory of special
relativity.

Think about that for a moment. Einstein is credited with the first coherent explanation of
how, in the words of science writer Elizabeth Howell, “space and time are linked for objects
moving at a constant speed in a straight line”; how, as an object approaches the speed of light
its mass becomes infinite and is unable to surpass light.

This is mind-bending stuff. Einstein’s theory revolutionized physics.

In The Other Einstein, the couple collaborate, but the idea is Maric’s. However, because
Einstein has the academic title and Maric doesn’t, he takes the credit for the work, including
— in 1921 — the resulting Nobel Prize in Physics. Maric gets nothing.

Benedict states in her afterword that there is no proof Maric played any role in Einstein’s
research, but that as a novelist she chose to take the imaginable to its limits, suggesting
Einstein stole Maric’s ideas. It’s a hefty fabrication that left me struggling with a host of
questions:
1. Is the fabrication really necessary? Maric’s story is already fraught with all sorts of
disaster. For example, the real Einstein was unfaithful. When the marriage was in dire straits,
he created a cruel list of demands that would have turned Maric into his servant, and then he
divorced her to marry his cousin. Some researchers claim to have police reports showing he
beat Maric (a facet Benedict includes in her story).

It’s a bona fide, juicy non-fiction scandal. But by taking it one step beyond established facts,
Benedict’s Einstein goes from mere louse to predatory thief.

2. What effect does the fabrication have on popular grasp of facts? The Other
Einstein may be the only thing many people will read about Mileva Maric, and it skews what
we do know, badly.

Some may argue this is not a big deal. After all, this is historical fiction, not politics. Yet, if
we tolerate bastardized facts here, why not there? Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert,
described in a recent Wall Street Journal commentary how President Trump’s truth-
stretching tweets “make us think past the sale”: Without even realizing it, we take whatever
he says as fact because we are already wondering about the consequences.

For example, Adams writes, “When Candidate Trump said he would make Mexico pay for
the wall, he was making us think past the sale. If you’re thinking about who is paying for the
wall, you’ve already imagined the wall existing. And that makes it easier to convince you
it should exist.”

I’ve imagined an Albert Einstein who stole one of science’s greatest achievements. It’s an
unsettling possibility. Unsettling possibilities may inspire us to do great things, such as
rectify past wrongs. When they don’t reflect truth, however, they can also cause great harm.
Much like an accused person who is ultimately acquitted, the tarnish of the accusation never
quite goes away. It haunts the person.

3. What responsibility do we have to truth? Truthfulness is a nearly impossible ideal to

live up to. We’ve almost all told a white lie or two. But most of us set boundaries. As an
academic, if I made my data lie, I’d have lost my credibility as a researcher. As a writer, I’d
argue it’s not much different.

Yet we tolerate a lot of truth-stretching these days. Can we blame a writer who takes that
tolerance and runs with it? Is that kind of free-play with facts a symptom or a cause of our
larger problems with truth? Does it really matter?
The fact that we’re seeing such truth-stretching far and wide presents an opportunity to
amend the trend, to choose truth-telling, not truth-stretching. Truth, it is said, is stranger than
fiction. Imagine the places we could go.

Stacy Nyikos is the author of many award-winning books for children. She is currently
working on a young adult science fiction novel that is a loose retelling of the story of Moses
set on a drowning planet. For more information about the author and her books, visit her
website.

Posted In: Society & Culture, Science & Technology, and Alumni Blogs

The magazine welcomes comments, but we do ask that they be on topic and
civil. Read our full comment policy.

... ... ... ...

SUBSCRIBE
Scientific American

 English




 Cart 0
 Sign In| Register
Search

 THE SCIENCES

 MIND

 HEALTH
  TECH

 SUSTAINABILITY

 EDUCATION

 VIDEO

 PODCASTS

 BLOGS

 STORE

Guest Blog

The Forgotten Life of Einstein's

First Wife
She was a physicist, too—and there is evidence that she contributed significantly to his
groundbreaking science
 By Pauline Gagnon on December 19, 2016
 Véalo en español

Milena Marić Ein stein and husband, 1912. Credit: ETH Zurich Archives (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Today, 19 December, marks the 141th anniversary of the birth of Mileva Marić Einstein. But who remembers this brilliant
scientist? While her husband, Albert Einstein is celebrated as perhaps the best physicist of the 20 th century, one question
about his career remains: How much did his first wife contribute to his groundbreaking science? While nobody has been
able to credit her with any specific part of his work, their letters and numerous testimonies presented in the books
dedicated to her(1-5) provide substantial evidence on how they collaborated from the time they met in 1896 up to their
separation in 1914. They depict a couple united by a shared passion for physics, music and for each other. So here is
their story.

Mileva Marić was born in Titel in Serbia in 1875. Her parents, Marija Ruzić and Miloš Marić, a wealthy and respected
member of his community, had two other children: Zorka and Miloš Jr. Mileva attended high school the last year girls
were admitted in Serbia. In 1892, her father obtained the authorization of the Minister of Education to allow her to
attend physics lectures reserved to boys. She completed her high school in Zurich in 1894 and her family then moved to
Novi Sad. Mileva’s classmates described her as brilliant but not talkative. She liked to get to the bottom of things, was
perseverant and worked towards her goals.

Albert Einstein was born in Ulm in Germany in 1879 and had one sister Maja. His father, Hermann, was an industrial.
His mother, Pauline Koch came from a rich family. Albert was inquisitive, bohemian and rebel. Being undisciplined, he
hated the rigor of German schools so he too finished his high school in Switzerland and his family relocated to Milan.
ADVERTISEMENT

Albert and Mileva were admitted to the physics-mathematics section of the Polytechnic Institute in Zurich (now ETH) in
1896 with three other students: Marcel Grossmann, Louis Kollros and Jakob Ehrat. Albert and Mileva became
inseparable, spending countless hours studying together. He attended only a few lectures, preferring to study at home.
Mileva was methodical and organized. She helped him channel his energy and guided his studies as we learn from
Albert’s letters, exchanged between 1899-1903 during school holidays: 43 letters from Albert to Mileva have been
preserved but only 10 of hers remain(5). These letters provide a first-hand account on how they interacted at the time.
In August 1899, Albert wrote to Mileva: “When I read Helmholtz for the first time, it seemed so odd that you were not
at my side and today, this is not getting better. I find the work we do together very good, healing and also
easier.” Then on 2 October 1899, he wrote from Milan: “… the climate here does not suit me at all, and while I miss
work, I find myself filled with dark thoughts – in other words, I miss having you nearby to kindly keep me in check
and prevent me from meandering”.
Mileva boarded in a pension for women where she met her life-long friends Helene Kaufler-Savić and Milana Bota. Both
spoke of Albert’s continuous presence at Mileva’s place, where he would come freely to borrow books in Mileva’s
absence. Milan Popović, Helene’s grandson, published the letters Mileva exchanged with her throughout her life(4).

By the end of their classes in 1900, Mileva and Albert had similar grades (4.7 and 4.6, respectively) except in applied
physics where she got the top mark of 5 but he, only 1. She excelled at experimental work while he did not. But at the
oral exam, Professor Minkowski gave 11 out of 12 to the four male students but only 5 to Mileva. Only Albert got his
degree.
Meanwhile, Albert’s family strongly opposed their relationship. His mother was adamant. “By the time you’re 30, she’ll
already be an old hag!” as Albert reported to Mileva in a letter dated 27 July 1900, as well as « She cannot enter a
respectable family ”. Mileva was neither Jewish, nor German. She had a limp and was too intellectual in his mother’s
opinion, not to mention prejudices against foreign people. Moreover, Albert’s father insisted his son found work before
getting married.
ADVERTISEMENT

In September 1900, Albert wrote to Mileva: “I look forward to resume our new common work. You must now continue
with your research – how proud I will be to have a doctor for my spouse when I’ll only be an ordinary man.“ They
both came back to Zurich in October 1900 to start their thesis work. The other three students all received assistant
positions at the Institute, but Albert did not. He suspected that professor Weber was blocking him. Without a job, he
refused to marry her. They made ends meet by giving private lessons and “continue[d] to live and work as before.“ as
Mileva wrote to her friend Helene Savić.
On 13 December 1900, they submitted a first article on capillarity signed only under Albert’s name. Nevertheless, both
referred to this article in letters as their common article. Mileva wrote to Helene Savić on 20 December 1900. “We will
send a private copy to Boltzmann to see what he thinks and I hope he will answer us.” Likewise, Albert wrote to Mileva
on 4 April 1901, saying that his friend Michele Besso “visited his uncle on my behalf, Prof. Jung, one of the most
influential physicists in Italy and gave him a copy of our article.”
The decision to publish only under his name seems to have been taken jointly. Why? Radmila Milentijević, a former
history professor at City College in New York, published in 2015 Mileva’s most comprehensive biography (1). She suggests
that Mileva probably wanted to help Albert make a name for himself, such that he could find a job and marry her. Dord
Krstić, a former physics professor at Ljubljana University, spent 50 years researching Mileva’s life. In his well-
documented book(2), he suggests that given the prevalent bias against women at the time, a publication co-signed with a
woman might have carried less weight.
We will never know. But nobody made it clearer than Albert Einstein himself that they collaborated on special relativity
when he wrote to Mileva on 27 March 1901: “How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have
brought our work on relative motion to a victorious conclusion.”

Then Mileva’s destiny changed abruptly. She became pregnant after a lovers’ escapade in Lake Como. Unemployed,
Albert would still not marry her. With this uncertain future, Mileva took her second and last attempt at the oral exam in
July 1901. This time, Prof. Weber, whom Albert suspected of blocking his career, failed her. Forced to abandon her
studies, she went back to Serbia, but came back briefly to Zurich to try to persuade Albert to marry her. She gave birth to
a girl named Liserl in January 1902. No one knows what happened to her. She was probably given to adoption. No birth
or death certificates were ever found.
ADVERTISEMENT

Earlier in December 1901, their classmate Marcel Grossman’s father intervened to get Albert a post at the Patent Office
in Bern. He started work in June 1902. In October, before dying, his father granted him his permission to marry. Albert
and Mileva married on 6 January 1903. Albert worked 8 hours a day, 6 days a week at the Patent Office while

Mileva assumed the domestic tasks. In the evenings, they worked together, sometimes late in the night. Both mentioned
this to friends, he to Hans Wohlwend, she to Helene Savić on 20 March 1903 where she expressed how sorry she was to
see Albert working so hard at the office. On 14 May 1904, their son Hans-Albert was born.
Despite this, 1905 is now known as Albert’s “miracle year”: he published five articles: one on the photoelectric effect
(which led to the 1921 Nobel Prize), two on Brownian motion, one on special relativity and the famous E = mc2. He also
commented on 21 scientific papers for a fee and submitted his thesis on the dimensions of molecules. Much later, Albert
told R. S. Shankland(6) that relativity had been his life for seven years and the photoelectric effect, for five years. Peter
Michelmore, one of his biographers(7), wrote that after having spent five weeks to complete the article containing the
basis of special relativity, Albert “went to bed for two weeks. Mileva checked the article again and again, and then
mailed it”. Exhausted, the couple made the first of three visits to Serbia where they met numerous relatives and friends,
whose testimonies provide a wealth of information on how Albert and Mileva collaborated.
Mileva’s brother, Miloš Jr, a person known for his integrity, stayed on several occasions with the Einstein family while
studying medicine in Paris. Krstić(2) wrote: “[Miloš] described how during the evenings and at night, when silence fell
upon the town, the young married couple would sit together at the table and at the light of a kerosene lantern, they
would work together on physics problems. Miloš Jr. spoke of how they calculated, wrote, read and debated.” Krstić
heard this directly from relatives of Mileva, Sidonija Gajin and Sofija Galić Golubović.

Zarko Marić, a cousin of Mileva’s father, lived in the countryside property where the Einsteins stayed during their visit.
He told Krstić how Mileva calculated, wrote and worked with Albert. The couple often sat in the garden to discuss
physics. Harmony and mutual respect prevailed.
ADVERTISEMENT

Gajin and Zarko Marić also reported hearing from Mileva’s father that during the Einstein’s visit to Novi Sad in 1905,
Mileva confided to him: “Before our departure, we finished an important scientific work which will make my husband
known around the world.” Krstić got this same information in 1961 from Mileva’s cousin, Sofija Galić Golubović, who
was present when Mileva said it to her father.
Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić published Mileva’s first biography in Serbian in 1969(3). It later appeared in German and
French. She described how Mileva’s brother often hosted gatherings of young intellectuals at his place. During one of
these evenings, Albert would have declared: “I need my wife. She solves for me all my mathematical problems”,
something Mileva is said to have confirmed.
In 1908, the couple constructed with Conrad Habicht an ultra-sensitive voltmeter. Trbuhović-Gjurić attributes this
experimental work to Mileva and Conrad, and wrote: “When they were both satisfied, they left to Albert the task of
describing the apparatus, since he was a patent expert.” It was registered under the Einstein-Habicht patent. When
Habicht questioned Mileva’s choice not to include her name, she replied making a pun in German: “Warum? Wir beide
sind nur ein Stein.“ (“Why? The two of us are but one stone”, meaning, we are one entity).
The first recognition came in 1908. Albert gave unpaid lectures in Bern, then was offered his first academic position in
Zurich in 1909. Mileva was still assisting him. Eight pages of Albert’s first lecture notes are in her handwriting. So is a
letter drafted in 1910 in reply to Max Planck who had sought Albert’s opinion. Both documents are kept in the Albert
Einstein Archives (AEA) in Jerusalem. On 3 September 1909, Mileva confided to Helene Savić: “He is now regarded as
the best of the German-speaking physicists, and they give him a lot of honours. I am very happy for his success,
because he fully deserves it; I only hope and wish that fame does not have a harmful effect on his humanity.” Later, she
added: “With all this fame, he has little time for his wife. […] What is there to say, with notoriety, one gets the pearl,
the other the shell.”
Their second son, Eduard, was born on 28 July 1910. Up to 1911, Albert still sent affectionate postcards to Mileva. But in
1912, he started an affair with his cousin, Elsa Löwenthal while visiting his family who had moved to Berlin. They
maintained a secret correspondence over two years. Elsa kept 21 of his letters, now in the Collected Papers of Albert
Einstein. During this period, Albert held various faculty positions first in Prague, back in Zurich and finally in Berlin in
1914 to be closer to Elsa.
ADVERTISEMENT

This caused their marriage’s collapse. Mileva moved back to Zurich with her two sons on 29 July 1914. In 1919, she
agreed to divorce, with a clause stating that if Albert ever received the Nobel Prize, she would get the money. When she
did, she bought two small apartment buildings and lived poorly from their income. Her son, Eduard stayed frequently in
a sanatorium. He later developed schizophrenia and was eventually internalised. Due to these medical expenses, Mileva
struggled financially all her life and eventually lost both buildings. She survived by giving private lessons and on the
alimony Albert sent, albeit irregularly.
In 1925, Albert wrote in his will that the Nobel Prize money was his sons’ inheritance. Mileva strongly objected, stating
the money was hers and considered revealing her contributions to his work. Radmila Milentijević quote from a letter
Albert sent her on 24 October 1925 (AEA 75-364). ”You made me laugh when you started threatening me with your
recollections. Have you ever considered, even just for a second, that nobody would ever pay attention to your says if
the man you talked about had not accomplished something important. When someone is completely insignificant,
there is nothing else to say to this person but to remain modest and silent. This is what I advise you to do.”
Mileva remained silent but her friend Milana Bota told a Serbian newspaper in 1929 that they should talk to Mileva to
find out about the genesis of special relativity, since she was directly involved. On 13 June 1929, Mileva wrote to Helene
Savić: ”Such publications in newspapers do not suit my nature at all, but I believe that all that was for Milana’s joy,
and that she probably thought that this would also be a joy for me, as I can only suppose that she wanted to help me
receive some public rights with regard to Einstein. She has written to me in that way, and I let it be accepted that way,
for otherwise the whole thing would be nonsense.”
According to Krstić(2), Mileva spoke of her contributions to her mother and sister. She also wrote to her godparents
explaining how she had always collaborated with Albert and how he had ruined her life, but asked them to destroy the
letter. Her son, Hans-Albert, told Krstić(2) how his parents’ “scientific collaboration continued into their marriage, and
that he remembered seeing [them] work together in the evenings at the same table.” Hans-Albert’s first wife, Frieda,
tried to publish the letters Mileva and Albert had sent to their sons but was blocked in court by the Einstein’s Estate
Executors, Helen Dukas and Otto Nathan in an attempt to preserve the “Einstein’s myth”. They prevented other
publications, including one from Krstić(2) on his early findings in 1974. Krstić mentions that Nathan even “visited”
Mileva’s apartment after her death in 1948. On July 1947, Albert wrote to Dr Karl Zürcher, his divorce lawyer: “When
Mileva will no longer be there, I’ll be able to die in peace.”
Their letters and the numerous testimonies show that Mileva Marić and Albert Einstein collaborated closely from their
school days up to 1914. Albert referred to it repeatedly in his letters, like when he wrote: « our work on relative motion”.
Their union was based on love and mutual respect, which allowed them together to produce such uncommon work. She
was the first person to recognize his talent. Without her, he would never have succeeded. She abandoned her own
aspirations, happy to work with him and contribute to his success, feeling they were one unique entity. Once started, the
process of signing their work under his unique name became impossible to reverse. She probably agreed to it since her
own happiness depended on his success. Why did Mileva remain silent? Being reserved and self-effaced, she did not
seek honors or public attention. And as is always the case in close collaborations, the individual contributions are nearly
impossible to disentangle.
References:
(1) Radmila Milentijević: Mileva Marić Einstein: Life with Albert Einstein, United World Press, 2015.
(2) Dord Krstić: Mileva & Albert Einstein: Their Love and Scientific Collaboration, Didakta, 2004.
(3) Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić Mileva Marić Einstein: In Albert Einstein’s shadow): in Serbian, 1969, German,
1982, and French, 1991.
(4) Milan Popović: In Albert’s Shadow, the Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein’s First Wife, The John Hopkins
University Press, 2003.
(5) Renn and Schulmann, Albert Einstein / Mileva Marić, The Love Letters, Princeton University Press, 1992.
(6) Peter Michelmore, Einstein, Profile of the Man, Dodd, Mead & Company, 1962.
(7) R.S. Shankland, Conversation with Albert Einstein, Am. J. of Physics, 1962.
The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
Rights & Permissions
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Pauline Gagnon
Pauline Gagnon is a physicist and author of "Who Cares about Particle Physics: Making Sense of the Higgs boson, the Large Hadron Collider and CERN",
Oxford University Press, 2016.

... ... ... ...

Albert Einstein Imposes on His First Wife a

Cruel List of Marital Demands
in Letters, Physics, Science | December 30th, 2013 65 Comments

15.3kSHARES

FacebookTwitterReddit
Advertisement

Albert Einstein passionately wooed his first wife Mileva Maric, against his family’s wishes, and the two had a turbulent but intellectually rich
relationship that they recorded for posterity in their letters. Einstein and Maric’s love letters have inspired the short film above, My Little Witch (in
Serbian, I believe, with English subtitles) and several critical re-evaluations of Einstein’s life and Maric's influence on his early thought. Some
historians have even suggested that Maric---who was also trained in physics---made contributions to Einstein’s early work, a claim hotly
disputed and, it seems, poorly substantiated.

The letters---written between 1897 and 1903 and only discovered in 1987---reveal a wealth of previously unknown detail about Maric and the
marriage. While the controversy over Maric's influence on Einstein's theories raged among academics and viewers of PBS’s controversial
documentary, Einstein’s Wife, a scandalous personal item in the letters got much better press. As Einstein and Mileva’s relationship deteriorated, and
they attempted to scotch tape it together for the sake of their children, the avuncular pacifist wrote a chilling list of “conditions,” in outline form, that
his wife must accept upon his return. Lists of Note transcribes them from Walter Isaacson’s biography Einstein: His Life and Universe:

CONDITIONS

A. You will make sure:

1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;

2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.

B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons. Specifically, You will forego:

1. my sitting at home with you;

2. my going out or travelling with you.

C. You will obey the following points in your relations with me:

1. you will not expect any intimacy from me, nor will you reproach me in any way;
2. you will stop talking to me if I request it;
3. you will leave my bedroom or study immediately without protest if I request it.

D. You will undertake not to belittle me in front of our children, either through words or behavior.

While it may be unfair to judge anyone’s total character by its most glaring defects, there’s no way to read this without shuddering. Although Einstein
tried to preserve the marriage, once they separated for good, he did not lament Mileva's loss for long. Manjit Kumar tells us in Quantum: Einstein
Bohr, and the Great Debate about the Nature of Reality that although “Mileva agreed to his demands and Einstein returned”
 [I]t could not last. At the end of July, after just three months in Berlin, Mileva and the boys went back to Zurich. As he stood on the platform waving
goodbye, Einstein wept, if not for Mileva and the memories of what had been, then for his two departing sons. But within a matter of weeks he was
happily enjoying living alone “in my large apartment in undiminished tranquility.”

Einstein prized his solitude greatly. Another remark shows his difficulty with personal relationships. While he eventually fell in love with his cousin
Elsa and finally divorced Mavic to marry her in 1919, that marriage too was troubled. Elsa died in 1936 soon after the couple moved to the U.S. Not
long after her death, Einstein would write, “I have gotten used extremely well to life here. I live like a bear in my den…. This bearishness has been
further enhanced by the death of my woman comrade, who was better with other people than I am."

Einstein’s personal failings might pass by without much comment if had not, like his hero Gandhi, been elevated to the status of a “secular
saint." Yet, it is also the personal inconsistencies, the weaknesses and petty, even incredibly callous moments, that make so many famous figures'
lives compelling, if also confusing. As Einstein scholar John Stachel says, “Too much of an idol was made of Einstein. He’s not an idol—he’s a
human, and that’s much more interesting.”

Related Content:

Listen as Albert Einstein Reads ‘The Common Language of Science’ (1941)

The Musical Mind of Albert Einstein: Great Physicist, Amateur Violinist and Devotee of Mozart

Einstein Documentary Offers A Revealing Portrait of the Great 20th Century Scientist

Albert Einstein Expresses His Admiration for Mahatma Gandhi, in Letter and Audio

Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Durham, NC. Follow him at @jdmagness

15.3kSHARES

FacebookTwitterReddit
by Josh Jones | Permalink | Comments (65) |

Comments (65)

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

 Jan Heilig says:

December 30, 2013 at 10:01 am

It is true that Einstein was just a human, equal to us, and making idols out of people can only be decceived by a closer look. But there is a hint in his
letters that he was not exactly like most of us: What he demands – his list, that sounds very unfair or selfish to our ears sounds very different to
people with Asperger or any other form of Autism. Many of them could make a similar list. In fact, it sounds like someone trying to find order at
any price as well as beeing undisturbed and protected from external “triggers” – disturbances that overloads their low tolerance to support every
social relations to the “outer world”. If ever you may have the chance to read about the marriage behaviour of someone with an Asperger diagnosis
you will find their way of live similar to the one Einstein asks for, but the reasons are not selfish, they are a way of survival for someone with lacks
in his social abilities while in other areas Apspergers may show surprising high talents – like the one of Einstein.

This list was new to me, but it supports in my eyes very well the hypothesis of Einstein beeing one with an Aspergian syndrom…what of course can
never be proved with 100% evidence, but there ar a lot of hints for it. This list is just another one.

Reply

 CGANDY says:
December 30, 2013 at 9:00 pm

I agree completely with Jan Heilig. I have four on the spectrum and have some Asperger tendencies myself. I can understand why he wrote them(his
list of terms). Yes it may seem harsh to some, but with what I have seen and lived with. I understand and respect it, as well as his ability to self
advocate for his needs. The difference in his life and mine is we adjust to it a bit better, and more socially at my house but we also have an
understanding that if one of us needs to be totally isolated for a time that is sacred space.

Reply

 Angelina Love says:

December 31, 2013 at 1:13 am
 Cruel List? He was the Man and he had his quirks BIG DEAL!!! I do not see this list or demands as cruel at all!!Give me a break!!!

Reply

 Dr. Debabrata Chakrabarti says:

December 31, 2013 at 1:32 am

The relation between the two has been specifically related in the biography of Moriz Winternitz by his son Georg Winternitz. See the publication
aection of my website http://www.grieb.org/debu and click: Biography Moriz Winternitz (English, PDF, 330kB) p. 7-9 but particularly the
following lines:
“Einstein lived in Prague with his wife Mileva, neé Mariè (1875-1948) and their two sons,
Hans Albert and Eduard, born in 1904 and 1910 respectively. Mileva was a Greek Orthodox Serbian whose parents lived in a small town in what
was then Hungary later now Yugoslavia. She had become acquainted with Einstein in Zurich. Their participation in studies of the same subject soon
led to a tender attachment, which resulted to their marriage in 1903. It struck me even at that time that Einstein frequently spent entire Sunday
afternoons in our company without his wife or children even once. I came to know much later, however, that his marriage did not turn out to be a
happy one. They lived apart from 1914 onwards. The marriage was officially dissolved in 1919 before Einstein wedded for the second time. I think I
understand today to what circumstances we children owed our acquaintance with Einstein. In the company of his colleague’s harmonious family he
obviously got his hard-earned relaxation through music and delightful conversation. In his later years he also liked to spend his hours of
convalescence with his colleagues or friends and their families. His own family life was bound in great sorrow, and it was fortunate that his efforts
were totally absorbed in an extraordinary interest in research. At times he could only find joy in nature, in music, and in unconstrained conversation
with good friends.”

Reply

 Caren Epstein says:

December 31, 2013 at 7:20 am

As a high school teacher, I have had at least one autistic student each academic year. Several of my autistic students have the Asperger’s variety of
autism. Yes, they have a lot of difficulty functioning “properly” with other people, but my experience with Asperger’s kids has been mostly quite
positive. By the time they reach high school, most of them have learned how to live with the condition. And as an academic, I can tell you that not
one of my Asperger’s kids has had an IQ of any less than 135. So perhaps their innate intelligence helps them to compensate for what skills they
lack socially. Einstein’s list looks, to me, like a survival guide — he knew what his triggers were and he was at least partially successful at steering
clear of them. And what did we, as a society, get in return? The most brilliant scientist/mathematician in human history. We, as a society, benefited
tremendously from Einstein’s presence on our planet. Bravo!!!

Reply

 Hanoch says:
December 31, 2013 at 8:02 am

I don’t see anything compelling or confusing about this. It seems Einstein’s Conditions (particularly B & C) provide excellent evidence in favor of
the proposition that reason and intellect, no matter how great, do not inexorably lead to morality.

Reply

 Cindy says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:14 pm

Different time/place. But men were usually a-holes to their wives back then.

Reply

 Cindy says:
December 31, 2013 at 12:20 pm

…and of course the men here will excuse and rationalize all this, entirely. But if this were Madame Curie with all these demands, oooo! “Bitch!
Bitch!” Yeah, I can just hear it. Men sure don’t like their faults being called out; women are supposed to endlessly endure being faulted however.

Reply

 Freeman says:
December 31, 2013 at 4:32 pm
 Einstein’s “conditions” for a attempted reconciliation with Mileva sound most like a recognition of a relationship where the two participants were
wholly unmatched in their needs for intimacy. It also reveals that NEITHER of the participants were fully able to come to terms with the others
needs. But there is nothing in this that addresses “morality” in any sense.

Reply

 Mike Johnson says:

December 31, 2013 at 7:25 pm

So what happened to Einstein’s son after he took off for the USA?

Reply

 E. Kraft says:
December 31, 2013 at 8:35 pm

My question is the same as Mike Johnson what happened to his two son’s?

Reply

 katydid41 says:
January 1, 2014 at 1:55 am

Einstein divorced his 1st wife AFTER she explained and proved the theory of relativity to him. He then published it and took full credit for it.

He never matched that accomplishment again.

Just another example of male “entitlement” in action… steal what you can from a woman and find a way to blame her for everything. Boys club
rules.

Reply

 Marlene says:
January 1, 2014 at 2:49 pm

I read this book years ago and found it extremely interesting, especially the chapter on Mileva Maric and Einstein. It supports what katydid41 is
saying about the Theory of Relativity.

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Wife-Marriage-Lives-
Twentieth-Century/dp/0140159932/ref=sr_sp-atf_image_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388615976&sr=1-1&keywords=Einstein%27s+wife

By the way, I don’t think that we can conclude anything about Einstein’s having Asperger’s based on the material given here. Certainly his love
letters to Mileva show a good deal of feeling, which would counter that diagnosis. I believe more material and more thought needs to go into
understanding his character.

Reply

 Marlene says:
January 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm

The link did not take so here’s the info on the book. It is –

Einstein’s Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women by Andrea Gabor

Reply

 Iris says:
February 27, 2014 at 6:18 am

In response to Marlene; a diagnosis of Aspergers and the ability to demonstrate in writing ‘a good deal of feeling’ are not incompatible. People with
Aspergers have rich emotional lives; the difficulties lie not in being able to feel positive emotions, but in being able to act upon them.
 Reply

 Karsus says:
April 30, 2014 at 8:53 am

That list looks like “conditions to have me come back, despite the fact that we’re not getting along – for the sake of our children”

… Sounds fair.

Reply

 Nichole says:
January 27, 2015 at 8:07 pm

Even if he did fall on the autistic spectrum it does not erase the fact that his letter is basically demands for his wife (who at that point didn’t even get
along with) to serve him. Now it can be argued that it is a type of “autism survival guide”, however having your wife fold and do you laundry/ make
and serve diner to you in your room (like some god, ha!) is misogynistic and is not seeing ones wife as an equal but as some sort of slave(even if the
marriage was crumbling he should not have a list of demands for his wife to follow like a employee/slave). Smart as he may be in some areas, it
seems as though he lacked in the basic understanding of gender equality. A flawed human for sure.

Reply

 Karen says:
June 21, 2015 at 4:01 am

Does his writings on love, as the quintessential force of the universe, fit with the profile of aspergers?

Reply

 Ibrahim says:
August 10, 2015 at 11:24 am

excuse me but….what is the problem with these requirements ???

In my country, these are just some basic rules…mouah ah ah !!!

Reply

 L says:
August 13, 2015 at 7:16 am

Ibrahim : the problem with these requirements is that they turn women into low status little respected servants who produce poorly educate
unsensitive brats like yourself.

Reply

 L says:
August 13, 2015 at 7:28 am

there is no reason to belive he was asperger, or if he was, he was not very much. He went along well and was charming to people at parties as has
been reported multiple times.
If he was asperger, it was slightly, not to the point of being completely incapacitated by any noise or stimulus.
Those that have asperger to the point of being unable to tolerate stimulus are unable to express rich emotional lives, unlike what some suggest. It
takes a moderate asperger to be able to express yourself like that.
He seems like someone who wanted to have a lot of time for himself and that did not consider he had much time to owe to his wife and family.
It sounds much more as though he did not get along well with his wife, valued his intellectual life more, and wanted to have the least possible
amount of contact with his family, than it souns that he was unable to have contact with people.
Asperger or not, it is cruel to be with someone that does not ever want to go out or spend time with you, and married with someone who does not
want intimacy.
Considering it was just some sort of patch on a marriage that didnt work, just to make it work for the kids it seems, it is somewhat understandable,
except for the part about being served three times a day, which is over the top yet normal at the time. His intelligence did not make him see beyond
the social conventions of the time in what regards gender roles it seems.
The fact people say there is no problem at all with a marriage including those demands, since he is a genius, really does show how entitled society
accepts male genius to be, especially in their relationship with women. People would not be so understanding with curie, as has been said.
This tendance to not want to admit any hard or darker trait in a genius just because overall his impact on earth is positive, really shows a way of
thinking that seems to me dangerous.
 It is obvious from this that he did not value his wife very much and wanted to spend the least amount of time with her and have the least possible
amount of obligations towards his whole family. If they were in very bad terms, once again some of it can be understood, but brushing it away as
him being a nice chap cause overall he did good to earth bewilders me.

Reply

 L says:
August 13, 2015 at 7:34 am

basically what caren epstein says is

— he was successful at steering clear of what bothered him by having pretty harsh demands on a woman and only bothering a woman – while in
exchange he provided the world first rate science ; so bravo, no problem there.

Reply

 PacificSage says:
September 30, 2015 at 4:43 pm

“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”

I’ve always know this quote, but in response to the fact that Einstein was flawed & not a perfect idol, It dawned on me it’s application:

Small minds idolize people

Average minds idolize events
Great minds idolize ideas.

Reply

 Dave says:
November 6, 2015 at 11:54 am

Please do not try to speak for me, you do it badly.

Reply

 OTOH-rama says:
January 19, 2016 at 10:06 am

And of course Albert is the villain in this script.

Does no one ask what behavior in Maric prompted Albert to ask he not be verbally abused of belittled in front of the children?

And what an awful man he must have been to feel the need to put in writing that his wife no longer “reproach” him.

Reply

 Carol says:
January 31, 2016 at 4:00 pm

Perhaps a different lens by which we can consider the list and the man who wrote it…
To a scientific intelligence which seeks to describe and predict, the list is a tool almost akin to an algorithm or heuristic. It could be Einsteins
attempt to solve a complex social and marital problem by defining a solution in terms acceptable to him. No room for potentially divergent
discussions or explorations of causes and dimensions of the problem- just an attempted solution.
We can critique the shortcomings of the list for signs of self interest,differential entitlement,or evidence of Asbergers, and it is not hard to identify,
but the list was clearly intended to act as a formula to allow the family to continue living together. What misery must have necessitated such a
proposal? I recall all too well marriage to a brilliant person and raising children within the shadow of bizarre neglect caused by Asbergers

Reply

 patricia_m says:
March 21, 2016 at 5:06 am

how odd to realize that some women find it ok to receive a list of what to do and not do in their marriage :)
 Reply

 patricia_m says:
March 21, 2016 at 5:17 am

is it because we’re talking about a genius that no one dares saying that he seemed to want a distant presence and a slave rather than a wife? “don’t
expect any intimacy” is just as disturbing as “you will give me intimacy every time I will want it”… I’m not sure I get all the asperger comments
when the article says that he didn’t lament when they separated, asperger or not he didn’t seem to care much about her, it does sound as simple as
that…

Reply

 Lons says:
April 17, 2016 at 7:15 pm

Why didn’t he get to keep his boys

Reply

 Frida Bagel says:

April 23, 2016 at 7:29 pm

Talk about blaming the victim! I was raised in a house where it was always said that there are two sides to every story. Well there aren’t always two
sides two every story. She is not responsible for him being a d**k. If he didn’t want to continue the relationship he had options, which he later
exercised. Being cruel is never warranted. We should not have any tolerance for it no matter how exalted the person is. We, as a society have no
control over the behavior of an individual. We do, however have a choice of deciding what we find acceptable. It is by that, that a society should be
judged.

Reply

 Tamara says:
May 6, 2016 at 12:52 pm

I believe that Mileva was a toxic personality (NPD) and Albert was simply setting strong boundaries with her. He appears to have “married his
mother”, as unaware victims often do. He broke down with PTSD after the divorce.

Reply

 Tamara says:
May 6, 2016 at 12:55 pm

Galileo, Kepler, and Newton suffered similarly. Survivors find good things happen to them when they break away and achieve No Contact.

Reply

 John says:
May 21, 2016 at 4:08 am

I must confess that over here in the United States it is very difficult to get a powerful spell caster that will be able to restore broken marriages or
relationships, But through the help of the internet i was able to get in touch with this powerful spell caster called High priest tokubo after reading a
lot of good reviews about him on the internet so i contact him through his details bellow And after i told him about my relationship stress then high
priest tokubo told me to calm down that my lover will come back to apologies to me for leaving me, I never taught that this was going to be
possible, Just within 48 hours that i contacted high priest tokubo my lover sent me and an sms text saying that i should forgive him and before i
knew it he was already at my place begging me to accept him back. you can connect him on: (((( highpriesttokubo @ gmail . com ))))

Reply

 Ca Dozo says:
June 9, 2016 at 11:26 am

He went on to other recognition. His Nobel Prize was not for the Theory of Relativity.

Reply
 Jeff Mcneill says:
September 14, 2016 at 5:49 pm

It is so very sad that people are willing to guess and to judge without knowing the context. Apparently the letter was written to convince the wife to
agree to a divorce. She was adamantly against it, and so what you see are a set of impossible conditions. She agreed shortly thereafter. That Einstein
was serious or that this was a literal request is merely a conclusion that people with no imagination jump to. Everyone who wants to self-satisfyingly
diagnose asperger’s or misogyny are certainly no psychiatrists.

Reply

 Sarah Vaughter says:

April 24, 2017 at 11:19 am

You call Einstein immorral because he gave his wife, who had made his life a living hell, a second chance on behalf of their children and merely
asked her to keep contact to a minimum? Asking her not to publicly humiliate him in front of his own children, something she had done many times
before, “immoral”??

Reply

 Mj says:
April 26, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Please do not try to speak for me; you do it badly.

Sorry, just had to correct comma punctuation use.

Reply

 Einstein Hater says:

May 12, 2017 at 2:51 pm

@Angelina Love, how can you say that?! Einstein forced his first wife to put her son up for adoption, he cheated on her, and that list is so insulting
to his wife, I mean, he expected his wife to do his laundry, expected her to make him lunch, breakfast, and dinner. He also expected her to wait on
him hand and foot, I mean, clean his study! Stop talking when he says to, leave the room if he says to, that is very insulting, he treats his wife as if
she is a slave with those requests. Also, his theory of relativity was both his and his first wives theory. And he gave her no credit at all.

Reply

 Salva says:
June 6, 2017 at 5:35 pm

I just arrived to the same conclusion after watching Genius, recently released by National Geographic. Quite clear, many elements pointing to that. I
believe he also did not expect Mileva to agree to those conditions, conceding him the divorce. Of course the toxic person would be reticent to lose
his/her supply, so she agreed with them than losing him.

Reply

 jo says:
June 11, 2017 at 12:30 am

I feel that his mother and his cousin made that list for Albert in hopes his wife would give him the divorce.

Reply

 Jo says:
June 11, 2017 at 12:48 am

If his 1st wife would have been given the chance to study with Albert things would have been different his

mother wouldn’t support that she wanted to domisticate her she had a brilliant mind Albert fell in love with it they could relate the other women
couldn’t and were jealous.
I don’t think Albert found that ever again what does that tell us he saved their love letters to the end.
 Reply

 Orsi says:
June 11, 2017 at 1:00 pm

Albert, his older son went to the US, while Eduard his younger son stayed in Zurich with his mom and eventually got internalised to Burgholzli
hospital because of his mental problems.

Reply

 Marcia McElligott says:

June 12, 2017 at 12:57 pm

I have lived this life. All of these demands were made in me.
I refused. I settled in for
THE LONG WAIT. it took my husband many years to leave. His room was a horror. I had to sleep on a sofa 5yrs.When we divorced,he
photographed his own
Pig pen and blamed me. This was in 2009.Our custody suit was decided by jury. Nine men, 3 women. I lost. He beat our son and lost custody. My
ex.was a classical musician, very Aspergers. I loved him but he was unfair, unfeeling. I survived. My son survived. The
Ex.struggles with relationships.

Reply

 Vern says:
June 27, 2017 at 9:04 pm

“He’s not an idol—he’s a human, and that’s much more interesting.”

Is “Genius” accurate in his portrayal? If so, then Einstein was a poor excuse for a human. “Interesting” does not justify his cruelty and coldness to
his wife.

Reply

 jino says:
July 29, 2017 at 5:01 am

Everything is fine she may have contributed to his theory.but we cant deny the fact 80 percentage of the science we know today is contributed by
men. Even if she contributed to him it dosnt take away the fact science is almost entirely made by men .so you cant say woman is more intelligent
than men.you can also not say men is intelligent than women.both hav equal intelligences.and why does we hav to worry about if mileva didnt have
any problem with it.she didnt even for once said she helped him.so the theory is solely by einstein.

Reply

 Joan Denise Wanner says:

August 9, 2017 at 3:58 am

Einstein was a jewish man. He did as expected.He sucks the life intelligence and beauty from his surroundings, than claims them as his own. Marie
Curie, I am sure eould agree.

Reply

 Sharon Sampson says:

October 8, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Any genius has a price to pay. Always a down side. Maleva was a woman during a time when men spent inordinate energy to control women and
look THE MAN. Sick. She was brilliant and I have to say from what little I’ve learned about the Einsteins tells me strongly that it was Maleva who
inspired and triggered some of the most relevant theories we know today that we attribute to Einstein. Two beautiful boys. And Einstein left this
beautiful brilliant mother of his two sons for his corpulent cousin? My first impression from this is that Einstein was a very threatened male.
Especially with this list he presented to his…perfect mate and her subjugated duties…she wanted to go with him to talks and society promotions.
She was forced to act stupid and worthless while he took credit for HER ideas. Who knows who will ever know for sure what the dynamics of the
Einsteins were! I am just showing another possible version.

Reply
 me says:
January 18, 2018 at 10:12 pm

Laughable feminist lie

Reply

 me says:
January 18, 2018 at 10:16 pm

Curie is the best feminists can come up with yet discovering radium she failed to discover it was dangerous even as she died of it. If that’s genius
then women have a long way to go

Reply

 Randy Dowdy says:

January 21, 2018 at 5:50 pm

He was a man with an extremely low level of testosterone, so he wasn’t very interested in pu$$y. As far as his list of demands, they were quite
justifiable during that era. Of course they would be extreme now, but now doesn’t count when it comes to then.

Reply

 Gurlie says:
February 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm

what Valid Proof do you have of this?

Reply

 Gurlie says:
February 25, 2018 at 12:30 pm

he was 1/2 jewish and 1/2 german. whats your excuse now….

Reply

 Murt says:
March 3, 2018 at 4:44 am

He was clearly trying to isolate himself from the type of constant harping criticism that you are displaying here.
Sometimes, for the sake of our own sanity, we have to say shut up.

Reply

 outsiderart says:
March 14, 2018 at 10:22 pm

List is taken out of context.

Read the biographies. (Or even just the link provided to “Lists of Note.”)
Truncated version: Einstein wanted a divorce. Maric wouldn’t agree. (Ergo the “return” referenced.) List created to force the issue. It worked — five
months later Maric moved out, taking the kids with her. And five years later she agreed to the divorce.

Reply

 Frederique says:
April 13, 2018 at 12:31 am

I wondered this. Then again the 3 meal a day requirement is a bit disturbing.

Reply
 Lucas Gutierrez says:
June 1, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Albert Einstein did not impose these rules on his wife. He did so to get out of a failing marriage since the wife declined the divorce. In order to
break the marriage and prevent Albert and his wife from going crazy, he created a very intolerable and terrible list so she can accept the divorce.
Anyone who believes this list is actually fair should probably go seek actual help….there is something wrong with you.

As for the creator of this post, don’t word your titles so wrongly.

Reply

 Robert says:
June 22, 2018 at 6:11 pm

Go back to the period that this so called contract was wrote. This is more common of a mind set amongst Americans , than you might think.

Reply

 Nuno Costa says:

July 4, 2018 at 2:19 pm

All this innuendos… Einstein wanted to divorce Mileva didn’t so he created this list to force her to divorce…

Reply

 Lily says:
July 7, 2018 at 6:33 am

L…..you are spot on!

I applaude your response to Ibrahim

Reply

 Clare G says:
July 12, 2018 at 6:49 pm

I did not want divorce because i love my husband very much and i dont want my family to break apart. I suspected the woman use a spell to tie my
husband so he cannot return to his family. I was searching for tips on how to win my husband back and i come across a comment which says Dr
Mack helped her to recover her husband back after several months of breakup and i took the email of Dr Mack that was present on the comment and
emailed him about my problem and he replied back to me and help me to recover my husband back within two days and right now my husband is
back with me and he is even more loving than before.

if you want to restore your relationship Type (Dr.Mack the love spell caster) on the net and see for yourself what he has done for people

i am very happy to testify of his good work. 😘

Reply

 Jonathan says:
August 12, 2018 at 9:34 pm

I can say that I read the letter without shuddering. I think many people can say the same. He wanted to divorce her but she did not want to. He was
just trying to get her to divorce from a loveless marriage so he can go with the one he loved. So sad to see this article. Hundred years since it
happened and people are still trying to judge or demonize the man. His first wife seemed very smart, but hysterical. No man deserves a crazy
woman. I give kuddos to Albert for the letter. Honesty about how one feels is only something to admire. Deceit and lies are the only sin.

Reply

 Ura Liar says:

August 19, 2018 at 12:02 am
 Jonathan:

“No man deserves a crazy woman”

Most women are crazy because men made us that way. And yet, when *we* initiate the divorce proceedings, in order to escape our Master
Tormentor, we are the subject of much hatred & ridicule. We are told that we are “tearing a family apart for petty & selfish reasons”, but when a
man wants the divorce… oh, that is quite different. Dirty hypocrites.

“Honesty about how one feels is only something to admire”

Women aren’t allowed to be honest, nor is it admired when we dare to speak the truth (as I am doing right now). The reaction from men is, at best,
being called a “bitch”, and at worst, a threat of physical violence.

Reply

 Ura Liar says:

August 19, 2018 at 12:16 am

Not really surprised by all of this. As a general rule, men cannot feel good about themselves unless they are degrading, humiliating and/or
mistreating women. A woman would be dubbed as a card-carrying feminazi, had she composed a similar list of demands. That should tell you all
you need to know.

Reply

 Moya says:
September 6, 2018 at 8:01 am

Einstein s biggest crime was copying the Irishman s Hamilton s theory of Relativity

Reply

 dbo says:
September 17, 2018 at 3:54 pm

Do you have any idea what you are saying. How ca you possibly believe that.

Reply

... ... ... ...

Slavica Bogdanovposted a screenplay

EINSTEIN'S WIFE. MILEVA MARIC, THE REAL BRAIN BEHIND EINSTEIN'S GENIUS
BY SLAVICA BOGDANOV

GENRE: BiographyLOGLINE:
Einstein wins the Nobel Prize using his wife's discoveries. Based on the life of Einstein's first
wife, Mileva Maric, this controversial dramatic biopic reveals the trials and tribulations of
this female physics prodigy who suffered from discrimination and Einstein's abuse.
SYNOPSIS:
At the turn of the 20th century, raised in a wealthy family, Mileva Matic is late for her first
day at the Munich Polytechnic. The only woman to ever be accepted, she feels the pressure to
succeed. She is driven and developed big goals and dreams.
 From traditional viewpoints, her father would love for her to be a normal woman, marrying
and raising kids. One eventually captures her reluctant heart, Albert Einstein. They invite him
home where a discussion takes place about the role of women and men. Men would destroy
themselves if women did not exist yet they will not allow women to shine in roles they have
decided to play in the world.
After a passionate night, she becomes pregnant which slows down her ability to learn. Taking
care of a baby jeopardizes her chances for success and a career in science. Her grades drop,
she fears not to be able to complete the semester. The unwed mother makes the most difficult
decision of her life. She reluctantly gives her daughter up for adoption.
Mileva successfully completes her exam and expects first prize. Yet, when the awards are
given, she only receives the second one due to her gender. Out of desperation, she agrees to
marry Einstein and becomes pregnant again. This child will be schizophrenic.
Albert Einstein tries to make ends meet by selling insurance but is much of a failure in that
field. He realizes that his wife is on to something big, which would significantly increase
their chances of fame and fortune. She develops a revolutionary idea and theory.
He picks ideas from her work and from their intellectual debates, writes a few articles that
boost his credibility as a scientist. Einstein convinces her to have him present her work. At
the same time, their intimate relationship being non existent as Mileva refuses to get pregnant
again, Einstein takes on a mistress.
Their lack of intimacy and fights about her recognition as a scientist leads to their divorce.
The first world war coincides their break up. Mileva feels the hardships of war profoundly
especially since she is stuck taking care of a schizophrenic child while her ex-husband
receives the Nobel Prize for her discovery, never publicly mentioning her name. Einstein
gives her all the money earned from the prize asking in exchange for her forgiveness.
The second world war digs an even large trench between the two as Einstein, visiting family
in the US, stays abroad, while Mileva has, once again to give up her child, this time, taken
forcefully by the Nazi's.
Einstein, without the love of his life, will go on developing dark theories of splitting atoms.
Mileva feels broken and will die thinking that her dream of becoming a famous scientist will
never be. Her death coincides with the explosion of the first atomic bomb.
1955, A woman runs out from Einstein's autopsy. A man runs after her and recognizes the
resemblance. Who can she be? Einstein's children have been known to have died. Liebka is
Einstein's first abandoned child. She feels the need to find the truth about her mother. By
reconnecting with Einstein's second wife who kept his letters to his first wife, she gains the
power to bring Mileva's truth and restore her legacy.

 ...

... .... ... ...

Home > Life & Culture > Television

 Einstein’s Theory of Relatives: A
Personal Look at the Man Behind
the Brain
The new TV series about the world's most famous physicist explores his stormy
relationships with women, his complex ties with his family and his battles as a Jew in
Nazi Germany

Neta Alexander SendSend me email alerts

Apr 27, 2017 4:01 AM

0comments Zen Subscribe now

 Shareshare on facebook

 Tweet

 send via email

 reddit

 stumbleupon
 “Genius” - directed by Ron Howard and staring Geoffrey Rush as Albert Einstein Screengrab

 8 Jewish factoids about Albert Einstein

 1939: Einstein makes his biggest mistake
 1916: Einstein's relativity theory is submitted for publication
In one of the opening scenes of the first episode of the new and star-studded television series “Genius,” directed by
Oscar-winning director Ron Howard (“A Beautiful Mind”), Albert Einstein (Geoffrey Rush) is caught with his pants
down.
The brilliant Jewish physicist, it turns out, had a stormy affair with his secretary, Betty Neumann (Charity Wakefield) in
the early 1920s, and in the above-mentioned scene he professes his love for her and suggests she move in with him.

Want to read more articles?

Email*

Sign up

I'd like to recieve emails on offers, appeals and commercial info

When she drily replies, “But you’re married,” Einstein erupts in a passionate speech against the institution of marriage
and explains to his love interest, who is about 20 years his junior, that monogamy is an invention and that he is opposed
to any type of authority.

The new series, which had its world premiere on Thursday as part of the Tribeca Festival in New York City and
premiered Tuesday on the National Geographic channel, tries to reveal “the man behind the brain.” Howard, who did a
wonderful job of telling the dramatic story of haunted mathematician John Nash in his successful 2001 film “A Beautiful
Mind,” told the New York audience that Einstein’s life story, which is full of vicissitudes, was more suited to a 10-hour
series than to a 90-minute film.

National Geographic, a channel that is not identified with Hollywood-style full-length features, decided to gamble on
“Genius” and has ordered a second season that will deal with another brilliant scientist whose name has not yet been
revealed.

skip - Genius - Trailer

Genius - Trailer

The broad scope of television and the generous budget enabled Howard to focus not only on the key moments in the life
of the most famous physicist in history, but also on his stormy relationships with women, his complex relations with his
family and his political battles as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

The first episode of “Genius” – which is based on Walter Isaacson’s comprehensive biography, “Einstein: His Life and
Universe” – jumps back and forth between the period when young Einstein (played by British actor Johnny Flynn) was a
student in Zurich in 1896, to his final years in Berlin before he was forced to flee Germany in the 1930s with the Nazi
rise to power.

The main difference between “Genius” and the many documentaries devoted to the brilliant scientist is that the series
tries to focus on Einstein’s life and his colorful personality, and not just his contribution to modern physics. As Rush
summed up so well in a discussion held at the conclusion of the screening: “We were more interested in the theory of
relatives than in the Theory of Relativity.”

Perfect casting choice

Rush, 65, who won an Oscar for his role as the pianist David Helfgot in the film “Shine” in 1996, is a perfect casting
choice for the role of the Jewish physicist who asks his students to close their eyes and imagine rays of light, in order to
try to explain to them (and to the viewers) the complex connections between space, time and matter.
“Genius” - directed by Ron HowardScreengrab

The first episode covers different periods and reveals various aspects of Einstein’s life: The distant attitude of his father
Herman, who abandoned his only child in Munich in 1895 and moved with his mother and his sister to Italy; young
Einstein’s total disdain for authority, which was reflected in dismissal of the need to memorize facts and a refusal to
study subjects other than mathematics or physics; the decision to give up his German citizenship at the age of 17,
claiming that nationalism is a childhood illness (which he derisively termed “humanity’s measles”); and his
disappointment after failing all the subjects – except physics and mathematics – in the entrance exams to the Zurich
Technological Institute.

After taking the entrance exams for the prestigious institution for the second time and being accepted to study in Zurich,
Einstein began to develop the Theory of Relativity. At the same time, the episode presents the main women in the life of
the Jewish genius: his first wife Mileva Maric (Samantha Colley), whom he met when the two of them were studying
physics in Zurich and his children; his second wife, Elsa Lowenthal (Emily Watson), who begged him to flee Germany
and to move to Princeton; and his first partner, a teacher named Marie (Shannon Tarbet), whose family adopted young
Einstein while he lived in Switzerland.

A man who hated authority

According to series producer Brian Grazer, who also produced “A Beautiful Mind” (as well as the prize-winning
television series “24” and “ Friday Night Lights “), “Einstein is an amazing figure because he opposed any type of
authority. He came out against the scientific, political and social establishment. Ron and I read the script by Noa Fink,
which is based on Isaacson’s excellent biography, and we both felt that there was material here for 10 hours. We wanted
to show the various pressures applied to him, and how he dealt with the far-reaching political changes in Germany and
in the United States.”

Flynn said he and Rush met in London in order to work together on playing the same character. "It was a complex and
amazing process to play with Einstein’s public persona and watch his speeches together," said Flynn. We didn’t want to
try to imitate him, but rather to understand who he was and how he behaved on a daily basis."

Rush added that he didn’t want to be an Einstein emoji - a superficial imitation of such a rich figure. "He had very
complex relations with his family and with the women in his life and lived in one of the stormiest periods in human
history," said Rush. "He really and truly believed in science and in the power of human intelligence to solve problems,
but in the end his life can be read as a Shakespearean tragedy because of his contribution to the development of the
atom bomb, which he regretted to his dying day."

Watson, who plays Elsa, said that her character and Einstein were cousins. But Watson thinks that people tended to
describe her as “the wife of” and downplayed her value. She actually made a decisive contribution to Einstein’s success,
says Watson. They married in 1919, shortly before Einstein became internationally famous after the confirmation of the
theory of relativity. She understood better than anyone the significance of this success and helped to shape her
husband’s public persona. Among other things, says Watson, she turned a blind eye to his affairs for years to prevent a
public scandal or damage to his reputation.

Indeed, the main innovation of the series, says Grazer, is the desire to shed a new light on Einstein’s women, and mainly
on Maric. According to Grazer the second episode is devoted almost entirely to the story of Maric, a brilliant young
woman of Serbian origin who was the only woman who studied physics with Einstein in Zurich. Grazer said he sought to
discover where this woman came from and why history has forgotten her contribution to science.

Samantha Colley, who plays Maric, added that the first time she was told about her she thought that Maric was a
fictional character, invented by the scriptwriter. As Colley learned more about her she was embarrassed by her mistake,
because she was a brilliant physicist who was treated unjustly. They were intellectually compatible, Colley notes, and
worked together on Einstein’s theories.

In the end she had a tragic life. She and Einstein had three children — their eldest daughter, Lieserl, died of an illness.
Colley said the series shows how each of them dealt differently with mourning. Their marriage turned miserable and
eventually fell apart.

Asked why they decided to begin the series with a scene in which Einstein is in bed with his lover, Howard replies that
Rush "told me that every good story must begin with sex or with a quarrel — and we didn’t want to start with a quarrel.
But the more serious answer is that Einstein really was a passionate man and we wanted to create a series that would be
faithful to the various aspects of his life, including his affection for women and his infidelity."

Despite the decision to devote an entire episode to Maric, it’s hard to ignore the fact that “Genius” follows in a long
tradition of popular cultural works that perpetuate the cliché of the “tormented genius” who can be forgiven this
emotional handicaps because of his contribution to science. “A Beautiful Mind” dealt with Nash’s schizophrenia and
“Shine” focused on the depression and breakdown of pianist Helfgot, while the films “The Theory of Everything,” (about
physicist Stephen Hawking) and “The Imitation Game,” (about Alan Turing) had similar plots.

What all these films have in common is that they feature a white man pursued by demons who is torn between his rare
talent and exceptional intellectual abilities and his emotional, physical or mental deficiencies. As his secretary,
Neumann, says to Einstein: "For an expert who knows everything about the universe, your knowledge of people is
amazingly limited."

Asked how one could avoid the Hollywood clichés about the tormented genius, producer Grazer said that he wasn’t at all
sure that the cliché was true in Einstein’s case. "It’s true that geniuses have a tendency to develop an obsession with a
certain field and sometimes that causes a kind of blindness," said Grazer. "They want to use their exceptional
intelligence to solve a riddle or make a scientific breakthrough. This might come at the expense of developing significant
relationships, but I'm not convinced it has to be that way."

As for the next season, Grazer said there were three or four subjects being discussed for the coming seasons, and one of
them is a brilliant woman.

Neta Alexander
Haaretz Contributor

Send me email alerts for new articles by Neta Alexander

Send me email alerts

You Might also Like

... ... ... ...

Episodes
Season 1: Einstein (2017)
US
No. No. in Directed Original air
Title Written by viewers
overall season by date
(millions)

Story by : Noah

Pink and Ken
"Chapter Ron
1 1 Biller April 25, 2017 1.38[1]
One" Howard
Teleplay by :
Noah Pink

As Antisemitism reaches a fever pitch in 1930s Germany, physicist Albert Einstein finds himself
forced to choose between emigrating to the United States or staying in solidarity with his fellow
academics. The struggle evokes memories of his days as a student at Zürich Polytechnic and his first
encounter with Mileva Marić, the woman who would become his first wife.

"Chapter Minkie Angelina

2 2 May 2, 2017 1.05[2]
Two" Spiro Burnett

After butting heads with Mileva Marić, the only female student in his class at Zürich Polytechnic, a
young Albert Einstein falls in love with this determined fellow student. While the passionate affair fans
the flames of their mutual curiosity and love of science, their reckless abandon doesn't go unnoticed
by Einstein's strict physics lecturer, Professor Weber.

"Chapter Minkie
3 3 Mark Lafferty May 9, 2017 1.02[3]
Three" Spiro

As a recent university graduate, Albert Einstein struggles to make ends meet while trying to land an
academic post in a scientific world rigid with tradition and protocol. After finally securing various
tutoring jobs, he moves one step closer to being able to provide for his pregnant wife, Mileva, when
tragedy strikes.

"Chapter Kevin
4 4 Noah Pink May 16, 2017 0.93[4]
Four" Hooks

While working at his day job at the Bern patent office, Albert Einstein burns the candle at both ends
supported by his new wife, writing four new scientific papers including the theory of special relativity,
in what will be considered his miracle year. One of his papers attracts the attention of the notable
theoretical physicist Max Planck.

"Chapter Kevin
5 5 Raf Green May 23, 2017 0.94[5]
Five" Hooks

With new teaching duties, Albert Einstein finally begins to experience the academic life he long
coveted as he develops his theory of general relativity. Enjoying his first taste of acclaim among the
most renowned scientific minds in Europe including Marie Curie, Einstein falters in his familial
responsibilities. His only relief comes from a visit to extended family, where he is introduced to his
cousin Elsa.
 "Chapter James
6 6 Brian Peterson May 30, 2017 1.02[6]
Six" Hawes

After moving his family to Berlin for work, and to be closer to his new love Elsa, Albert Einstein sets
out to prove his theory of general relativity. He enlists the help of an astronomer to photograph a
solar eclipse in Russia, but the expedition goes awry. Einstein's affair becomes less secret, and Elsa
forces an ultimatum: divorce Mileva or lose her forever.

"Chapter James
7 7 Kelly Souders June 6, 2017 1.06[7]
Seven" Hawes

Exhausted and worn out, Albert Einstein's attempt to make scientific history is put to the test as he
begins to experience health issues. Meanwhile, sweeping patriotism in the wake of the war has
corrupted one of his closest friends, Fritz Haber, pitting them against each other. In the German war
effort, Albert is the lone scientist to refuse the call to arms.

Angelina
"Chapter Burnett &
8 8 Ken Biller June 13, 2017 1.05[8]
Eight" Francesca
Butler

Attempting to flee to the United States, Albert Einstein and his wife Elsa find that their visas have
been blocked for entry by the U.S. State Department because Einstein's politics placed him on the
radar of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. Just days before his departure, Einstein must convince the
U.S Consul in Germany that he is no threat to the country.

"Chapter Ken Biller &

9 9 Ken Biller June 20, 2017 1.04[9]
Nine" Raf Green

Albert Einstein and Elsa settle into the U.S. while trying to save those he left behind. Although
quantum physics continues to vex him, his focus is diverted by the splitting of the atom in Nazi
Germany. When tragedy strikes, Einstein seeks comfort in the arms of a Russian woman whose
intentions are unclear.

"Chapter
10 10 Ken Biller Mark Lafferty June 20, 2017 1.04[9]
Ten"

After the atomic bomb is dropped and World War II ends, Albert Einstein assumes the role of world
citizen in his elder years. Having been linked to nuclear weapons, he drowns in guilt and refocuses
his efforts to prevent further wars. Inspiration strikes when a young neighbor asks him for homework
help, reminding him of the joy that science once brought.

Home > Jewish World

 8 Jewish Factoids About Albert
Einstein
November 25 marks 100 years since Einstein’s theory of relativity was published.

JTA SendSend me email alerts

Nov 25, 2015 6:19 PM

2comments Zen Subscribe now

 6share on facebook

 Tweet

 send via email

 reddit

 stumbleupon
 Albert Einstein. AP

 Einstein's relationship to Judaism - and Zionism - were as fascinating as you'd

expect
 Israeli scientists find new proof to back Einstein's theory of relativity
 Iranian cleric: Albert Einstein was Shiite Muslim
Wednesday marks the centennial of Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, a discovery that forever revolutionized the
study of gravity, space and time. While Einstein’s genius was well established by 1915, the year the theory was published
(he devised the famed E=mc2 equation ten years earlier), the physicists’ relationship to Judaism and Zionism was still
evolving.

Here are seven facts about Einstein on religion, World War II and Israel.

1. He kept kosher at age 12

Young Einstein went through an observant phase at 12, even though his parents were secular Ashkenazi German Jews.
He didn’t stay interested in Judaism long enough to have a bar mitzvah though. A Jewish medical student and family
friend — named, ironically enough, Max Talmud — introduced the creative boy to popular science books, which Einstein
saw as contradicting religious teachings.

2. He raised money for the World Zionist Organization

Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter

Email*

Sign up

In 1921, Einstein was asked by WZO president and fellow scientist Chaim Weizmann to raise money for the organization
and for Hebrew University in Israel. Einstein had been worried the Zionist project could stoke Jewish-Arab conflict, but
the anti-Semitism he faced in Europe, even as he published some of the world’s most important scientific work,
convinced him of the need for a Jewish state. He agreed to take a fundraising tour of the United States in 1921, where he
was greeted as a celebrity. He later gave the first-ever scientific lecture at Hebrew University, a school he helped
conceptualize in 1923.

3. He visited Jews in Palestine, but never Israel

In 1922, on the way back from a trip to Asia, Einstein stopped for 12 days in what was then the British Mandate of
Palestine. Although he was received like a visiting dignitary and told a crowd that he was proud of how Jews were
becoming “a force in the world,” he never returned.

4. He was abroad when Hitler came to power and never went back to Germany

Einstein was staying at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, California, in February 1933 when Adolf
Hitler was named the new chancellor of Germany. By the time Einstein and his wife Elsa Einstein got to Belgium on
their way back to Europe in March, their German cottage had been raided by the Nazis. The physicist renounced his
German citizenship at Belgium’s German consulate and went back to the U.S. He never again set foot in Germany.

5. He was asked to be the second president of Israel

When Chaim Weizmann, who served as Israel’s first president, died in 1952, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion offered
the office to Einstein, who hadn’t been to the Middle East in 30 years. Einstein declined with a heavy heart, saying:

“I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All
my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly
with people and to exercise official functions I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship
to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation
among the nations of the world.”

6. He believed in a “pantheistic” god as described by Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza

Einstein openly commented on the relationship between science and religion throughout his life, but his personal beliefs
would satisfy neither atheists nor the devoutly religious. He aligned his religious beliefs with those of Spinoza, a Dutch
thinker who was excommunicated by the Amsterdam Jewish community in the 17th century for his “rationalist”
philosophies. Einstein did not believe in the commonly accepted anthropomorphic conception of God. “I believe in
Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all being, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and
actions of men,” he wrote to a rabbi in 1929.

7. He wrote a speech for Israel’s seventh Independence Day on his deathbed

In 1955, Einstein was scheduled to deliver a speech marking Israel’s seventh Independence Day on ABC, NBC and CBS.
On April 17, nine days before the speech, he experienced internal bleeding that landed him in the hospital. He reportedly
took a draft of the speech with him to the hospital, but he died the next day after refusing emergency surgery. The Israel
State Archive published drafts of the speech in 2013.

“[T]he establishment of Israel is an event which actively engages the conscience of this generation,” Einstein wrote in
the draft. “It is, therefore, a bitter paradox to find that a State which was destined to be a shelter for a martyred people is
itself threatened by grave dangers to its own security. The universal conscience cannot be indifferent to such peril.”

8. He visited the JTA printing presses

Einstein was a known supporter of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which he helped raise money for in the 1930s and
1940s. In appealing for public support, he said the “Jewish Telegraphic Agency performs functions vital to [the] entire
Jewish community,” and at one point he was photographed at the JTA printing press. In 2012, a series of letters between
Einstein and JTA founder Jacob Landau (Einstein served as a godfather to his son) surfaced and were sold at a
Sotheby’s auction.

JTA
News Agencies and Affiliates
 Send me email alerts

Home > Jewish World

This Day in Jewish History

1939: Einstein Makes His Biggest

Mistake
Jarred by a student's discovery of nuclear chain reactions, Albert Einstein wrote to
FDR, urging America to develop nukes before Germany would, a letter he would
regret.

Jonathan Gorodischer SendSend me email alerts

Oct 11, 2016 7:09 AM

0comments Zen Subscribe now

 Shareshare on facebook

 Tweet

 send via email

 reddit

 stumbleupon
 German born scientist Albert Einstein resting in the garden of his villa on the Bay of Luebeck, on Sept. 24, 1928.AP
Photo

 1964: Father of, and advocate against, the atomic bomb

 1898: A particle physics prodigy is born, will win Nobel
 2011: Einstein’s ‘embarrassing granddaughter’ dies
On October 11, 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt received a letter warning him of the possibility that Nazi Germany might
develop a nuclear bomb. The letter, signed by Albert Einstein, urged the U.S. president to take action. The result was the
"Manhattan Project", America's own secret wartime drive that did, in fact, develop the first atom bomb. It was a month
after Germany had invaded Poland, triggering World War II.

Einstein had signed the letter but it was actually the initiative of a Jewish Hungarian physicist, Leo Szilard, who, like
Einstein, had fled the Nazis to America.

It was Szilard, a former student of Einstein’s, who is credited with first conceiving of nuclear chain reactions, in 1933.
Fearing Germany could obtain Congo's uranium reserves and utilize his and other discoveries to make a nuclear bomb,
Szilard and fellow Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner felt they had to warn the world. Szilard then thought of his
former teacher, who was renowned enough to be taken seriously. (Though Sziland and Einstein had also collaborated in
the 1920s on a new design for a refrigerator, which failed miserably.)

Serendipitous delivery to the White House

At first, Szilard, Wigner and Einstein thought to write to the Belgian government. Wigner however argued that it might
not be wise for three immigrants in America to send a letter about Nazi nuclear weapons to a foreign government. They
then decided to send it to a Belgian diplomat, but to inform the State Department as well.

Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter

Email*

Sign up
Days after drafting the letter, Szilard met with Alexander Sachs, an economist at Lehman Brothers and a friend of
Roosevelt's. When Sachs learned about their plan, he insisted on personally delivering the letter to the White House. For
that purpose, the letter than rewritten, this time with the help of the Jewish Hungarian physicist Edward Teller, who
would later be known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.”

The letter said: "In the course of the last four months it has been made probable... that it may become possible to set up
a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new
radium-like elements would be generated.

"This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs" the letter warned. "A single bomb carried by boat
and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory." In
summation, Einstein and Szilard warmly recommended that the U.S. beat the Germans to the bomb.

According to Sachs, who read the letter to the president out loud, Roosevelt answered: “Alex, what you are after is to see
that the Nazis don’t blow us up.”

skip - Einstein letter to FDR.

Militant pacifism, a luxury

Supporting the development of nuclear arms was a paradigm shift for Einstein, a self-described "militant pacifist.” But
he changed his tune when confronted with new evidence. “The time seems inauspicious for further advocacy of certain
propositions of the radical pacifist movement,” he said in 1933. “Is one justified in advising a Frenchman or a Belgian to
refuse military service in the face of German rearmament? Frankly, I don’t believe so.”

FDR would die in April, 1945. It would be his successor, President Harry Truman, who would order the first use of
nuclear bombs in history – the strike on Hiroshima, on August 6, 1945, and a second three days later on Nagasaki. And
the second world war ended.

Despite the Allied victory, Einstein would again have change of heart.

Einstein accepting U.S. citizenship certificate from judge Phillip Forman, 1940. WikiCommons

Nine years after the war had ended, mere months before his death in 1954, he was visited in his Princeton home by
Linus Pauling, a notable chemist and peace activist. Outside Einstein's house following the visit, Pauling made a note,
which he later recorded in his diary. "I made one great mistake in my life - when I signed the letter to President
Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made," Einstein told Pauling during the visit, though he did offer himself
an excuse: that "there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."
 Pauling, who just two months before had received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, was a driving force in the anti-nuclear
movement that sought to roll back the role of atomic weapons in international politics. For his efforts to convince the
nuclear powers - United States, Russia and Britain - to reach a nuclear test ban treaty, he would be awarded, in 1963,
nine years after Einstein’s passing, a second Nobel Prize, this time for peace.

Jonathan Gorodischer
Haaretz Contributor

Send me email alerts

You Might also Like

...... .... ....

This Day in Jewish History

1939: Einstein Makes His Biggest

Mistake
Jarred by a student's discovery of nuclear chain reactions, Albert Einstein wrote to
FDR, urging America to develop nukes before Germany would, a letter he would
regret.

Jonathan Gorodischer SendSend me email alerts

Oct 11, 2016 7:09 AM

0comments Zen Subscribe now

 Shareshare on facebook

 Tweet

 send via email

 reddit
 stumbleupon

German born scientist Albert Einstein resting in the garden of his villa on the Bay of Luebeck, on Sept. 24, 1928.AP
Photo

 1964: Father of, and advocate against, the atomic bomb

 1898: A particle physics prodigy is born, will win Nobel
 2011: Einstein’s ‘embarrassing granddaughter’ dies
On October 11, 1939, Franklin D. Roosevelt received a letter warning him of the possibility that Nazi Germany might
develop a nuclear bomb. The letter, signed by Albert Einstein, urged the U.S. president to take action. The result was the
"Manhattan Project", America's own secret wartime drive that did, in fact, develop the first atom bomb. It was a month
after Germany had invaded Poland, triggering World War II.

Einstein had signed the letter but it was actually the initiative of a Jewish Hungarian physicist, Leo Szilard, who, like
Einstein, had fled the Nazis to America.

It was Szilard, a former student of Einstein’s, who is credited with first conceiving of nuclear chain reactions, in 1933.
Fearing Germany could obtain Congo's uranium reserves and utilize his and other discoveries to make a nuclear bomb,
Szilard and fellow Hungarian physicist Eugene Wigner felt they had to warn the world. Szilard then thought of his
former teacher, who was renowned enough to be taken seriously. (Though Sziland and Einstein had also collaborated in
the 1920s on a new design for a refrigerator, which failed miserably.)

Serendipitous delivery to the White House

At first, Szilard, Wigner and Einstein thought to write to the Belgian government. Wigner however argued that it might
not be wise for three immigrants in America to send a letter about Nazi nuclear weapons to a foreign government. They
then decided to send it to a Belgian diplomat, but to inform the State Department as well.

Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter

Email*

Sign up
Days after drafting the letter, Szilard met with Alexander Sachs, an economist at Lehman Brothers and a friend of
Roosevelt's. When Sachs learned about their plan, he insisted on personally delivering the letter to the White House. For
that purpose, the letter than rewritten, this time with the help of the Jewish Hungarian physicist Edward Teller, who
would later be known as “the father of the hydrogen bomb.”

The letter said: "In the course of the last four months it has been made probable... that it may become possible to set up
a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new
radium-like elements would be generated.

"This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs" the letter warned. "A single bomb carried by boat
and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory." In
summation, Einstein and Szilard warmly recommended that the U.S. beat the Germans to the bomb.

According to Sachs, who read the letter to the president out loud, Roosevelt answered: “Alex, what you are after is to see
that the Nazis don’t blow us up.”

skip - Einstein letter to FDR.

Militant pacifism, a luxury

Supporting the development of nuclear arms was a paradigm shift for Einstein, a self-described "militant pacifist.” But
he changed his tune when confronted with new evidence. “The time seems inauspicious for further advocacy of certain
propositions of the radical pacifist movement,” he said in 1933. “Is one justified in advising a Frenchman or a Belgian to
refuse military service in the face of German rearmament? Frankly, I don’t believe so.”

FDR would die in April, 1945. It would be his successor, President Harry Truman, who would order the first use of
nuclear bombs in history – the strike on Hiroshima, on August 6, 1945, and a second three days later on Nagasaki. And
the second world war ended.

Despite the Allied victory, Einstein would again have change of heart.

Einstein accepting U.S. citizenship certificate from judge Phillip Forman, 1940. WikiCommons

Nine years after the war had ended, mere months before his death in 1954, he was visited in his Princeton home by
Linus Pauling, a notable chemist and peace activist. Outside Einstein's house following the visit, Pauling made a note,
which he later recorded in his diary. "I made one great mistake in my life - when I signed the letter to President
Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made," Einstein told Pauling during the visit, though he did offer himself
an excuse: that "there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them."
 Pauling, who just two months before had received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, was a driving force in the anti-nuclear
movement that sought to roll back the role of atomic weapons in international politics. For his efforts to convince the
nuclear powers - United States, Russia and Britain - to reach a nuclear test ban treaty, he would be awarded, in 1963,
nine years after Einstein’s passing, a second Nobel Prize, this time for peace.

Jonathan Gorodischer
Haaretz Contributor

Send me email alerts

... ... ... ....

Einstein’s Theory of Relatives: A

Personal Look at the Man Behind
the Brain
The new TV series about the world's most famous physicist explores his stormy
relationships with women, his complex ties with his family and his battles as a Jew in
Nazi Germany

Neta Alexander SendSend me email alerts

Apr 27, 2017 4:01 AM

0comments Zen Subscribe now

 Shareshare on facebook

 Tweet

 send via email

 reddit

 stumbleupon
 “Genius” - directed by Ron Howard and staring Geoffrey Rush as Albert Einstein Screengrab

 8 Jewish factoids about Albert Einstein

 1939: Einstein makes his biggest mistake
 1916: Einstein's relativity theory is submitted for publication
Close
In one of the opening scenes of the first episode of the new and star-studded television series “Genius,” directed by
Oscar-winning director Ron Howard (“A Beautiful Mind”), Albert Einstein (Geoffrey Rush) is caught with his pants
down.

The brilliant Jewish physicist, it turns out, had a stormy affair with his secretary, Betty Neumann (Charity Wakefield) in
the early 1920s, and in the above-mentioned scene he professes his love for her and suggests she move in with him.

Want to read more articles?

Email*

Sign up

I'd like to recieve emails on offers, appeals and commercial info

When she drily replies, “But you’re married,” Einstein erupts in a passionate speech against the institution of marriage
and explains to his love interest, who is about 20 years his junior, that monogamy is an invention and that he is opposed
to any type of authority.

The new series, which had its world premiere on Thursday as part of the Tribeca Festival in New York City and
premiered Tuesday on the National Geographic channel, tries to reveal “the man behind the brain.” Howard, who did a
wonderful job of telling the dramatic story of haunted mathematician John Nash in his successful 2001 film “A Beautiful
Mind,” told the New York audience that Einstein’s life story, which is full of vicissitudes, was more suited to a 10-hour
series than to a 90-minute film.

National Geographic, a channel that is not identified with Hollywood-style full-length features, decided to gamble on
“Genius” and has ordered a second season that will deal with another brilliant scientist whose name has not yet been
revealed.

skip - Genius - Trailer

Genius - Trailer

The broad scope of television and the generous budget enabled Howard to focus not only on the key moments in the life
of the most famous physicist in history, but also on his stormy relationships with women, his complex relations with his
family and his political battles as a Jew in Nazi Germany.

The first episode of “Genius” – which is based on Walter Isaacson’s comprehensive biography, “Einstein: His Life and
Universe” – jumps back and forth between the period when young Einstein (played by British actor Johnny Flynn) was a
student in Zurich in 1896, to his final years in Berlin before he was forced to flee Germany in the 1930s with the Nazi
rise to power.

The main difference between “Genius” and the many documentaries devoted to the brilliant scientist is that the series
tries to focus on Einstein’s life and his colorful personality, and not just his contribution to modern physics. As Rush
summed up so well in a discussion held at the conclusion of the screening: “We were more interested in the theory of
relatives than in the Theory of Relativity.”

Perfect casting choice

Rush, 65, who won an Oscar for his role as the pianist David Helfgot in the film “Shine” in 1996, is a perfect casting
choice for the role of the Jewish physicist who asks his students to close their eyes and imagine rays of light, in order to
try to explain to them (and to the viewers) the complex connections between space, time and matter.
“Genius” - directed by Ron HowardScreengrab

The first episode covers different periods and reveals various aspects of Einstein’s life: The distant attitude of his father
Herman, who abandoned his only child in Munich in 1895 and moved with his mother and his sister to Italy; young
Einstein’s total disdain for authority, which was reflected in dismissal of the need to memorize facts and a refusal to
study subjects other than mathematics or physics; the decision to give up his German citizenship at the age of 17,
claiming that nationalism is a childhood illness (which he derisively termed “humanity’s measles”); and his
disappointment after failing all the subjects – except physics and mathematics – in the entrance exams to the Zurich
Technological Institute.

After taking the entrance exams for the prestigious institution for the second time and being accepted to study in Zurich,
Einstein began to develop the Theory of Relativity. At the same time, the episode presents the main women in the life of
the Jewish genius: his first wife Mileva Maric (Samantha Colley), whom he met when the two of them were studying
physics in Zurich and his children; his second wife, Elsa Lowenthal (Emily Watson), who begged him to flee Germany
and to move to Princeton; and his first partner, a teacher named Marie (Shannon Tarbet), whose family adopted young
Einstein while he lived in Switzerland.

A man who hated authority

According to series producer Brian Grazer, who also produced “A Beautiful Mind” (as well as the prize-winning
television series “24” and “ Friday Night Lights “), “Einstein is an amazing figure because he opposed any type of
authority. He came out against the scientific, political and social establishment. Ron and I read the script by Noa Fink,
which is based on Isaacson’s excellent biography, and we both felt that there was material here for 10 hours. We wanted
to show the various pressures applied to him, and how he dealt with the far-reaching political changes in Germany and
in the United States.”

Flynn said he and Rush met in London in order to work together on playing the same character. "It was a complex and
amazing process to play with Einstein’s public persona and watch his speeches together," said Flynn. We didn’t want to
try to imitate him, but rather to understand who he was and how he behaved on a daily basis."

Rush added that he didn’t want to be an Einstein emoji - a superficial imitation of such a rich figure. "He had very
complex relations with his family and with the women in his life and lived in one of the stormiest periods in human
history," said Rush. "He really and truly believed in science and in the power of human intelligence to solve problems,
but in the end his life can be read as a Shakespearean tragedy because of his contribution to the development of the
atom bomb, which he regretted to his dying day."

Watson, who plays Elsa, said that her character and Einstein were cousins. But Watson thinks that people tended to
describe her as “the wife of” and downplayed her value. She actually made a decisive contribution to Einstein’s success,
says Watson. They married in 1919, shortly before Einstein became internationally famous after the confirmation of the
theory of relativity. She understood better than anyone the significance of this success and helped to shape her
husband’s public persona. Among other things, says Watson, she turned a blind eye to his affairs for years to prevent a
public scandal or damage to his reputation.

Indeed, the main innovation of the series, says Grazer, is the desire to shed a new light on Einstein’s women, and mainly
on Maric. According to Grazer the second episode is devoted almost entirely to the story of Maric, a brilliant young
woman of Serbian origin who was the only woman who studied physics with Einstein in Zurich. Grazer said he sought to
discover where this woman came from and why history has forgotten her contribution to science.

Samantha Colley, who plays Maric, added that the first time she was told about her she thought that Maric was a
fictional character, invented by the scriptwriter. As Colley learned more about her she was embarrassed by her mistake,
because she was a brilliant physicist who was treated unjustly. They were intellectually compatible, Colley notes, and
worked together on Einstein’s theories.

In the end she had a tragic life. She and Einstein had three children — their eldest daughter, Lieserl, died of an illness.
Colley said the series shows how each of them dealt differently with mourning. Their marriage turned miserable and
eventually fell apart.

Asked why they decided to begin the series with a scene in which Einstein is in bed with his lover, Howard replies that
Rush "told me that every good story must begin with sex or with a quarrel — and we didn’t want to start with a quarrel.
But the more serious answer is that Einstein really was a passionate man and we wanted to create a series that would be
faithful to the various aspects of his life, including his affection for women and his infidelity."

Despite the decision to devote an entire episode to Maric, it’s hard to ignore the fact that “Genius” follows in a long
tradition of popular cultural works that perpetuate the cliché of the “tormented genius” who can be forgiven this
emotional handicaps because of his contribution to science. “A Beautiful Mind” dealt with Nash’s schizophrenia and
“Shine” focused on the depression and breakdown of pianist Helfgot, while the films “The Theory of Everything,” (about
physicist Stephen Hawking) and “The Imitation Game,” (about Alan Turing) had similar plots.

What all these films have in common is that they feature a white man pursued by demons who is torn between his rare
talent and exceptional intellectual abilities and his emotional, physical or mental deficiencies. As his secretary,
Neumann, says to Einstein: "For an expert who knows everything about the universe, your knowledge of people is
amazingly limited."

Asked how one could avoid the Hollywood clichés about the tormented genius, producer Grazer said that he wasn’t at all
sure that the cliché was true in Einstein’s case. "It’s true that geniuses have a tendency to develop an obsession with a
certain field and sometimes that causes a kind of blindness," said Grazer. "They want to use their exceptional
intelligence to solve a riddle or make a scientific breakthrough. This might come at the expense of developing significant
relationships, but I'm not convinced it has to be that way."

As for the next season, Grazer said there were three or four subjects being discussed for the coming seasons, and one of
them is a brilliant woman.

Neta Alexander
Haaretz Contributor

Send me email alerts for new articles by Neta Alexander

Send me email alerts

... ... ...