496 Bibliographie critique 
LEWIs PYENsoN: Tht Young Einslnn. Tht Aavml of RtUlivity. Bristol, Boston: Adam Hilger, 
1985. 
In this collection of nine autonomously organised studies, alI but one: separately published 
between 19n and 1983 in scholarly journals, Pyenson approaches the ftgWe of Einstein, its 
background and the early reception of the theory of relativity in terms of what he himself calls 
"social history of ideas". In programmatic contrast to the enwnc:rable studies about the person 
of Einstein and his scientific work, Pyenson's focus lies on the conltxl of the apparent main·fig. 
ure. It is exactly in a book about Einstein, that Pyenson dares to ask: "To understand the 
devdopment of scientific ideas, is it sufficient to focus on the key thinkers who conceived 
them? To describe the reception of scientific ideas, is it enough to srudy small circles of 
scientific power brokers who transmitted them to selected men of learning?" (p. 158). The 
themes selected by Pyenson should alI contribute to this "thick description" (in Geertz/Elka-
na's terms) of what Pyenson calIs "late Wilhelmian Gennany". 
A fust perspective is given by his study of the conditions for business dealing with the fast 
evolving electrotechnology in the late 19th century. This subject, apparently bdonging to the 
history of economics, relates to Einstein via his father and uncle operating one of the very few 
Munich factories producing dynamos and apputtenanccs between 1880 and 1894. A remainder 
of the technological ambitions of his relatives, who took out six patents during their Munich 
years, Pyenson argues, must have been the establishing of an "environment or a frame of mind" 
(p. 41) for Einstein's intellectual development. 
A second topic concerns educational concepts, especially the so called 'Schulkrieg' between 
the neohumanist proponents of classical values and languages and suppotters of instruction of 
modem languages and narural sciences with the corresponding split between 'Gymnasien' and 
'Rea1anstalten' (see p. I, and 159 ff.), both relevant for Einstein in so far as he received his 
secondary school education first at Luitpold Gymnasium. Munich. then at the reformist cantonal 
school at Aarau (see p. 3 f. and 9 f.). Another case srudy in that field is Pyenson's survey of 
the development in the climate of mathematical education (p. 159 f.), for him a spot light on 
the mechanism, by which "pressures from below" (here the often catastrophical situation of 
school teachers in mathematics, trained to do research but not to educate) "have interacted 
with the interests, prejudices and unconscious actions of men at the top" (here Felix Klein's 
educational manoevres towards a new unification of thought in pure and applied mathematics; 
see p. 173 and 178 ff.). 
Bibliographie critique 497 
Thirdly, Pyenson pursues the consequences of the "GOttingen offensive" for the changing 
attitude of GOttingen mathematical professors towards physics, nicely summarised in Hilbert's 
statement that physics is too important to be left to the physicists. The fIrSt instance for this 
superelevated self.confidence of Gottingen mathematicians is given in Pyenson's study of a 
seminar about the electron·theory given in Gottingen in 1905 by the four seminar's leaders 
Emil Wiechert, David Hilbert, Gustav Herglotz and Hermann Minkowski, whose syllabus and 
programme Pyenson reviews extensively. Why did this GOttingen colloquium of mathema-
ticians not arrive at something similar to Einstein's theory of relativity? Pyenson hints on the 
complete ignorance or blindness concerning physical constraints, questions of meaningfulness 
or conditions of measurability in GOttingen, which stood at the very core of Einstein's reason-
ing at the same time (see p. 129 f.). 
This clash of incompatible norms (elegant, completely general, axiomatic, quasi-geometric 
versus simple, plausible, arguing from physical premisses, preferably in ordinary language) 
becomes even more obvious in the later reception of Einstein's theory of relativity by the above 
mentioned mathematicians. While some participants (i.e. Wie<;hert) stuck to their pretnisses 
and tried to argue against Einstein in terms of the ether, others tried to reformulate Einstein's 
theory in terms of 'pure' mathematics, as e.g. Minkowski (p. 81 f.) and Hilbert (p. 95, p. 184). 
It is the cultnination in Pyenson's collection when he argues that it was just his 'philosophical' 
(metatheoretical) pretnise about the pre-established harmony between mathematics and nature 
that drove the GOttingen mathematicians and their enthusiastic followers into a tnisunderstan-
ding of the spirit of relativity. The concept of ether, Einstein was happy to have been able to 
prove of being superfluous in his theory of relativity, reappeared in the theory of absoluta of 
Minkowski, who believed to have improved the physical studies of some lazy student with 
limited mathematical abilities (see esp. p. 81). 
The collection closes with two studies also roated to aspects of the reception of Einstein's 
thought - one of the best documented parts of the whole book is Pyenson's report on Max 
Planck's activities as one of the editors of Die Annalen der Physik in the years 1906-1918, 
which Pyenson himself summarizes with a paradox similar to L.P. William's bon mot "the most 
reluctant revolutionary of all time" (compare p. 195). His last study is about Einstein's early 
scientific collaborators: Jakob Laub, Walther Ritz and Erwin Freundlich. 
There are grave problems inherent in Pyenson's programme: What about the relative (un)im-
portance of the various trends which are discussed (omtnitted) in his studies? Biographical 
evidence for the decisiveness of these influences is often lacking or not stressed enough in 
Pyenson's treatment. What could be the rank of such documents (if available) in Pyenson's 
social history of ideas which defocuses from the individual's mere personal? And, to ask the 
other way round, what is the justification for the presence of exactly such anecdotes on 
Einstein's idiosyncrasies (see, e.g., p. 79, and annotation 45)? 
A general observation is that Pyenson has failed to integrate references to new and pertinent 
secondary literature: in context of the "independence" of Einstein's thought and his self-defi-
nition as 'Einspiinner' it would have been important to mention Pais' similar observations 1 on 
'apartness'; in the sections dealing with electromagnetic theory and electron theory before 
Einstein, A.I. Miller's lucid exposition 2 is a useful supplement to Pyenson's infortnal 
treatment. Concerning the reception of Einstein's special theory of relativity, Pyenson narrows 
1 See, £.i., A. Pais, "Einstein and Quantum Theory", Rev.Mod.Phys., 51 (1979), 863-914. 
2 A.1. Miller: A Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, Emergence (1905) and Early Interpreta-
tion (1905-1911). Reading, Mass., 1981. 
32 
498 Bibliographie critique 
the perspective too much by only discussing the GOttingen mathematicians and Planck as 
Annalen-cditor, which are both only a small group competing with the reactions of many other 
philosophical schools and outsiders. There are some serious blunders in Pyenson's collection: 
he has not been able to identify several of the participants of the GOttingen electron seminar, 
one of which clearly is Gustav Jaumann (1863-1924) who has worked on problems of electro-
magnetism in moving bodies around 1905 within an alternative model). Pyenson is complete-
ly mistaken in supposing that Heinrich Hertz' famous concept of representation at the begin. 
ning of his Muhanics grounds on a notion of pre-established harmony (compare p. 141). 
In conclusion, Pyenson's book does not keep what its title promises. One often feels born· 
barded with lots of material in weakest connection to Einstein; imponant stages in his devel· 
opment as ~.g. his philosophical studies just before the emergence of the special theory of 
relativity are either omitted (in the case of Hume) or superficially touched upon (Einstein's 
imputed admiration of Mach's iconoclasm, see p. 75, 237), while other points (t.g. the 'GOt· 
tingen offensive') are disproportionally blown up (see p. 83 f., 95, 109, 129 f.). Nevertheless, 
there is a lot of useful material about sociohistorical trends around the turn of the century in 
Germany, ranging from employment siruation (p. 37, 70), birthplace and professions of Jews 
residing in Munich (p. 68), salaries of professors (p. 55), 'class-structure' of Dr. phil.recipients 
in all sciences (p. 163), educational trends (p. 1 f., 165-177), to short biographies of Einstein's 
teachers. The practical usefulness of this collection for such diverse purposes is restricted by 
the incompleteness of the index, not including imponant subjects (as ~.g. 'ether', 'force', 'Jews', 
etc.) and names only mentioned in the annotations. 
KLAus HENTscHEL 
, See, f.i., G. Jaumann, "EIektromagnetische Vorgange in bewegten Medien", Sitvmgsberichte 
der Ide. Ak4demi~ der Wissmschaft~n. Wien, Abt. IIa, Vol. 114, pp. 1635-1684 and Vol. 
115, pp. 337-390 (1905/1906).