FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF A HUNGARIAN RELATIVIST

B. Lukács

CRIP RMKI H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49., Budapest, Hungary

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

I contribute with some detailed to the discussions about the role of Mileva Marity-Einstein in the elaboration of results generally attributed only to A. Einstein. Note that I cannot prove joint authorship of any Einstein paper (although I seem to have good arguments for one); but my points may be useful for historians.

In the present document I have to use several different Slavic alphabets. I try to use correct HTML codes; but then some Netscape Navigators will not be able to interpret correctly some characters. Therefore for the most frequent such character, a Croatian and Polish c with a prime on it, i.e. ć, I will use the incorrect but stable c'.

When I discuss names & phonetics, a lot of different conventions will have to be used. I try to be consequent as follows. Normal font with or without quotation marks is the official orthography of a language of Latin letters. [x] is the International Phonetic alphabet (or its approximation). Italics is the approximate English/Scottish "phonetic" value. {x} is the approximate Hungarian reading.

For this last some thumb rules:

{c} ~ ts

{cs} ~ ch

{gy} ~ dy

{j} ~ y

{s} ~ sh

{sz} ~ s

{zs} ~ zh

Vowels without diacritics are cca. as on the European continent, and

ä, ö, ü cca. as in German & Finnish.

The long versions of ö and ü have two primes, but for HTML stability I will use ô and û.

For languages not having Latin writing I use either Hungarian or English transcription.

Note that Hungarian and Magyar are not synonymes. Hungary is a country; Magyar is its biggest language.

This study was planned to be a more elaborated piece of scholarship/science, with some decisive results, but it cannot be done just now, so, seeing the misunderstandings in the Mileva Einstein-literature I have decided to release this Internet version now.

I was promised some 5 years ago by a woman colleague of mine to investigate jointly the question of the role of Mileva in the Einstein publications. We would have been an ideal team, since the lady is a habitual coauthor of mine, expert in thermodynamics, and has Croatian roots. Note that Mileva wrote her diplome work about thermodynamics and had Serbian roots, while I am working in Relativity as Einstein was. Unfortunately just now the collaboration seems to be impossible, so I write down the partial results.

I emphasize that I am active in Relativity (both Special and General), while I am not a historian of Science. If you want to check this statement, go one layer back to my Home Page, where you can find my Publication List. This means that my viewpoint about Einstein's research is probably nearer to Einstein's own than to that of a modern Historian of Science. Also I live in Hungary, which gives cues to understand Mileva, rather exotic for Westerners.

There is a detailed biography of Mileva [1], written by a Serbian historian. I did not read this book (not being able to understand substantial texts in Serbian), but I read a lengthy Hungarian review [2], and it seems that what I cannot accept is not bare facts but interpretations; plus linguistics, XXth century politics and such. I think things will be clearer when you have read my present study.

Be careful. [1] and the German translation are not identical. Namely: 1) the author's name is Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity (up to transliteration) in the Serbian original, while Desanka Trbuhovic'-Duric' in the German translation. There will be discussions of transliteration; but the name order too has changed in the translation. I note here that Trbuhovity is the husband's name. 2) Being German a language of Latin alphabet, for the transliterated names the German translation of [1] suggests as if the names there were authentic. In cases this is not so; do not forget that the Serbian [1] is the original.

The question will be amply discussed. Here I only mention one case. A. Yoffe remembers that he saw about 1905 a manuscript with the name of Einstein and the maiden name of his wife. Now, this appears in the translation as if Yoffe had seen Einstein-Maric'. But Mileva's maiden name was not written Maric'.

Mileva's father was Milos Marity. Here the "s" would have been "š" in Croatian & Slovakian; but Hungarian offices wrote {s} of subjects of languages without Latin alphabet as "s".

There is some confusion in the literature about the birth of Mileva. Some sources tell that she was born "in the Voivodina" or even "in Northern Yugoslavia". One source simply tells that she was a "Serbian peasant girl". Let us go step by step.

Mileva was born in 1875, in a small town Titel. Titel is a city along the River Tisa, the last town before the confluence of Tisa and Danube, between Tisa and Danube. If you look a detailed map, you can check the previous sentence without problem. In that time Titel was Hungary, Bács-Bodrog County. For more details see Appendix 1.

The sources tell that the Marity's were the descendants of Serbian migrants; these migrants fleed the Turks and by any chance this is the great exodus in 1690 led by Bishop Arszenije Csernojevity. As for the maternal side they were Ruzits's. So Mileva was raised up in a family of purely Serbian ethnicity ([1] tells something about the Montenegrin origin of the Ruzits's (here end-ts stands for an affricate; for details wait until Chap. 4), but Montenegrins are generally regarded as one branch of Serbians; political evolution may or may not change this view in the future). The Ruzits family were locals in Titel, substantial farmers & such; Milos Marity was a soldier for 13 years, then he was some civil official, later he had some office in jurisdiction; and he bought substantial real estates also at Káty, and also in the capitol of the county Bács-Bodrog, which, for simplicity, I call here Novi Sad, but it is also Újvidék, Neusatz &c.

Titel is Titel in any imaginable languages. Novi Sad is the transliterated Serbian name, the Magyar is Újvidék, the German is Neusatz. As for Káty, in the Latin-Serbian of Tito's Yugoslavia it is Kac'. One of the rivers of Titel is Danube in English; the other's English name is equivocal: cca. Tisa. The German is Theiss.

Lot of texts tell that Mileva was born "in the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy". However, this is a pure economic statement. The "Austro-Hungarian Monarchy" was some organisation for free travel and commerce, plus common foreign policy & defense; and a common person for rulers. Nothing else; it was looser than the present European Union. For details see Appendix 2. Mileva was born in Hungary.

As for the day of birth, 2 and only two data exist: Dec. 7 & Dec. 19. The first is the Serbian Greek Orthodox calendar, the second is the Hungarian civil one. For modern chronology the second is the true.

However in 1875 Hungarian State did not register the births; everybody had to go to the respective Church. So on her birth certificate Mileva had the Julian date.

As for the social status of the family, in Eastern Central Europe the term "peasant girl" indicates a female of humble and simple origin, who was taught at home from early childhood to honour city people & such. Now, everybody familiar with Hungarian literature of late XIXth and early XXth century knows what was then a Bácska landowner. That was the finest agricultural land of Hungary (which is the finest agricultural land of Europe); it produced an abundance of good wheat. Substantial Bácska landowners were rich compared to Budapest middle class. Therefore they esteemed themselves.

According to [1] the Marity family was not poor, and the father had substantial positions.

When the baby was born, Titel was part of Hungary, both in wide and in narrow sense.

I have formulated it in this way, because originally the Hungarian State had nothing to do with Mileva. Not because of her origin, but because in 1875 there was no State registration in Hungary. That was in the future (1895); registration of the births in 1875 was made by the Churches. I am almost sure that Mileva was registered by the local Titel branch of the Serbian Orthodox Church. (Orthodox Churches have some dozen different groups, and one is Serbian Orthodox; a Serbian Orthodox may be of any citizenship, from Serbian through Hungarian to Australian.) But it seems that later Mileva got State documents. On her gravestone in Zürich the name is clearly readable [1], [2]: Mileva Einstein. geb. Marity. Not Maric', as the overwhelming majority of the international literature calls her. Now, the explanation is simple enough, if one knows some facts, and is not mislead by XXth century politics.

The "Marity" orthography is not "Hungarized"; it is the Latin transcription of a name in Cyrillic. About the complicated phonetics behind, see the next Chapter. After 1920, the world (outside of Hungary and Croatia) accepted the Serbian claim that Serbian and Croatian is one language with two orthographies; however this depends on political & linguistical dogmas, and, by any case, cannot be retroactive. For this problem see Appendix 3.

The Marity form is quite consequent if her personal documents were issued by Hungarian authorities, not by Croatian ones (as for the possibility of Croatian papers it will come in due course), although "Marics", or "Marits" would have been possible too. Obviously her father was registered by State authorities as "Marity" for any reason. Everybody should, however, keep a few facts in mind:

Hungary was a multilingual country. (Hungarian is not a synonyme of Magyar; Magyar is simply the biggest language group of Hungarians.)

Hungary is a multiritual country and has/had no State religion.

In 1875 all Hungarians had Church registration, the majority had no secular documents. If they travelled much, the town or the county issued some documents, and if they went abroad, they might have asked for State papers. Or might not.

Serbian Orthodox Church almost always used Serbian Cyrillics. The Hungarian State used Latin letters (as for the specific orthography, wait a minute), and the Croatian State used Latin letters with Croatian orthography.

Then: what was the name of Mileva? You may regard her name as it was registered in the Titel Serbian Orthodox register: but it is Serbian Cyrillics and we are speaking about the Latin form: Maric' or Marity? However the answer needs Slavic linguistic information as well as Magyar and Hungarian ones. So a new Chapter will be appropriate. However first I note that Mileva spent her four years in ground schools in Titel, then in Novi Sad. Surely the Titel ground school must have been maintained by the Serbian Orthodox Church; and, while Novi Sad was big enough for several schools, most probably she took there again a Serbian Orthodox school.

In such schools education of course went on Serbian; however all non-Magyar schools of Hungary taught Magyar as a foreign language, i.e. a few hours weekly. That was just enough to be able to ask for bread, water &c. in Magyar, and to write Latin letters. So if Mileva had average intelligence, she learnt to write her own name with Latin letters according Magyar orthography. The relevant questions are then: i) what is her name with Magyar orthography? ii) what is her name with Hungarian orthography? iii) did she accept Magyar/Hungarian orthography?

Hungarian orthography, the official way of writing, started in 1000 AD, in the Royal Chancellery of Hungary. For 841 years the official language was Latin; still, names of various languages (personal names, geographic names, clan names &c.) must have been written down, as unequivocally as possible to avoid later argumentations. (Imagine a land donation, if later nobody is able to identify the toponyms!) Hungary was multilingual, and two of her languages were not spoken outside of the country (Magyar & Slovakian). Step by step rules crystallized out for the writing of sounds unknown in Latin.

An interesting example is Latin "c" before front vowels. Originally its pronounciation was [k], but step by step it became transformed in Neo-Latin languages. The process is at different stages now: In Sard it is still [k], in Italian it is an affricate, written as ch in English, in French a fricative (or sibilant) coinciding with "s", in Spanish a fricative similar to "s" but not identical, having something from English th. Now, in present Central European Latin it is an affricate which does not exist in English, but can be approximated with ts. Then it is not surprising that the respective sound is written in Polish, Bohemian, Slovakian, Magyar, Croatian & Slovenian with "c".

Now, the k -> c transition is complicated because "k" is a palatovelar stop, while "c" is not palatovelar. However there was another very Late Latin evolution from "-ti-+V" which ended in Central Europe in "-ci+V". That is simple enough, as we are going to see it.

The voiceless denti-alveolar (or simply: dental) stop "t" is a stop. So it cannot be pronunciated in itself. The simplest way for acoustic analysis is a "tV" syllable. The dental stop explosively opens and then come the formants of the vowel. Since Hungarian orthography was very much influenced by Magyar phonetics, let us see the Magyar analyses. Ref. [3] gives data for best Magyar acceptance. For the vowels [tV] the intensity curve shows a stop, then a short small opening and closure of the acoustic channel, and a very fast true opening. The frequency analysis tells that [t] is a noise band between 1600 & 5000 Hz, with two characteristic loci about 1600 & 3500 Hz. For vowels the correspondence between acceptance probabilities and detailed Fourier spectra were much better known ([4] and citations therein), of course.

Now, you do not have to pronunciate just a vowel after [t]. Among consonants a lot can be uttered infinitely long. Such are the fricatives, e.g. [s] or the laterals, e.g. [l]. You can put a fricative between [t] and the vowel and can pronunciate this group.

Looking for voiceless fricatives, European languages seem to use the following ones: dental f, denti-alveolar s and sh, palatovelar ch (I mean the Scottish one, as in Loch, phonetic [x]) and laryngeal h. While [f] is "unnatural" after [t] (maybe because the formation place is more forward for the second sound), the other fricatives are easy to form after [t]. While in Central European languages I do not know examples for [tx], there are lots with the voiced pair of the palatovelar fricative: [tj].

Proto-Magyar, at the arrival into the Carpathian Basin, was poor in dental affricates: the only such reconstructed sound is t+sh = ch [5], no doubt, from some Turkish language. Then the 2 quite different Hungarian languages, Magyar & Slovakian, started a mutual phonetic convergence, and now the consonants are absolutely identical in them.

t+s: This affricate is written in Magyar with {c}, but some time ago it was {cz}, in some Calvinist texts {tz}. In Slovakian it is simply {c}.

t+sh: As English ch. This is the Magyar {cs}, earlier in Calvinist texts {ts}. In Slovakian it is {č}, but caron is called in Slovakian "mäkcen'"=softener.

t+y: In Magyar it is {ty}, in Slovakian {t'}. In Slovakian subsequent "i" automatically changes t into t'; in Magyar not.

t+h: This affricate is not used anywhere in the Basin.

Now, [t] and [s] have something intimately common. Look an interesting fact of Magyar phonetics discovered by Klára Vicsi [6], [7]. Surely, the fact exists in other languages too, but I do not know in which. However Magyar is the biggest language of Hungary, and we are discussing the Hungarian orthography of the name of Mrs. Einstein.

For Fourier spectra, Magyar phonemes written as {t}=t, {sz}=s & {s}=sh are different, except that they are all full with high frequency noises. However if you manipulate [CV] utterances, an unexpected phenomenon appears. Take a record of utterances {sz+V} and cut the {sz} part leaving only a part of variable length of the fricative. Play the edited record to listeners. Then the result is as follows:

For duration <35 ms the syllable is accepted as {tV} without problem. Then comes a transition, and between 65 & 90 ms it is accepted as {cV}. Then another transition, and beyond 125 ms it is clearly {szV}. So a short part of {sz} is a good, acceptable {t} and a moderate part of it is {c}, i.e. the affricate {t+sz}. The result is quite similar if we start with {s}=sh. A short piece of it is an acceptable {t}, a moderate piece is {cs}=ch.

If one tries with the dental fricative [f], a very short peace of it is accepted as [p], the denti-alveolar stop. At medium length some listeners ambiguously reported [pf], but this is not a phoneme in Magyar, while it may be in German.

So there are intimate connections between fricatives and stops (in Magyar, at least). There is a stationary acoustic "quality", and if you utter that long, the result is the fricative, a shorter utterance is an affricate (if it exists), and the short one is the respective stop.

Now, you may try with the remaining fricatives. Palatovelar {ch} is foreign in Magyar except in some loanwords or as is a variant of its voiced counterpart {j}. Unfortunately the experiment did not happen with {j}, but I would not be very much surprised if in such an experiment segments of {j} would result in a sequence {t}=t, {ty}=ty and {j}=y. Laryngeal [h] could produce some th-s, but such sounds are absent in Central Europe. And, finally, you may ask what would happen if you started with [l]=l. It is a lateral, not a fricative, but it can be maintained for arbitrary length. However, intimate {tl} connections are absent in Indo-European and Uralic languages, so you would need Aztec listeners. In Aztec {tl} is frequent; maybe an affricate, maybe not. (In Greek Atlas is an important mythologic figure, but without etymology; and Princess Atalanta?)

For different languages (and specially if they belong to different families), the forms of acceptance functionals may substantially differ [4], [8]; for example on the 2-formant plane the areals of Magyar vowels are vertical, while the English ones are rather radial [9]. So between 2 not closely related languages, if they do not form a Sprachbund, the identification of sounds of speech is not unambiguous.

However Magyar & Slovakian are assimilated to each other, so, although they belong to different families, there are no problems with sound recognition. E.g. both have a dental stop, two related fricatives, two intermediate affricates. Also they have a palatovelar sound [j] (the Magyar orthography more or less regards it as a glide or a palatal consonant, the Slovakian as palatal; and the {ty} "compound" is cca. a dento-palatal affricate in Magyar and a soft dental or a palatodental consonant in Slovakian; but I think this minor difference is traditional: {ty}={t'}=ty. For the dental sequence the Magyar and Slovakian systems are the same and in their context full, as it will be shown on a Siamese twin diagram:

For German names Hungarian orthography simply adopted German orthography, including {ä}, but not the "scharfes s" ß, which was transcribed with {ss}. There were problems with Croatian names.

Croatian orthography has been manufactured under heavy Bohemian influence. However it is not conform even with the Bohemian one. I cannot tell if the structure of the dental consonants is the same as the above Magyar & Slovakian (so Hungarian) structure; but it does not seem homologous. One may form all 3 rows of the above construction, except that instead of Slovakian t' one must take c' (the prime really on c, not after). But is Croatian c' the same sound as Slovakian t'?

This was no real problem for Hungarian administration. If they could not reproduce some diacritics, they ignored them. Hungarian alphabet (e.g. on typewriters) included the simple Latin consonants together with w, all the diacritical vowels needed for Magyar, plus "ä", needed for German & Slovakian. Then it was possible then to reproduce anything in Magyar & German; for Slovakian consonants with caron were impossible and for vowels diacritics of long "ý" and diphtong [ô] had to be ignored; the softening "apostrophe" could be reproduced even in typing with some effort.

Now, for Croatians, there were Croats in majority in Croatia. That was outside Hungary; Hungarian administration accepted the Croatian identity papers, and if it could not reproduce the diacritics, ignored it. Minority Croatians of Hungary got documents according to Hungarian canon.

But Mileva Marity was not a Croat of Croatia or a Croat of Hungary. She was a subject of Hungary (so she got documents according to Hungarian canon), a Greek Orthodox from Titel (so she was registered at birth with Cyrillics), and an ethnic Serbian.

And then we are at the last but one step about the lady's name. The last question (was it really Maric'?) involves sheer politics, so it remains for another Chapter. Now consider the process when Mileva, or her father Milos, asks for documents.

Hungarian rules of transliterating are simple enough. If the original language uses Latin letters, you leave everything unchanged; if you cannot reproduce a diacritics, you ignore it. If the original language uses any other alphabet, you uses either Academic transliteration, or, if it is unavailable, you write phonetically. For a Hungarian Croatian and Serbian are two different languages (I will return to this point later), so the name of Marity was transcribed phonetically.

Sure, there is a similar Croatian name Maric'. Hungarian authorities would have written that as Maric. However for a Serbian the name did not have originally a Latin form. So imagine Mileva as obtaining her first official document, say, at the county capitol Novi Sad = Újvidék = Neusatz. She had the Titel birth registration papers in Cyrillic. The clerk then guessed the transcription and asked Mileva. Surely her opinion was taken into account.

In a later chapter I will discuss the Illyrian hypothesis. Had Mileva been a solid supporter of the Illyrian Idea, she would have required Maric (Maric' being unorthographic); but no evidence is known for Mileva having been partisan of the Illyrian Idea. Then there remained the phonetic transcription. The question was: Marity or Marics?

Look again at the pattern of dental consonants. It is quite clear that in the name Mari? the end consonant is an affricate; also it is clearly not a {c}. But: is it a {cs} (Row 2) or a {ty} (Row 3)?

Now, there is an interesting tendency. Serbian and Croatian names with "c'" are heard by local Hungarians with Magyar "ty", Slovakian "t'", while Hungarians more Northward with Magyar "cs", Slovakian "č". Examples are coming.

The Maritys had a village home which in the English translation of the "Love Letters" is transcribed as "Kac'" [10]. Two villages are possible for this "Kac'". There is a village in county Baranya/Baranja, now in Croatia, but originally in Hungary, cca. 45°50' N, 18°30' E, whose Croatian name is Jagodnjak, but the Magyar is Kátyfalu. Still, another village is more probable. In county Bács-Bodrog one of the districts had its center at Titel. All other localities were rather small villages, an 1882 list mentions 8 of them, including Káty [11]. But anyways, a Kac' in the South is transcribed as Káty. Now, there is a Kács, in the North, in Bükk Mnt., 47°55' N, 20°35' E.

The Serbian ex-President has the transcription "Milosevics" in Magyar newspapers. Magyar subjects of Serbia generally call him "Milosevity", and they several times corrected me.

Some Slovakian names end with "-vič". One example is Andrej Sládkovič (with a caron), 1820-1872, poet, "the nightingale of the Hron". Another example is the greatest Magyar poet, Sándor Petôfi (1823-1849), who was born in a Slovakian family, named Petrovics.

There is an archaeological article of Hungarian archaeologist F. Nopcsa from 1926 [12] about interpretations of Archaeopteryx fossils. The author argues with a Serbian colleague, whose name he always writes in the German text as "Petronievics". (And Southern Slavic emigrants of the West very frequently write their names with a "-vich" leaving the fine details of the pronunciation to the Westerners).

So Magyars not at the spot have the tendency to interpret end-c' sounds as "cs" (the affricate of the sh-row), but local people know that it is the affricate of the third, y-row. Therefore it cannot be written any other way that "ty".

Everybody is quite correct who writes that "Marity is the Hungarized form of the name". However, there was no "Maric'" form at all. There was an original name, but only in Cyrillic, not in Latin.

I follow Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity. The young Mileva (c. 11 year old) finishes ground schools (4 years); then goes to "girls’ school" at Novi Sad (Hungary), then "real school" in (Srmska) Mitrovica (Croatia). But she wants to learn mathematics. (She is lame, from hip dislocation.) However girls cannot go into gimnasium "in Austria-Hungary".

Now this is rubbish. "Austria-Hungary" had no common education laws. Sure, it was impossible in Hungary in 1886. So Mileva went to Sabac, Serbia. For a few years.

Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity then tells that in 1891 the father took service at a Croatian Higher Court, so the family went to Zagreb, Croatia. Mileva went then a Croatian gymnasium, i.e. high school. (You can see why "Austria-Hungary" is improper; we have nothing here with "Austria" and education differed between Hungary & Croatia.) She remained there between classes 4 & 7.

During these years there were uncountable opportunities to write Mileva's family name in Croatian manner as "Maric'". Mileva either protested or not. It is for Historians of Science to clarify this point. I leave this point to them; only I note that for a Croat, teacher, policeman or sheriff, Mileva was a Hungarian, and each Croat knows that Hungarians use strange orthographies and it is the best to leave them alone because they are wild. Also, if Mileva had well-established identity documents when starting school in Croatia then those were accepted; and surely the family asked for such documents with Latin letters, before switching to Croatia from Hungary. Now, either at Titel or at Novi Sad, Croatian language at the administration was not used, so "Latin letters" would mean Magyar orthography.

To straighten out the mistranslations of school names because the difference in American, English & continental systems and also because of the more than 100 years from then, I write something in Appendix 4 about the Hungarian system of cca. 1895. I mentioned that Croatian differed and Serbian too; and all systems were just changing.

We are told that Mileva finished high school in 1896. This indicates 2 years delay. Obviously between ground school and high school she took 2 years, either in girl's school or in real school, at Novi Sad and Mitrovica; both cities are mentioned as places of Mileva’s schooling.

In 1895/96 Mileva takes the last high school year in Bern, Schwitzerland, to get a Swiss maturation and for better German. Then she goes to Technische Hochschule, together with Albert Einstein & Marcel Grossmann. (For a very brief Grossmann entry see Appendix 5.) And now there is the time to look for the research work of Mileva. I think the biggest amount of information comes from the Love Letters [10]; since between 1903 & 1914 Einstein & Marity lived in the same flats, letters from one to another (look; I have found a better expansion...!) cannot be expected.

Early letters between Einstein & Marity are sources of the most unbiased information about Marity's role in research; at least up to 1902. I do not tell that the letters are absolutely honest; you may expect the usual tricks of courtship, also boasting & such. However, clearly, Einstein & Marity will not lie about things both know; and common work is such.

I use the English translation of the "Love Letters" [10]. Since the Letters are numbered in the Volume, I use the reference system {x} for Letter x, {Fx} for the Footnotes of Letter x, and {0} is the Introduction.

My goals here are:

1) to get information about Marity's role in the evolution of the idea of Special Relativity up to 1902;

2) to look for early traces of General Relativity in Einstein's & Marity's thinking;

3) to see the early stages of thermodynamic and statistic thinking of Einstein & Marity;

4) to try to detect traces leading to Photoelectric Effect and so the light quantum;

5) and, finally, to see what can we learn about the mysterious testimony of Abram Yoffe about a Marity manuscript at Annalen der Physik.

The goals directly come from the claims (often coming from feminist or Great Serb circles) that Einstein expropriated Marity's results. Very often the speculations come from individuals not knowing anything about Relativity, Thermodynamics or Quantum Physics, so they cannot decide the meaning of scattered references in the letters. However in 1905 4 seminal Einstein articles were sent to Annalen der Physics. [13] is about diffusion & thermodynamics, [14] is about Brownian motion, [15] is about the "electrodynamics of moving bodies" and [16] is about light radiation.

Marity might have contributed to any of them; it is impossible either to prove or to disprove her active role via historical tools. Namely, from January 1903 two physicists lived together in one flat and had "free" hours daily for discussions not heard by anybody else. So if one is a priori convinced about Marity's importance in physics, then she may claim authorship in any of them. For the journalists Relativity is the most interesting, so [15] is often guessed to be joint result; but note that Einstein got his Nobel Prize for Photoelectricity, which started with [16] (and he gave the money of the Nobel Prize to Mileva!); and [13] and [14] belongs to Thermodynamics, which was the topics of Mileva's diplome work.

Often the "difficult mathematics" of these articles are mentioned; several colleagues noted Marity's "excellence in mathematics". I will discuss this question, but I note already here that I am not impressed by the mathematics of [15]. However, General Relativity is something else, and the work leading to it definitely started when the couple still was together. So it is interesting to see what were the interests of Einstein and Marity about Non-Euclidean Geometry.

Finally, there is the semi-mythical Yoffe memoir. I relegate all the details to Appendix 3, because lot of contradictions pervade the references; but let us take here the core of the statement: A. Yoffe, in his youth in Leipzig, saw a manuscript in the redaction of Annalen der Physik with the signature Einstein-Marity (or, as the German translator of Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity writes: Einstein-Maric'). Since no such article ever appeared, it seems as if somebody violated Marity's rights if Yoffe's memory is correct. However I will suggest an alternative.

Some people consider the fact that obviously the present Love Letter collection is not complete an evidence that a malign hand, e.g. Einstein's one, later censured the letters to wash away traces of Mileva's results. Of course I cannot disprove this; but there is a simpler explanation. First: men often throw away old love letters. Second: do not forget the troubles of the marriage and then the split in 1914 when Mileva did not follow her husband to Berlin, finally the divorce in 1919. Einstein was surely hurt, that can be traced back from later remarks, so my guess is that he simply discarded some love letters in the 1914 packing. (But: how old letters were distributed at the split? Is one seriously telling that Einstein kept doggedly 1901 letters for 13 years from his wife, author of the letters, without her knowledge?) While the present Love Letter collection is only a sample of the original, one can form quite a clear picture from it.

But first let us see a crucial point. Some authors seem to believe thet Mileva Marity had a minority complex in relation to Albert Einstein because she was a peasant girl, or because he was German. This is improbable.

The father, Hermann Einstein, had some enterprises, e.g. a small electric power station in Northern Italy. So he was an industrialist. But by no means in the class of Jules Grossmann, father of Albert’s friend Marcel; and Hermann Einstein finally became bankrupt. Compare this with Milos Marity, country gentleman, landowner and honoured civil servant. Indeed, in {45} A. E. writes to M. M. that the old Marity knows better the world than he does; and from the Love Letters it is clear that in Zürich Mileva was in better financial conditions than Albert was.

As for Albert being a German, Mileva was not the citizen of a poor Balkan country. She was a citizen of Hungary. It would have been ridiculous to imagine a hundred years ago that a Hungarian could have minority complex towards a German because of citizenship.

Of course, there was a hip dislocation. So perhaps Mileva was in worse bargaining position than an average girl. But this has nothing to do with Albert Einstein personally.

The first Love Letter mentioning the problem (there: electrodynamics of moving bodies) is {8}. Here E. writes "I'm convinced more and more that the electrodynamics of moving bodies as it is presented today doesn't correspond to reality"; his opinion is that ether should not be used in the description. Just the idea of [15] 6 years later; of course here only the bare idea. M. is at Káty, she answers {8} in {9}, but the answer lacks almost any physics, except a mention of heat theory. (Otherwise it is rather warm.) In the response {10} E. mentions the "luminiferous ether", and mentions his plausible hypothesis about it. In the next {11} E. writes to M. that he already wrote a letter to W. Wien about "the relative motion of the luminiferous ether against ponderable matter". This is a version of a "paper" which the "boss" took badly. So E. is working alone about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. A very short mention of it is {12} (again E. to M.); then there is finally a M. letter {13} but only about kisses. From {14} to {25} (all E. to M.) there is nothing about electrodynamics of moving bodies. 8 months gap. (Of course there might have been something in the lost M. letters. But then E. would have reacted; and nothing.)

Then in {26} E. again writes about luminiferous ether; his discussion with Michele Besso. Maybe in a lost letter, M. then tells that E. "keeps things from" her, and E. answers in {27}, writing about latent heat of solids, radiation, magnetism, possible jobs and family. Nothing about luminiferous ether; of course, he wrote about that in {26}.

Letter {28} is important but not for Relativity. However {29} (E. to M.) contains something about light generation. Then, at last, a M. letter {30}, but nothing about physics, only indefinite stark despair. Next day {31}, very happy, but again nothing about physics. Before somebody would take these twin letters as proof of hysteria or maniac-depressivity of Mileva Marity, look at a calendar. Letter {30} seems to be just after becoming certain about the future Lieserl.

Nothing about luminiferous ether can be found in Letters {32}-{46}. The letters are more and more about marriage and jobs, but time to time there is physics too in them; only not the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Then in {47} E. to M. again: he visited Kleiner and was "telling him my ideas about the electrodynamics of moving bodies". "I'll write the paper in the next few weeks sure." (Which paper?) In {48} E. again writes about ether.

In {48} E. writes that he wants "to get down to business now and read what Lorentz and Drude have written about the electrodynamics of moving bodies": M. is in Hungary very near to childbirth. This is definitely the last Love Letter about the electrodynamics of moving bodies; 4 more letters before the marriage do not tell anything about that topics.

I do have ample experience with female coauthors, and the situation is quite clear for me. We will see that the case of the luminiferous ether is special. In other topics their letters are more two-sided. But about the ether and moving bodies Einstein times to times tries to tell something; and there is no reaction.

I cannot decide if originally E. planned a joint paper or not. Anyways, {8} on 10th Aug. 1899 gives a program; no reaction. A month later E. again writes some sentences, but then he tells: "But enough of this! Your poor little head is already crammed full of other people's hobby horses that you have had to ride. I won't bother you with mine as well."

This is obviously a last possibility for M. to tell that no, she is interested. She does not seem to tell this, and on 28th Sep. in {11} E. tells that OK, he already has written a "paper" and a letter to Wien.

In spite of my research experience, still the sayings of Solomon the Wise hold, and it is hard to follow the way of an idea between man and woman. It is theoretically possible that later M. would have joined into his topics and E. did not permit. But if so, she did not leave any trace of it. The lack of any answer in letters suggests that the problem of the electrodynamics of moving bodies simply did not interest M., at least until 6th Jan. 1903. Of course she was too feminine to tell her lover: "Leave me in peace with your boring idea about ether and Michelson interferometry!" He might have become then unfriendly. (Remember the hip dislocation!) But she definitely did not encourage such discussions.

Quite another matter what happened after marriage: but we have only 2 letters from that time. {53} is M. to E. from Budapest, 27th Aug. 1903, telling that she is not well. She is in the first month of pregnancy, and obviously she is going to her parents. She asks E. to write about himself; as an answer E. writes about business but nothing about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. Then Hans Albert is born on 14th May 1904.

The final ms. of the famous Einstein paper was ready in Sept. 1905. So there was a year for Mileva to show interest in the topics. I am sure she read the paper, maybe suggested corrections. But earlier she was completely uninterested in the topics, so I cannot imagine how she could come up in the middle of 1904 with anything physically important. As for contribution to the mathematics of the paper (with her claimed "mathematical excellence"), paper [15] is as the usual physics paper. Formulae are abundant, but none goes beyond square roots. No mathematician is needed for such a paper.

For the jump from Special to General Relativity Riemann Geometry is needed. As we know, it was shown Einstein by his friend Grossmann in 1912-13. However we know some Einstein papers (e.g. [17] and [18]) before 1912 dealing with gravitational deflection of light. In 1919 this, in a solar eclipse observation, will be the first proof of General Relativity.

However there is no Non-Euclidean Geometry in these articles. Einstein recognises that for atoms radiating photons in gravitation the formulae

E=mc², E=hn

+ energy conservation lead to clocks of different velocities at different places; hence a deflection of oblique waves appears. This is a nontrivial point: see Appendix 5. Anyways, he calculates the value for starlight just passing Sun (the 1919 pattern) and gets half of the 1919 value. This is not the later theory.

Still, Einstein's observations in 1907 and 1911 are worthwhile. I cannot decide if Mileva participated with discussions (I could hardly imagine her not to). Obviously she could not furnish Riemannian Geometry. In 1912 Einstein was surprised when his friend Grossmann told him that Riemannian (so Non-Euclidean) Geometry is the solution and that he knows it.

I am not so surprised. Look at {48}: "Grossmann is doing his dissertation on a subject that is related to ... non-Euclidean geometry. I don't know exactly what it is."

For us today the physics of XXth century is the "New Physics" of Relativity and Quantization; two post-Newtonian disciplines which were not foreguessed. Note Lord Kelvin's article about the new century [19]: there are only two small clouds on Physics' sky. But do not forget that for both Einstein and Marity at Technische Hochschule New Physics was Thermodynamics: ironically the last surviving pre-Newtonian, really Aristotelian [20], part of Physics. It was the evolving forefront of physics just before 1900; and observe that both Marity and Einstein specialised to Thermodynamics at the end of Hoshschule. (You should better not to take seriously Einstein's tasteless remark to Carl Seelig on 8th April 1952 "...My Diplomarbeit and my first wife's were concerned with heat conduction and were of little interest to me..." {N20} after half a century; synchronous Love Letters definitely tell otherwise.)

The two small clouds of Lord Kelvin, indeed, were just the signals of the two post-Newtonian disciplines. Relativity solved the mystery of Michelson's negative results, and [15] gave the full theory in 1905-6. The explanation of blackbody radiation spectrum started at the very end of XIXth century by Planck's two lectures, an intuitive one on 19th Oct. 1900, and a second where he got the spectrum from the correct quantum condition, on 14th Dec. 1900 (see them in [21], obviously not yet available for Lord Kelvin, and [22], and ended with [16] in 1905. I discussed above Marity's role in [15] and was highly sceptical. Now let us see [13], [14] and [16]. All are Thermodynamics and/or Statistical Physics.

Here I note that Thermodynamics remained an important direction of the work of the young Einstein. Now let us see again the Love Letters in chronologic order. The first Statistical Physics remark is in {1}, M. to E., although it is a part of flirting as the tobacco Papa sent to you and such. There is again a one sentence mention in {2}. But then the question does not arise until {12}, where E. writes about his own work about latent heat. Then again nothing until {20}. However there appears something. E. to M.: "...On the investigation of the Thomson effect I have again resorted to a different technique which is similar to your method for determining a dependence of k on T and which also presupposes such an investigation. If only we could start tomorrow!"

Now this is quite clear. M.'s diplome work, we know, was about heat conduction. So she must have had some technique for determinning the temperature dependence of the heat conduction coefficient. Einstein here writes that he can make another approximation, expansion or such (the text is not long enough to see what exactly) and he definitely states that he would like joint work.

Why? We may believe the Seelig letter {F20}, or may not. If we believe (but this letter was written more than 50 years after the event) that Einstein is not interested in heat conduction, then the proposition to start joint work is a courtship ritual. However I do not believe it. The Einstein-Marity affair has already evolved beyond the stage when joint work is needed to be near to the beloved. In the same letter E. reports the "testing" of his mother about Mileva. "Mama often cries bitterly... My parents weep for me almost as if I had died. ... they think you aren't healthy...", and so on. As for Mileva, she was clearly working into that direction since 1897, and I do not think that she would have refused Einstein's company if he had not work on heat conduction.

Of course it is possible that Einstein acted on pure male instict and not on scientific grounds; and he resents it in 1952. However clearly in 1900 he was much interested in heat conduction, for one reason or another; and then started a joint work.

Remember; we do not have any evidence for common work in Relativity and above I listed my doubts. However in Thermodynamics (as follows I put this one-word tag to Thermodynamics, Statistical Physics & Matter Theory) the Love Letters definitely indicate common work, and I think the topics was started by Marity, not Einstein. (This is my educated guess from {20}.)

In {21} E. tells his impressions about a Boltzmann work about Kinetic Theory; he has a good impression about the book, obviously given him by M. In {22}, E. to M.: "Pleasant work and being together...". And in {23}: "The results on capillarity I recently obtained in Zurich seem to be entirely new despite their simplicity. When we're back in Zurich we'll try to get some empirical data on this subject from Kleiner. If this yields a law of nature, we'll send the results to Wiedemann's Annalen."

Now this is explicit enough. A common paper is being written. I cannot see from here, whose contribution is bigger, and of course Einstein emphasizes his quite new part, but the text is full with "we", so it is not an one-author work. In due course I will return to the final results.

In {24} E. mentions a fresh idea of his about latent heat of solids and Dulong-Petit Law; in some years it will be an Einstein article, through Bose-Einstein distribution of "quantum oscillators". In {25} he writes two paragraphs about latent heat, with explicit formulae, and gives some task to M. about it. In {27} E. reports on Planck's new ideas about blackbody radiation. To us it is the beginning of Quantum Theory but for Einstein and Marity very probably it was still Thermodynamics (see in due course). In {28} again "I came up with a wonderful idea..." about molecular forces with formulae. In {29} again an "idea", seemingly about blackbody radiation. Interestingly no answer on these "ideas" in the immediate 2 Marity answers; but an excursion is organised, so M. does not have to discuss in letters. In {33} E. regrets that they cannot work together just then, in {35} E. writes about his work on thermoelectricity, but he is not going to publish it yet. Then in the next 3 letters nothing but "how is the child", kisses and such. He is going to take any job to be able to live together. And also, Marity's answer {39} is only about private life. In {40} E. writes about his theory on surfaces of liquids; in the answer {41} nothing but plots about look better at mothers in laws and such. Marity is going home to Hungary to produce the baby. A postscript about how to get a teacher's job in Frauenfeld.

{42}, M. to E., is a mystery for me, but I told the proper work would need a woman colleague too. There is no physics either in {43}. In these times Marity is, interestingly, in Germany. But afterwards she is really at Káty getting there a string of letters from Einstein. There is not too much physics in them except for {48} which I already have discussed. But maybe one does not write physics to a childbearing woman (although I was told by a woman colleague that she typed her manuscript 2 days before birth). No physics in {52} half a year later and nothing in the two last letters, after marriage.

The Photoelectric Effect is the topic of Einstein's Nobel Prize, whose whole sum he (earlier!) gave to Marity. So it is a very interesting issue for feminists. Obviously -they argue- Einstein knew that it was Mileva's work, and he wanted to arrange the situation to give at least the money to the baulked coauthor and abandoned wife. It is a suggestive scheme; but things are not always simple.

I comment first the non-physical questions. The marriage de facto ended in 1914. Then Einstein went to Berlin to where Marity did not follow him; she remained in Zürich with two sons, one is small enough. I do not know the reasons, maybe nobody knows the true ones. However it is sure that the marriage went wrong; otherwise Marity would have followed to Berlin. The most routine female accusation operates with Einstein's lust; that maybe he liked wenching, or that he went to Berlin for his cousin Elsa, with whom he then went into adulterous relations and whom later married. While this is as possible as anything else, knowing Einstein's biography and Elsa's photograph I would tell that Einstein, successful theoretical physicist, would not exchange Mileva to Elsa IF he could work with Mileva. So either Mileva had nothing with the great Einstein articles, or if she had then the breakdown of the marriage was not Einstein's idea. It is pointless to discuss this further.

Just to show that prefabricated slogans are useless here, let us ask a simple question. Why did he go into Berlin in April, 1914? OK, to be director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. Good; but we are told that in this time Germany was already the hotbed of German Imperialism, militarism, &c.; anyways, the war breaks down in July. And Einstein's biographies, including autobiographies, emphasize how much he disliked military thinking, parades &c., already in his childhood. And then he leaves neutral Switzerland in April, 1914 for Berlin. I do not tell that there is any mystery here; I only tell that we did not get a full explanation. Then: why Marity did not go to Berlin?

As for the Nobel Prize, they made the formal divorce in 1919; Einstein got the Nobel Prize in 1921. But indeed, they agreed in 1919 that he will give the sum of the Nobel Prize Mileva. Why was Mileva sure he will get a Prize; and why this agreement?

For the first, I try with an explanation. Mileva believed that the results are great (either being a physicist or being sure in his husband (!)). For the second the answer is really simple. Mileva kept the two boys. She should have got alimony. Instead she got the Prize money and after that they did not know each other.

And now the physics. In this point I do not follow the citations from the Love Letters, because I have already cited them: Photoelectric Effect belongs mainly to Thermodynamics. Let us see.

Blackbody radiation spectrum is the radiation spectrum from ideally absorbing surfaces; as Kirchoff then already had shown, the ideally absorbing surfaces also ideally and maximally emit if heated up. Also, one could prove that this ideal black body can be produced by an infinitely large ideal nothing; paint the internal surface of a big metal spheric shell white, make a small hole and heat the globe. There will be blackbody radiation within; and the small hole will emit the blackbody spectrum.

The problem is that the electromagnetic radiation from NOTHING might be determined only by the Laws of Electromagnetism and the Law of Thermodynamics. Several great physicists, including Planck and Wien, tried to realise this program. Wien was the most successful in 1896. By consequent electrodynamics & thermodynamics he has shown that the form of the spectrum must be

dI = (n /c)³f(n /T)dn

where n is the frequency and f is a function he was not able to calculate from the Laws, but about which he knew from experiments the high-frequency limit

lim n ->¥ = e^{-ßn /T}

Taking f exactly this function he could get a prediction; then the constant ß could be determined from experiments [23]

There was, however, a double problem. First, whose constant is ß? It did not appear either in Thermodynamics or in Electrodynamics. Second, in 1900 it turned out that Wien's Law f=e^{-ßn /T} is contrary to precision measurements.

Clearly one attacking this problem must be strong both in Thermodynamics and Electrodynamics; and the Love Letters mention both. Maybe Marity was stronger in Thermodynamics (surely she was more interested) and probably Einstein was stronger in Electrodynamics; but together they were a balanced and effective team in times when team work was not yet usual. And look, in April 1901 {27} Einstein already reports the written form of Planck's Dec. 14, 1900 lecture.

Now let us see the structure of [16]. Chapter 1 is essentially an Introduction. Chapter 2 recapitulates Planck's Quantum Condition from the Dec. 14 lecture (the h). Chapter 3 recapitulates Wien's 1896 results. Chapters 4-6 are advanced thermodynamic derivations. Chapter 7 recapitulates Stokes' Law (of course, of luminance, not of viscosity); and the last two chapters are the new and great new results. The article proves the appearance of quantized energy clusters in light radiation from the fact that both in photoelectric effect and in ionisation the frequency of the light imposes the real barrier, not the intensity. So "quanta are real" (originally Planck believed that the radiation is continuous, only atoms cannot absorb the light continuously.

Now, is this result an Einstein work or is it a joint Einstein-Marity one? (We can be sure that it is not Marity alone.)

I really do not know for sure.

Note that the person is written in German environment as Joffe. I transcribe his name from the official Cyrillic to English. His first name can be written Abram, Avram, Abraham &c.

Yoffe's statement is reported by some authors as in "a Soviet journal in 1955", by others as in [24]. I did not read [24], but the secondary reports seem unequivocal. They tell that at the beginning of XXth century Yoffe was a student or asistant of Röntgen, and during this he was able to see a manuscript sent to Annalen der Physik where the author was Einstein-Marity. The most detailed report I read is [25] telling that the author's name was A. Einstein-Marity, and then Yoffe is philosophying why a Switzerlander would write his wife's maiden name to his own. Something is clearly wrong here.

Obviously it is impossible that Yoffe might have seen "A. Einstein-Marity". There was no such person at all. He might have seen M. Einstein-Marity or A. Einstein - M. Marity.

The first would mean a single-authored Marity paper not earlier than 1903. We do not know such an Annalen paper and I refuse to slander the editors of Annalen der Physik to change the author of a submitted paper from M. Einstein-Marity to A. Einstein.

Now, let us assume that Yoffe originally saw something Einstein & Marity, and he confused this more than 50 years later with Einstein-Marity. Good. Then: what was this paper, and where went Marity from the authors?

Svenka Savic' tells that after the marriage Mileva never write herself as Marity, she was always M. Einstein or Mileva Einstein [25]. Good; I believe her. But she learnt this from private letters. Articles can be different. I have female coauthors who are married but never took the husband's family name, not even officially. I have female coauthors who took it, but on articles they use always the maiden name. Finally I have one female coauthor, who took officially the husband's family name, generally when writing with me uses that, but there is an article where she wrote the maiden name. So it is not so simple with female physicists.

Still, let us agree with Svenka Savic'; anyways it was a century ago, then married name counted a lot. Then only articles before 1903 can be considered. And there is such an article. Let us go back to {23}: "The results on capillarity I recently obtained in Zurich seem to be entirely new despite their simplicity. When we're back in Zurich we'll try to get some empirical data on this subject from Kleiner. If this yields a law of nature, we'll send the results to Wiedemann's Annalen."

The paper has, indeed, been sent to Annalen. By any chance it is [26]. But now it is simply A. Einstein. How and why? Did Albert steal Mileva's rights, or a German male at Annalen's redaction? I think neither.

Take a calendar and count. Lieserl will be born at the very end of January 1902. Marity knows this from 2nd May, 1901 for sure ({30}; "...I can have nothing without being punished...". Then she does not inform Einstein, but Letter {31} is different and I am sure she told it on the weekend excursion. In the middle of May Einstein writes that he would marry, and in the beginning of July {38} he writes that he would take any job. That is immediately answered by Marity, and starts the effort how to get a job in Thurgau Cantonal School at Frauenfeld.

That is a matter of almost life and death. Look at the outcome: the application is unsuccessful, therefore Marity must bear Lieserl as a maiden and Lieserl vanishes! Everything would be better than that. Having an Annalen article increases the possibility of job. The manuscript is already at the editors [26]. But maybe having an article as single author is better than one of two. Marity cannot be too fanatic now; later she can write other articles. Most probably Marity's name was removed with her consensus.

There are Einstein articles from 1902; thermodynamics, and one of them is connected with thermodynamics of metals. I do not believe that they would have been coauthored. We saw that Einstein writes in letters about his own works too; and in the second half of 1901 Marity is at home in Hungary, or at most in Stein am Rhein.

As I told in the Introduction, my main goal here was not drawing conclusions, but to give such details for Historians of Science, which are commonplace for Hungarians but maybe foreign for foreigners. However, as byproducts, I would conclude that

1. the paper [26] is a common product of Einstein & Marity;
2. in 3 of the 4 famous 1905 Annalen papers Mileva’s substantial role is probable, but in the "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" any substantial role of Marity is improbable and unfounded;
3. in later years Einstein’s memory was inconstant about roles of early coworkers, so the lack of mentions of Marity in various autobiographies does not indicate anything at all; and
4. the divorce left very bad memories in Einstein, so his negligation of the first wife as a colleague is psychologically understandable, although not so from the viewpoint of Physics.

But I would not overemphasize Marity’s role either. Nothing which I know does contradict a simple scheme in which the vast majority of ideas originated from Einstein, while Marity was better in mathematics & thermodynamics. In the Curie family Maria Sklodowska continued the research after Pierre Curie’s early death. Marity did not continue her thermodynamic research after divorce. And the final morale from a double viewpoint (which I must draw alone). For Einstein: look, cousin Elsa did not fully substitute Mileva. (E.g. she did not know simply anything about torsion pendulums, and was unable even to differentiate a single thermodynamic potential with respect of an extensive.) And for Marity: OK, you wanted to marry and wanted to work as a physicist. You thought you can sacrifice your professional ambitions temporarily, to marry. Then you helped your colleague (I do not know in what extent.) You thought, this would be forever. And then in 1914 you discovered that you had become unfamiliar in writing articles alone. Long disuse of muscles atrophises them.

In the main text I wrote that Mileva Marity was born on Dec. 19, 1875, at Titel, Bács-Bodrog County. Here I discuss 2 nontrivial points, because Svenka Savic' calls attention to the fact that in 1994 a conference was held at Novi Sad University about Mileva, later published as a book [27], and on the conference R. Maglic' emphasized that she originated in the Vojna krajina region. (Very roughly: Military District.) Then Savic' expresses her opinion that in 1994, when (Bosnian) Srpska krajina was actually warring, this parallel had something with the timing of the conference.

Now about the administrative district. Without any doubt Titel was in Bács-Bodrog County. Originally, in XIth century it was Bács County, and Titel itself is reported from that century. However between 1551 & 1696 Titel was under Turkish occupation. After that military forces were concentrated along the Lower Danube, and especially Titel and its immediate neighbourhood was the so called Boat District (Csajkáskerület). Here local people helped the border control, on boats. For this they did not have to pay some taxes (and of course could monopolize local smuggling activity). County Bács, united with neighbour Bodrog, was administratively reorganised (it existed during Turkish occupation too, but mainly in exile and you can imagine the degree of administration), but the immediate neighbourhood of Titel was administrated by the Army.

Hungarian administration stopped with the Austrian victory in 1849; in Hungary Austrian Military Law was introduced. This ended with the Hungarian-Austrian Reconciliation in 1867. Then the Hungarian Government immediately started negotiations about military border agencies with Austria and the dynasty, they ended in 1869 with the result that military administration must evacuate. Liquidation of the southernmost border control area started in 1871 and totally ended in 1885.

In the neighbourhood of Titel civil administration was in full development in 1882; from the sources available for me I cannot yet decide if military administration had been liquidated in Titel on Dec. 19, 1875 or not. But this has nothing about Titel's County, which was then clearly Bács-Bodrog.

However Maglic''s point has merits. Marity in Zürich obviously was from an earlier Boat District of the Border Agency of the Army (to be sure, that of the Austro-Hungarian Army, not the Serbian one), and I think I can show a place in Love Letters where she proudly declares it (I do not know if Einstein understood it). Look at Love Letter {1}, but first be sure that some of the originally tax-reduced boaters did not like civil county administration above them; and by any chance smuggling must have had been their normal business when they had been the border control. Now I am citing one paragraph. Note that in this time Mileva is in Germany.

"Papa gave me some tobacco that I'm to give you personally. He is eager to whet your appetite for our little land of outlaws. I told him all about you -you must absolutely come back with me someday- the two of you would really have a lot to talk about! But I'll have to play the role of interpreter. I can't send the tobacco, however, because should you have to pay duty on it, you would curse me and my present."

We can learn two things hence. First, that Mileva (a nice lady at Technische Hochschule in Switzerland) would put the package of dutiable tobacco amongst used underwears in her pack and smuggle through the customs post in civilised 1898. Second, that she is bragging to Albert about "our … outlaws". It is exactly the same style as a Magyar girl from the Great Plains would have told Germans stories about the famous "betyárs", mounted brigands of the area. These outlaws are, no doubt, the turbulent ex-militia smugglers (and what else); Mileva does not blame them, and, also, does not think that the topics would be shocking.

Einstein will remember this. 3 years later, in Letter {48} E. writes to M. to Novi Sad that her letter vas a "nice little package", she "even hid a nice bit of tobacco in it". Hidden where?

The "Union", or "Double Monarchy", had two halves, one was called in English "Austria", but this was not her official name because the Imperial Parliament was against it; the other was called Hungary in English, but again that name was incorrect and was not her name. Instead of lengthy constitutional details I tell the constituents of the two halves.

The Western half had her own rather clumsy name (I am mirror translating it into English): "the countries, lands and territories represented in the Imperial Parliament"; its capitol was Vienna. This state consisted of 15 self-administrating (but not self-governing!) parts, which are as follows: Bohemia, Bukovina, Dalmatia, Galicia, Karinthia, Kraina, Littoral, Lower Austria, Moravia, Salzburg, Silesia, Styria, Tyrol, Upper Austria & Voralberg. As you can see, "Austria" occurred only in the names of 2 among 15. Of course, in Middle Ages the Hapsburgs were the "Austrian House", and this makes an automatic but erroneous association. You can see thet Mileva Marity/Einstein simply had nothing to do at all with this state, except the stay of the Einsteins in the 1911/12 university year in Prague, Bohemia, at the German University. (And observe, also, that Bohemia is the original name of the country around Prague. Just now you can call it "Czech Republic"; but there was no "Czech Kingdom" or "Czechia".)

Now comes the "Eastern half". She never had a name at all; but her parts had. She consisted of 2 self-governing parts: Hungary & Croatia. Hungary's capitol was/is Budapest, Croatia's Zagreb. However common issues did exist (including negotiations with "Austrians"), and for them a composite Parliament also existed in Budapest. This is the reason that the unnamed Eastern half (called Hungarian-Croatian State in Hungary and Croatian-Hungarian State in Croatia) is often confused with Hungary.

Now, in the nameless state Finance and Commerce were common issues, but Interior, Justice, Religion & Education were not. You should remember this, and then everything will be clearer. Both Hungary and Croatia had self-administrating counties (64 & 8), but had no other level between counties & countries.

For the constitutional details as well as for the economic comparison of Hungary to Austria on one side and to Europe on the other see e.g. [28].

Although it is irrelevant for our present goals, maybe it is interesting to mention the titles of the "Old Emperor" Francis Joseph. On the West he was "Emperor of Austria", a title existing only since 1806, but somewhat the inheritor of "Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" going back to Charlemagne. However he was also the King of Bohemia, a title going back to c. 1250, and valid in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia. Therefore common Western institutions were called k.-k., kaiserlich-königlich, i.e. imperial-royal. However, Hungary and Croatia did not belong to the Empire. In Hungary Francis Joseph was the Apostolic King of Hungary, and in Croatia the King of Croatia. (Croatia between Zvonimir, 1076, and Koloman, 1102, was a Papal vassal state, so her King cannot be "similar to apostles"). Look at the national symbols even now. The Holy Crown of Hungary is closed above, the Hungarian King did not have superiors. The Croatian Crown is open; the Croatian King had one superior, but that was of course not the Hungarian King but the Pope.

In 1875 the town of Titel was part of the Hungarian county Bács-Bodrog (as always back to XIth century). Of course, just now (from 1945, to be sure) Titel belongs to the autonomous territory Voivodina, but this would be anachronism for 1875. To be sure, in 1875 an undeterminable percentage of Titel Serbs believed that they should have belonged to a Serbian Voivodinate, nonexistent. A Serbian Voivodinate would have been an autonomous Serbian body politic, with a Voivode as Head.

And in 1875 Titel definitely did not belong to Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia came into existence in 1929, and ceased to exist in 2003. Earlier (from 1920 to 1929) it was called Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and Titel belonged to that state; now there is a state to which Titel belongs but it is called Federation of Serbia and Montenegro, and within this federation Titel is on the Serbian half.

"Yugoslavia" was a completely artificial name. "Yugo-slav" is "South-Slav". The idea was as if there were a Southern Slav nation (roughly: Serbs, Montenegrins, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes & Macedons), and Yugoslavia were the common state of the common nation. After years of killing (since 1991) in "Yugoslavia", and after the expiration of Yugoslavia herself it is a highly anachronistic denomination to Mileva's birthplace in 1875, 54 years before the proclamation of that name.

Now comes citizenship, nationality, ethnicity, language, origin &c. of Mileva. Even some terms in themselves are obscure for some Westerners, so it is best to remain at bare facts. Although I did not see the documents (and some of them may be lost in the XXth century bloodsheds), to my knowledge there was never any doubt that the Marity family was at home at Titel, or, more widely at Titel, Novi Sad & Kac' (see. e.g. the Love Letters [10]); and most probably they were the citizens of the respective state.

Now we have clarified Titel. Novi Sad (the Serbian name; Magyar is Újvidék) is some 40 km along the Danube, upwards, in the same Bács-Bodrog county, the seat of the county in 1875. Kac' of the Love Letters is either the present Jagodnjak/Kácsfalu, c. 45°50' N, 18°30' E (while now it is Croatia, it is North of River Dravus, so it was Baranya County in 1875, so Hungary, and now it is still Baranja zupa in present Croatia), or a small village reported from Titel District (and the second is more probable).

So the family belonged to Hungary proper. If they went to offices for papers, they got Hungarian ones (not Croatian; and by no means Austrian, of course).

Some Marity sites seem to reflect an opinion that some Hungarians took the name of Mileva and Hungarianized it; maybe without her consent; but she used the official form "only in rare official occasions". However it is easy to see that most of these opinions do not know the situation in Titel in the last quarter of XIXth century; which is not strange at all after what happened there in the XXth.

First, Mileva's family name was not Hungarianized: she was Hungarian, in the sense as Cherokees, Santa Fe Hispanos, New Englanders and Amishes are all USA Americans. The name was really Romanized, so transcribed letter by letter (or rather sound by sound) from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet.

True, in letters in Switzerland Mileva "rarely used" the name Marity. Maybe from the very simple reason shown by Svenka Savic' that after the marriage she used "Einstein". Strange or not, a hundred years ago most married women were proud to be married, so showed it.

However, at some authors there is something else behind the habit using consequently (?) "Maric'" for a lady whose gravestone clearly showed "Marity". Namely, without doubts Mileva was an ethnic Serbian (to be sure, from Hungary, not from Croatia or Serbia), so she should have been written "Maric'", only some error happened or somebody forced another form on her; so their opinion is that the error can be corrected retroactively.

Now, this would be true if Serbian and Croatian were the same language and the Maritys accepted this, and their names would have been transcribed with their protestations.

The question if Serbian and Croatian are one language or two, is highly political (as, in these years, the unity of Serbians and Montenegrins). From Croatian point of view the question is amply treated linguistically by B. Franolic' in his Trinity College lecture in May, 2001, whose text can be found in [29]. Unfortunately the critical Croatian characters would appear only with special Croatian fonts on your PC, so just outsiders cannot use the text. Therefore I must recapitulate some statements of it.

In addition, I told that [29] gives the Croatian viewpoint. There is a Hungarian perspective as well. Do not forget that historically Croatians are our brethren, but my language is not Slavic.

In the 20's of last century schoolchildren of Slovakia (then part of the Czechoslovakian state) were learning a nice slogan: "Rus, Poliak, Illyr, Čech; To sú nasí bratri", that is: "Russian, Polish, Illyrian, Bohemian; They are our brethren". Ours, so the Slovakians would have had exactly 4 Slavic brothers.

Well; the slogan was older by some more decades. In the constitution of (first) Czechoslovakia it was declared the Czechoslovakian nation, whose language was the Czechoslovak; but this slogan was a Slovakian one. However there were Slovakians who declared themselves Bohemians, e.g. Ján Kollár, theology teacher in the biggest Buda-Pest Lutheran high school, teacher of Sándor Petrovics (later greatest Magyar poet), who declared himself Jan and Bohemian, and therefore refused young Petrovics (whose first language was Slovakian but he declared himself Cuman). Also, you can note that there are no Bulgarians in the Slovakian slogan. Well, some Pan-Slavs believed them Illyrians, some others Huns. Look at the green in their flag, just as in the Hungarians’; good Slavs have blue instead. (And if you look at the flags now, indeed all Slavs have blues, except Bulgarians and, of course, Poles.) But who are the Illyrians?

In history Illyrians were in Roman times a not too well known Balkan Indo-European language (seemingly satem-IE). Then, at the beginning of XIXth century came a joint hypothesis of Ludevit Gaj & Vuk Karadzsity, that Illyrians survived and they are the Southern Slavs, i.e. the Slavs cca. South of River Dravus.

For a Magyar all Slavic languages are on the verge of mutual understanding, and if a Hungarian speaks Slovakian, he can travel through all Slavic countries without basic problems. However Slavs understand only their particular languages; but the exact number of these languages are matters of argumentation.

Now, Karadzsity (Serbian) and Gaj (Croatian) declared the unity of all Balkan Slav idioms as dialects of common Illyrian. In that time even in Croatia 3 quite different (but more or less mutually understandable) idioms existed; then there were the Slovenes of Austria, the people of medieval Serbia under Turkish occupation or in emigration in Hungary & Croatia, the people of Macedonia, and the Bulgarians under so strict Ottoman rule that either Karadzity or Gaj knew very little about them.

Croatians had a state through all Medieval times, so at least the nationality Croat was defined. Croatian subjects spoke 3 idioms, which linguists named according to the 3 different forms of the pronoun "what": "kaj" (kahy), "ča" (chah) and "što" (shto).

Franolic' seems to state that Croatian is a language separate from Serbian (which was always the Hungarian official opinion, except between 1945 and 1990, when Yugoslavia was too strong to be able to force her opinion, but wait a moment), albeit both Serbian and Croatian belong to the same "što" dialect of Southern Slavs. And then he cites Garaudy: "A language is a dialect which possesses an army and a navy." He states that the Yugoslav state wanted to Serbize the Croat.

Then, let us start first with the Croatian dialects, which are, uneqivocally, three, as told, the "kaj", "ča" and "što". For the Croatian viewpoint you may read [29], if you can, because of the critical characters; for the Hungarian viewpoint [30], which you cannot, because it is in Magyar.

Franolic' tells us that originally, from the settling down at the Adria (that is cca. VI/VII c. AD) the areas of the 3 Croatian main dialects were as now. So the "kaj" on the North (so also around the capitol Zagreb!), the "ča" in Dalmatia, and the "što" on the East.

Then in the Renaissance "ča" came to dominance in literature; no surprise, the Dalmatian cities were the leaders of Croatian literature then. I would mention that a 5-language dictionary of "the 5 most noble languages of Europe" is preserved from that time [31], the author is Croatian, and one of the 5 most noble European languages in the non-Indo-European Magyar. Now, the Croatian of the dictionary is "ča"-Croatian. Then from XVIIth century "kaj"-Croatian also appears in literature. The "što" dialect was the Croatian of Ragusa (called now Dubrovnik), and propagated thence, originally to the East.

So far no difference between [29] and [30]. Then [29] tells that in the middle of the XVIIIth century the great majority of Croatian writers were using the "što" dialect. So when L. Gaj published the Croatian Orthography [32], he used "što". It is told slightly differently in [30].

According to [30] Serbian Vuk Karadzsity (in Gaj's orthography Karadźic') accepted a Hercegovine Serb dialect for literary language (until that Serbian literary language was full with Church Slavonic, i.e. Archaic Macedonian) and that was a "što" dialect. Sure, if you look at the map, in average the Greek Orthodoxes are more Eastern that Catholics; and Hercegovine is quite near to Dubrovnik/Ragusa, Of course, Karadzsity's "što" was written with Cyrillic.

Then Gaj accepted Karadzsity's (or Karadźic''s) idea and in his journal Ilirske Narodne Novine (Illyrian National Journal) and in its litterary supplement Danica (Dawn) propagated the "što" dialect. He was quite successful amongst intellectuels, in 7 years (1835-1842) a lot of them accepted the "što" dialect in writing and called themselves Illyrian, not Croatian. Then, after one more year, the Royal Croatian Chancellery (in Vienna) ordered him to rename the journal Croatian (Hrvatske Narodne Novine). They did not object the "što" dialect; so it is now the litterary Croatian, therefore Slovenian, which is a "kaj" dialect, must have become a separate language.

It seems that on the Balkan dialectal "borders" (rather isoglosses) are very different from language borders defined by Academies and Ministries of Education. Zagreb standards of litterary language are "što - ije" (while Belgrade ones are "što - e"; if you cannot follow, you must not be in shame), but the population of Zagreb, capitol of Croatia, seems not to use the "što", but "kaj". I wonder what will be the trends of Croatian linguistic evolution after 7 decades in a common Southern Slavic state and a bloody war.

As for a third Illyrian language, Slovenian, the first printed Slovenian substantial poem is Sonetni venec of F. Prešeren [33], It was first published in Illyrisches Blatt, in 1834, so it is synchronous with Karadzsity & Gaj. He definitely uses t' for the critical character, not c' (morebit' in Sonnet 2 in 1834, zagledat' in Sonnet 4 in the 1847 book edition; he rewrote the sonnets in between, govorit' in Sonnet 6).

Now back to Mileva Marity. She was a Hungarian Serb, without doubt. Her documents used the Hungarian orthography, because Hungary did not use Cyrillic. As Eastern Southern Slav, her dialect probably was the "što". I think, in her name the form "Marity" is the original, in Latin letters. An opinion that it should have been written Maric' is the Illyrian/Yugoslavian hypothesis that all Southern Slavs speak the same language.

I, as a relativist, do not want to take sides. However you can see that even that is nontrivial, if the two "što" dialects form the same language, so really I do not believe if retroactive transliterations between Latin orthographies are permitted. As an example, physicist Baron L. Eötvös, inventor of torsion balance, who verified the proportionality of gravitating and inertial masses up to 8 digits, so supporting General Relativity (without his intent) should be written in recent Hungarian orthography as Ötvös. Still no lists of publications are corrected retroactively. According to European tradition family names are to be kept as invariable as possible.

It is quite another question if Mileva wrote her name as "Maric'" sometimes in Latin letters, and when, if at all. This is not only the question of Mileva's relation to Illyrism. I do not know anything at all about her Illyrism, but historians of science may find documents. Her orthography would be interesting because of her high school years in Zagreb, Croatia, and of her father's job at Croatian courts. I am sure, e.g. that Mileva's family name was written automatically with c' in Zagreb if she pronounced it; but how she wrote it there?

Instead of manipulating her name, the important questions are: Did she write her name in Latin letters any time other than Marity or Einstein? Did any contemporary of her write her name as Maric'? What was her explicit opinion about her own ethnicity: Serb, Illyrian or Yugoslavian?

As a closing remark: in recent Vojvodina, and also in recent Hungary, there is a group called Bunevatz. They live East of the Danube.

Serbian statistics always considered them Serbians, Hungarian and Croatian ones Croatians. (The Central Statistical Office of Hungary strictly distinguished Serbian and Croatian even in times when the language was declared the same; the way of distinction was simply the group names. If somebody is Bunevatz or Sokac, then he is Croat; if he is Rác, he is Serb, and so on. CSO has regulations even to know the first language of a deaf-mute. Before making jokes, note that in Hungary the Constitution orders the existence of councils of autochtoneous ethnic minorities, of which 4 are Southerners and Slavs: Bulgarian, Croatian, Slovenian and Serbian. We must have some statistics, how big are these groups.) I think, the main ethnic factor here is religion: Bunevatzes are Roman Catholic, then it means that holidays &c. go with Croats (and Hungarians). But also, most of Hungarian Serbs (including ancestors of Maritys) came to North with Priest Arszenie Csernojevity as refugees from Turkish Balkan, while Bunevatzes lived the Middle Ages in Hungary, so traditions are different anyways. On the other hand, Bunevatzes are Easterners, so they must be "što"-Croats, not "kaj"-Croats as Zagreb. However, are they "što-ije", or "što-e" people? You see, you should know such things before deciding if Einstein stole from the electrodynamics of moving bodies from Marity. Namely, in 1969 Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity cited Yoffe's statement about the "Einstein-Marity" article, in Serbian Cyrillic. (Not exactly the same as Russian Cyrillic.) However when it appeared in German, so in Latin letter, it was transliterated to Maric'.

Now you see, it is quite different thing if Yoffe remembers Einstein-Marity or Einstein-Maric'. (And if somebody were to remember that the second name was in Cyrillic on the Annalen manuscript...)

In the time of Mileva ground schooling was compulsory 4 years, continuable. This was the so called "Folk school", i.e. ground school. With a few exception these schools were maintained by Churches, but State influenced the topics and standard of teaching. All non-Magyar folk schools of Hungary taught Magyar language as a foreign language, so in a few hours in week. Folk school classes generally were co-educated, except for populous cities.

After that there were options. The child could finish, or could continue in schools teaching special skills. Also, there were schools giving some more generic knowledge. One such was "Real school", giving extra literature, mathematics & such. There were such schools also for girls, but I cannot tell you their exact teaching.

Now, if you wanted to be an intellectuel, you must have gone into a gymnasium; and maybe this is the American high school. A gymnasium went for 8 years, the course was state-prescribed, and at the end there was a maturation examination, supervised on the spot by a delegation of the Ministry of Education. After a maturation you could go to any University of Hungary, or might apply for almost any state office not needing special technical skill. Also, after maturation the fellow was a gentleman, to be able to duelling with anybody including high military officers. This type of school will open for girls in the second half of 1890's. Latin and one Western language was compulsory; the third language might be either Greek (in "humane gymnasia") or a second modern language (in "real gymnasia"). Mathematics went up to differential calculus and elements of integrals; physics up to chemical atomic theory plus Solar System astronomy.

Be careful: Technical Hochschule of Zürich is not Technical High School in American, but Technical University.

Let us go back to 1911, Prague. Einstein may guess the problems about Gravity; but he does not yet use Riemannian Geometry (he does not know the formalism, neither does Mileva; only Grossmann). But he (maybe with Mileva) knows a lot.

Light is both a shower of particles (photons) and a wave. He (or they?) showed the existence of photons in the light in 1905 [16]; but clearly the radiation is a wave also; you can easily measure the wavelength, you can make interferency experiments &c.

In the time of Newton & Huyghens in a context of Sun-grazing light particle theory would have led to 0.83" while wave theory (Huyghens) would have led to cca. 0. In 1690 this prediction was irrelevant because measurement accuracy was worse by 1 order of magnitude; still the results would have been unambiguous.

In Newton's theory any body starting with the same velocity to the same direction would make the same path, because acceleration is independent of mass. OK, photon mass is arbitrarily small, but it drops out. Light velocity is well above to solar escape velocity, so the photon will take a hyperbolic path. The hyperbole just grazing the solar surface has the angle between the two asymptotics

D j = 2GM/Rc² = 0.83"

On the other hand, if light is a wave (of ether, say), it is more complicated to calculate the paths. However for first approximation consider an infinite flat body. Above it the medium is in a state that anything depends only on the height coordinate z. Take, as an example, sound in the atmosphere. Sound is local, so in first approximation Earth is infinite. Now a sound starting horizontally does not drop. On one hand this is experience, on the other, if we solve sound propagation, this is a simple result. Gravity makes the atmosphere denser down, so the propagation velocity may depend on height. Then oblique sounds may have curved paths; horizontal ones remain horizontal.

Then Newton's and Huyghens' predictions would differ. Good; maybe in 1914, using the total eclipse, we will be able to decide, wave or particle is the photon.

However Einstein's 1911 article [18] has different results. Namely, he already knows that E=mc² and E=hn . Now take a gravity well whence a photon is coming out. At height h (if there is energy conservation), photon energy decreases with gmh, where g is the surface acceleration and m is the mass of the photon. But due to the electrodynamics of moving bodies [15]

m = E/c²

and due to the Photoelectricity paper [16]

E = hn

Then the photon's frequency must change with height, so the rate of clocks must depend on height, just as it depends on velocity since [15].

Now, by taking the different clock rates into account Einstein gets the deflection of Sun-grazing waves just

D j = 2GM/Rc² = 0.83"

the same as for Newtonian particles; so he is contented and happy.

I would, too. However the 1919 experiment will get rather

D j = 4GM/Rc² = 1.7"

So, if Einstein's last prediction had been the 1911 one [18], then the first post-war observation would have disproved it. Fortunately from 1912 upwards he and Grossmann elaborated General Relativity, incidentally yielding the double value of prediction, which seems correct even now.

Therefore: about the unification of Gravity and Relativity Einstein (and Marity?) was (were?) incorrect. Einstein & Grossmann were correct. (Nobody showed me any valid argument in any time for Marity working with Riemannian Geometry, even if she and Grossmann could converse in broken Magyar, unintelligible for Einstein.)

A good theory is not just a matter of intelligence and activity. It would have been very, very hard to elaborate a viable unification of Gravity & Relativity without (pseudo-)Riemannian Geometry, known by cca. half a dozen people in 1912. A Hungarian had a slightly more chance to learn Riemann Geometry because of the example of János Bolyai; but look, Marity did not learn it.

M. Grossmann was born in Budapest, 1878. His father, Julius (or Jules, or Gyula) Grossmann was an Elsasser industrialist who came to Hungary in 1868 and with a partner founded the "Grossmann-Rausenbach Machine Factory", which later took the name Elsô Magyar Mezôgazdasági Gépgyár (First Hungarian Agricultural Machine Factory) at Budapest, Külsô Váczi út 7 (now 1134 Váci út 7, the site of a famous marketplace), which factory took a great part in modernizing wheat harvests of the Great Plains. From 1885 it is a stock corperation as EMAG Rt. M. Grossmann took Hungarian schooling up to age 15 when the family went to Schwitzerland. Here in 1896 he took ETH, together with Marity (Titel) and Einstein (Ulm), but he later specialised to Non-Euclidean Geometry. Influence of J. Bolyai’s non-Euclidean hyperbolic geometry, commonplace in Hungary, is probable but unexplored by historians. However note his interest about hyperbolic (in cosmologic language k=-1) spaces [34], [35]; Riemannian Geometry was rather k=+1.

In 1912 Einstein mentions him his problem that Minkowski space (Einstein’s construction in 1905) is invariant only for Lorentz transformation, not enough to include the description of Gravity; in addition the observer can move arbitrarily so general coordinate transformations should be permitted. Grossmann tells about non-Euclidean geometries; they become sure that pseudo-Riemannian Geometries would be necessary, and so they found General Relativity [36], [37] (verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie). Still the gravitational equation is not complete, but this problem is of no interest for Grossmann, so he drops out of collaboration in 1914 (as, incidentally, Marity does too.).

On Sept. 21, 1913, according to Novi Sad's Zastava newspaper, Einstein's both sons were baptized into the Serbian Orthodox Church. (The godfather was Laza Markovity.) Now, there is something nontrivial there.

At the ritual Hans Albert was already 9, and even Eduard 3! It seems as if there were originally no agreement to baptize them; moreover I guess that Marity organized the act without Einstein's consensus. (According to reports, the marriage was already troubled.) Then: was she at her rights and was the act legal?

I am no expert in Swiss civil law. In Hungary the act was in theory illegal, but I think Einstein never protested at Hungarian authorities.

Namely after 1895 the Hungarian law told about marriages of mixed religions (very frequent in Hungary) that in lack of explicit agreement of parents the child goes to the church of the parent of identical sex. By any chance Einstein's religion was Israelite, and by no chance Pravoslav-Orthodox. However the Hungarian State assumed agreement in lack of the protest.

It is an interesting question if the Hungarian State registered the children then. I guess, being the father foreigner it was up to Marity; I do not know if anybody checked the State registration in 90 years.

For Church law the baptization was, of course, valid.

Any reflection from Einstein? Surely, he did not know Hungarian Family Law. Look at Letter {54} about the second child to be, referred as "second Lieserl": "As what is the child registered? We must take precautions that problem don’t arise for her later." Clearly there was no agreement at all in Bern before the birth; and Albert did not know that in the lack of agreement state registration (in existence in 1904) is automatic. So Lieserl is Greek Orthodox, Hans Albert is Israelite without agreement.

Still, Mileva organizes baptizations as an afterthought in 1913. Why? To provoke?

Some historians browse Love Letters for traces of religious discord between Einsteins and Maritys; but I think the result is scarce. From Love Letters, mostly from {14} we learn that Mother Pauline had 4 main problems with Mileva: 1) that she was old; 2) that she was bookish; 3) that she would become a witch later; and 4) that she was not healthy. Now, none of these points are religious, and they are being countlessly repeated by mothers even now. And really, Mileva was Albert’s senior by 3.5 years, was bookish and had a congenital hip dislocation. Mileva was not a favourite of mothers-in-law.

We do not know practically anything about the religious habits of Maritys. However we know something about Einsteins. In {13}, on the middle of September, 1900, E. writes to M. that he told to Mother to spend the Christmas with Mileva. OK, Mileva would not like to be left alone on Christmas. But Albert had to clarify with Mother Pauline that he will not be with the family!. And next year, when Mileva is at home in Hungary, we learn from {47} that Albert will spend Christmas with his sister Maja in Hotel Paradiso. So Christmas was a regular family holidays for the Einsteins. So much about religious discords. In addition, Greek Orthodox Christmas for Mileva is 6^th January!

I am not joking. The Love Letters demonstrate Einstein's Schwabian self-respect. He is citing Grimm's and Uhland's slogans about Schwabians for Marity, see e.g. letters {18} & {51}.

And he cites not only for Marity. There is a Kepler-article. Unfortunately I found it in the (Hungarian edition of) My Weltbild [38]; that book has been published in 1934, in turbulent times, so he did not indicate the bibliographical data of the original publication. But it is almost surely 1921, the 350th anniversary of the birth of Johannes Kepler, great Schwabian scientist. (The dating, however, is a guess. One Russian source tells that it was published for the tricentennary of the death, in Frankfurter Zeitung, 9th Nov. 1930. This is something for historians.)

In this time Einstein is in Germany, already divorced from Marity and practically in no contact with Grossmann. So Einstein is speaking himself. Now, he tells (I am translating through Magyar, so small details may differ for you): "...and us, later born people, Europeans, what is more, Germans, what is even more, Schwabians, can only esteem and admire him."

So in 1921 still Einstein, from Ulm, Schwabenland, declare himself Schwab. Why is this interesting in Marity context?

Mileva Marity is a Hungarian Serb from Titel. Now in cca. 1900 there is a small German group just on the other side of the Tisa (at cca. Perlász); as well near to Novi Sad, and a substantial block halfway between Novi Sad and Temeswar (I do not write here the city name in 5 languages).

Then again a very brief Hungarian history. Hungary had roughly 3 groups of German settlers: Hiencz, Saxon & Schwab. The Hiencz group is originally the Franco-Bavarian colonists of Charlemagne. Saxons came in the XII-XIIIth century, and Schwabians in the XVII-XVIIIth ones, just after the ousting of Turks.

Not all Schwabians of Hungary came from Schwabenland. Jut the majority of Schwabians in the neighbourhood of the Maritys really were Silesians fleeing from Protestant Frederick II. However they were called Schwabians in Hungary.

Now, very probably the first German idiom which Mileva learnt were that of the Schwabians of Southernmost Hungary. And we are told by {0} that in an early Love Letter Mileva tries to imitate the Schwabian dialect of Albert. Albeit I am using English text, this cannot be anything else than {1}. Mileva sees a cute young guy, who admits that he is Schwab; let us speak with him in Schwabian. And from Southern Germany she tries to write him in Schwabian. It would need a German linguist to tell how similar was Mileva's Schwabian to the real Schwabian; I told the Hungarian side of the story.

There is some mystery in Einstein's work, ignored by most. It is: the torsion pendulum and Einstein. For the details see [39].

For the foundation of General Relativity Einstein & Grossmann cite the measurements of R. Eötvös. From 1888 upwards he performed a string of measurements with torsion pendulum for the strict proportinality of inertial and gravitating masses, finally reaching 2*10^-9 accuracy. That was 4 orders of magnitude better than the previous Bessel measurements.

One may, of course, build up General Relativity even on Bessel. Still [36] does cite a measurement of Eötvös, while one-author Einstein papers generally do not cite Eötvös (albeit late Autobiography from 1946 mentions him). Good; Grossmann knew about the very accurate Eötvös experiments. This is an obvious explanation. Grossmann had some Hungarian roots, Eötvös was Hungarian, a Minister of Education about 1895, a Baron and Member of Academy.

But look. First, [36] neatly separates into a physical part, mainly written by Einstein, and a mathematical one of Grossmann; and the Eötvös citation is in Einstein’s part. And in [40] Einstein tells a situation (with radioactivity, to be sure) when the inertial and gravitating masses would not be proportional; and this is the idea returning in [36]. In addition, in a letter to W. Wien on 10th July, 1912 Einstein outlines the torsion pendulum [41]; especially with lead and uranium weights, because of the radioactivity concept. So it seems that either he knew about the Eötvös pendulum in 1911/12, or by chance discovered it independently.

However there is a good chance that the information originally came from wife Marity. Look: Baron Eötvös generally published in the Yearbooks of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, nice Volumes in leather and so. Maybe Einstein did not read them; but wife Marity for curiosity...? Especially in Prague, boring herself? Anyway, she was a Hungarian physicist.

You may think that the Einstein autobiographies would tell something about. Yes; but they are rather equivocal. E.g. they generally do not tell anything about Marity, the colleague living in the same flat for 10 years. Or see a friend & coauthor. Some texts acknowledge Grossmann’s seminal influence about General Relativity, some not. But now we are interested in torsion pendulum experiments of Eötvös: that whendid Einstein hear about them.

Well; [36] proves that he already knew about them in the autumn of 1912. And before? In [38], published in 1934, he speaks the status of research between 1908 & 1911, and a clumsy and cautious sentence (which I am translating through Magyar) tells: "I did not doubt [the equivalence principle]’s strict validity even without the knowledge of the results of Eötvös’s nice experiments, which results –if I remember correctly- became known for me only subsequently." So he learnt about them in 1912.

However now let us jump into 1946. He writes another autobiography, which will be the Introduction of a Volume in 1949 [42]. Here he describes the status of the General Relativity program in 1908, by saying: "…Point 2: Very accurate measurements (especially those with Eötvös pendulum) showed empirically that the gravitating mass of bodies is exactly equal with their inertial mass". (Here, for technical reasons, I used the Magyar translation of the German half of the originally bilingual German/English text.) Now what was Einstein’s opinion about the time when he heard first about the torsion experiments of Eötvös? 1908, 1911 or 1912?

And there is a signal pointing (maybe) to Marity. Remember the very first Einstein article, which originally almost surely was Einstein-Marity. Now, that paper deals with capillarity. And there is an Eötvös Law, originally published in 1886 [43]. It is a formula amongst surface tension a , specific volume v and temperature T

a v^2/3 = k(T-T_o)

an inherently thermodynamic Law. Surely, Einstein & Marity discussed Eötvös in 1900-1 (not necessarily the torsion pendulum, of course), and Einstein returned to the Eötvös Law in 1910 [44].

If somebody is fanatic to show Marity's influence on Einstein articles of single author, I think she has better chances with thermodynamic papers citing Eötvös, than with [15] where is nothing which should have come from Marity. As for Einstein: he could do nothing after 1914. If he got the information about Eötvös from Marity, and then forgot the details, he could not ask his ex-wife with whom he was practically not in speaking terms.

Annalen der Physik several times restarted the Volume numbering. One such restart happened in 1900. Earlier Volumes are often called Wiedemann's Annalen, from the Chief Editor.

[1] Desanka Gjurity-Trbuhovity: U sencu Alberta Ajnstaina. Bagdala, Krusevac (Hungarian transcription!), 1969. (German translation: Desanka Trbuhovic’-Gjuric’: Im Shatten Albert Einsteins, Paul Haupt, Bern & Stuttgart, 1983)

[2] A. Gogola: Einstein árnyékában. Természet Világa, 119, 64 (1988)

[3] G. Olaszy: Some Rules for the Formant Synthesis of Hungarian. Proc. 8th Coll. on Acoustics, Budapest, 1982, p. 204

[4] I. Borbély & B. Lukács: The Deviation Functional of Phoneme Recognition. Acustica 63, 129 (1986)

[5] Bárczy G.: A magyar nyelv életrajza. Gondolat, Budapest, 1966.

[6] Klára Vicsi: On the Perceptual Identification of Some Classes of Consonants. Proc. "Speech Recognition by Human and Machine), Budapest, 1980, p. 157

[7] Klára Vicsi: The Most Relevant Acoustical Microsegment and Uits Duration Necessary for the Recognition of Unvoiced Stops. Acustica 48, 536 (1981)

[8] I. Borbély & B. Lukács: Symmetries in Phoneme Recognition. Acustica 68, 52 (1988)

[9] G. E. Petersen & H. L. Barney: Control Methods Used in a Study of the Vowels. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 24, 175 (1952)

[10] Albert Einstein - Mileva Maric'. The Love Letters. Eds. J. Renn & R. Schulmann, Transl. by Shawn Smith. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992

[11] J. Bogárdi: Radix - 1882 gazetteer of Hungary. http://www.bogardi.com/gen/g109.shtml

[12] F. Br. Nopcsa: Bemerkungen zu Petronievics seinen Arbeiten über Archaeopteryx. Ann. Géol. Peninsule Balkanique, 8, 105 (1926)

[13] A. Einstein: Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Annln. Phys. 17, 549 (1905)

[14] A. Einstein: Zur Theorie der Brownschen Bewegung. Annln. Phys. 19, 371 (1906)

[15] A. Einstein: Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper. Annln. Phys. 17, 891 (1905); continued in 18, 639 (1906) and I regard here the 2 papers as an indivisible unit.

[16] A. Einstein: Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Geschictspunkt. Annln. Phys. 17, 132 (1905)

[17] A. Einstein: Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen. Jahrbuch f. Radioakt. u. Elektronik, 4, 411 (1907)

[18] A. Einstein: Über den Einfluss der Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes. Annln. Phys. 35, 898 (1911)

[19] Lord Kelvin: Clouds, 1900. Phil. Magazine. 2, 1 (1901)

[20] K. Martinás: Aristotelian Thermodynamics. In: Thermodynamics: History and Philosophy, eds. K. Martinás & al., World Scientific, Singapore, 1990, p. 254

[21] M. Planck: Zur Theorie des Gesetzes der Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum. Verhandlung der Deutschen Phys. Gesellsch. 2, 237 (1900)

[22] M. Planck: Über das Gesetz derr Energieverteilung im Normalspectrum. Annln. Phys. 4, 553 (1901))

[23] W. Wien: Über die Energievertheilung im Emissionsspektrum eines schwarzes Körpers. Annln. Phys. 58, 662 (1896)

[24] A. F. Joffe: Begegnungen mit Physikern. Basel, 1967, p. 88

[25] Svenka Savic': The Road to Mileva Maric'-Einstein: Private Letters. http://www.womenngo.org.yu/sajt/english/sajt/publishing/women_studies/jurnal/Svenka%20Savic%20-%20The%20Road%20to%20Mileva%20Maric-Einstein%20Private%20Letters.htm

[26] A. Einstein: Folgerungen aus den Capillaritätserscheinungen. Annln. Phys. 4, 513 (1901)

[27] D. Herceg (ed.): Mileva Einstein (Maric’). University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, 1995

[28] M. Banai & B. Lukács: Attempts of Closing Up by Long-Range Regulators in the Carpathian Basin. In: J. Kovács (ed.): Technological Lag and Intellectual Background: Problems of Ttransition in East Central Europe. Darthmouth, Aldershot, 1995, p. 323

[29] B. Franolic': The Croatian Language Today. http://www.cam.ac.uk/societies/cro/crolang.htm

[30] E. Niederhauser: Illirizmus és nagyszerb tervek. História 4, 11 (1992)

[31] F. Vrancic: Dictionarium quinque nobilissimarum Europae linguarum. Venice, 1595

[32] L. Gaj: Kratka osnova horvatsko-slavenskoga pravopisanja. Buda, 1830.

[33] F. Prešeren: Sonetni venec. Pomurska zalozba, Murska Sobota, 1971

[34] M. Grossmann: Projektive Konstruktionen in der hyperbolischen Geometrie. Mathem, A. 68, 141 (1910)

[35] M. Grossmann: Projektiver Beweis der Absoluten Parallelkonstruktion von Lobatschewskij. Verh. Schweiz. Naturforsch. Ges. 35, 4 (1911)

[36] A. Einstein & M. Grossmann: Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Z. Mathem. Phys. 62, 225 (1913)

[37] A. Einstein & M. Grossmann: Kovarianzeigenshaften der Feldgleichungen der auf die verallgemeinerte Relativitätstheorie gegründeten Gravitationstheorie. Z. Mathem. Phys. 63, 215 (1914)

[38] A. Einstein: My Weltbild. Querido, Amsterdam, 1934

[39] V. P. Vizgin: Relyativistskaya teoriya tyagoteniya. Nauka, Moscow, 1981

[40] A. Einstein: Relativität und Gravitation: Erwiderung auf Eine Bemerkung von M. Abraham. Annln. Phys. 38, 1059 (1912)

[41] J. Illy: Einstein und der Eötvös-Versuch: Ein Brief Albert Einsteins an Willy Wien. Ann. of Sci. 46, 417 (1989)

[42] A. Einstein: Autobiography. The Introduction of P. Schilpp: Albert Einstein as Philosopher and Scientist, Evanston, 1949

[43] R. Eötvös: Über den Zusammenhang der Oberflächenspannung mit der Molekularvolumen. Annln. Phys. 27, 448 (1886)

[44] A. Einstein: Bemerkung zu dem Gesetz von Eötvös. Annln. Phys. 34, 165 (1911)

My HomePage, with some other studies, if you are curious.