IMG95

Ernst Much

fathcr oftrn remcmbcrcd with laughtcr!—bcgan roughly as follows: "The Stoics already dividcd philosophy into logie, physics, and ethics. It is thcrc-forc des i rabie that the threc philosophy chairs in Vicnna be occupied by _a logician, an cthicist, and the third chair by a physirist." ³²

Heinrich Gomperz further related: “Above all therc wcrc somc reser-vatioos to be ovcrcomc about Mach s ‘radical vicws. To help persuade thosc members of the faculty who wcrc novclty-shy it was hinted that Mach’s idcas displayed a close relationship with thosc of Bishop Berkeley.”

Fivc days after Zimmermanns report, on Dcccmbcr 15, 1894, the issuc camc to a votc bcforc the entire philosophical faculty. To make the votc as near unanimous as possiblc a bonę was thrown to the “humanistic” wing of the faculty in the form of an accompanying rccommcndation to fili the sccond philosophy chair with Dr. Benno Erdmann as primo loco and Dr. Rudolf Euckcn, the futurę Nobel Prizc winner, as secundo loco. The double rccommcndation was ap. proved by the faculty forty-thrcc to two with two abstentions.³³ The Ministry rejected the sccond proposal out of hand, claiming that therc was only one actual vacancy.³⁴ T he first proposal also ran into scrious opposition. On January 26, 1895, Theodor Gomperz wrotc to Mach that J. von Karaba5ck, dcan of the philosophy faculty, had promiscd to see the Education Minister soon and arguc encrgctically for the faculty’s rccommcndation/''

The decisivc breakthrough, howevcr, came through the efforts of the classical philologist, Wilhelm von Hartcl, a elose friend and confi-dant of the Education Minister, who was also a member of the selcc-tion commission. He discovered the rcal rcason for the Ministry’s si-Icncc and procrastination. Von Hartcl communicated his findings to Mach, and encouraged the would-bc Praguc emigre to rcply to the chargcs against him. Herc arc a fcw quotations from somc of the scrawlcd notes that the classical scholar sent to Mach:

February ii, 1895:

Today for the first timc I was offered the long-sought opportunity to in-quire in the ministry about your transfer and about the difTerent rumors concerning the real statc of affairs. What I had not bclicvcd [possiblc] is now elear. You arc under attack from the side ot the clcricals. . . . Our opponents havc ferreted out [aufgestóbert] two placcs in your writings which arc directed against religion.³⁰

February 12, 1S95:

Since I cannot t>clicvc that your moderate statements    (

obstacle in thcmsdvcs in the cyes of respcmsihle pcople I will out further dclay with the minister himsclf, whfch wLLl takc «£*

-ow or in a day nr rwo. You ,h,U rhen hcar from mra.oL '°^m°^r-

February 14,1895:

[ callcd on the minister today who named wid, great frankness both the accuscrs and tnc accusations.    ^mc

February 22, 1895:

In all hastę I will diselose to you, that finally the tce is broken I only sv,sh now .ha. the negotiahons will take a fast and smooth eourse My adv.ee ,s. tf tt .s at all poss.ble, to eome here and eonduct the maner in person.

A fcw wccks later Mach wrotc to Popper-Lynkeus (March 14,1895):

The situation stands so, a gentleman who the Minister has named as an intermcdiary [Herr R.ttncr] has designated scvcral placcs in mv writin^s as dircctcd against rcl.g.on, belief in immortality, etc. I havc gathered mv writings together, underlined the placcs in red, and sent the whole business to Vicnna; at the same timc the intermcdiary has offered to tell the Minister that indccd I do not agitatc in my leaures, but on the contrarv am ven carcful; but should it be dcmandcd that I takc the position in my writings •cpistolac obscurum viromm/ then it would be better to forget the whole thing, bccausc I refusc to acccpt that condition. I then considercd that the whole matter as conccrncd me was as good as lost. To mv surprise, a fcw days afterward the intermcdiary wrotc saying that cvcrything was going woli, and that the Minister had only still to ask the govcrnor [Suttfultcr] ot Bohemia about mc, because it was customary in such cascs. Since then thrcc wccks havc passed, without having heard any morę news. He cań indccd do what hc pleases. For the present say nothing about this. I will sec this matter through to the cnd.

The govcrnor of Bohemia had alrcady written the Education Minister, ho\vcvcr, about Mach (March 5, 1895):

Allow mc ... to make it known, that no obicction on morał or cisie grounds has bccn raiscd herc against . . . Professor Dr. Ernst Mach; he conccntratcs cxclusivcly on science and on his werk and stands quitc apart from political lifc.³⁷

We tlo not know the rcasdn for the govcrnor’$ generous rcmarks, sincc in fact, therc wcrc many reports through the ycars on file on Mach’s political activities in Praguc. Nonctheless, one may still appte-

‘53