He declined the suggestion of some astronomers that this was again a Leverrier problem and that there must exist another undiscovered planet still nearer the sun and disturbing Mercury's orbit. He also refused to accept the assumption that the disturbance might be caused by a ring of cosmic matter distributed round the sun. Poincaré divined that the new mechanics could supply the key to the enigma, but, obviously to be quite conscientious, he expressed his presentiment in very cautious terms. On that occasion he said that some special cause had yet to be found to explain the anomaly of Mercury's behaviour; till that was discovered one could only say that the new doctrine could not be regarded as in contradiction to astronomical facts. But the true explanation was gradually drawing near. Five years later, on 18th November 1915, Albert Einstein presented to the Prussian Academy of Sciences a paper which solved this riddle which, expressed in seconds, seemed so insignificant and yet was of such enormous importance in its bearing on fundamental questions. He proved the problem was solved quite accurately if the general Theory of Relativity he had founded was accepted as the only valid basis for the phenomena of cosmic motions. Many would at this point express a wish to have the essence of the doctrine of relativity explained in an easily intelligible manner. Indeed, some would go even further in their desire, and would ask for a simple description in a few succinct sentences. This, measured in terms of difficulty and possibility, would be about equivalent to wishing to learn the history of the world by reading several quarto pages of manuscript or a novelette. But even if we start at long range and use elaborate materials for our description, we should have to give up the idea that this knowledge may be gained with playful ease. For this doctrine, inasmuch as it discloses the relationship between mathematical and physical events, emerges out of mathematics, which thus limits the mode of its representation. Whoever undertakes to present it in a form in which it is easily intelligible, that is quite unmathematical and yet complete, is engaged in an impossible venture; he is like one who would whistle Kepler's Laws on the flute or would elucidate Kant's Critique of Pure Reason by means of coloured illustrations. In all frankness we must confess once and for all that whenever popular accounts are attempted they can be only in the nature of vague suggestions removed from the domain of mathematics. But even such indications have a fruitful result if they succeed in focusing the attention of the reader or the hearer so that the connexions, the Leitmotivs, so to speak, of the doctrine, are at least suggested.