Historical Notes for Novikov Windows: A Time Travel Novel

---

I enjoyed researching the historical aspects of this novel as much as I enjoyed writing it. My aim was to be as historically accurate as possible, while weaving the time travel elements and the more fantastical aspects of the narrative into the gaps. In terms of general research, I sourced as many photographs of Munich in the 1800s as I could, giving me a window into the city, its streets and its people. I am also indebted to Google Maps and the Google Streetview feature, which allowed me to walk the modern streets of Munich and get a feel for the city.

My description of Max Talmey relied on sources such as https://thereaderwiki.com/en/Max_Talmud and especially Albert Einstein and his mentor Max Talmey by James G. Ravin*. The books that Max gave to young Albert are, as far as I am aware, historically accurate.

Many varied sources detail information of Einstein’s early life, which the interested reader can easily access via any internet search engine. The details of Einstein’s residence in Adlzreiterstrasse, and the occupation of his father and uncle are historically accurate (see for example https://www.muenchenwiki.de/wiki/Adlzreiterstra%C3%9Fe). And yes, in 1885, the electrical engineering company Einstein & Cie did win the contract to provide, for the first time, direct current electrical lighting to illuminate the Oktoberfest.

I am not sure if Albert and Max ranged to the various parks near Einstein’s home, such as the Theresienwiese and Bavariapark, but Max did have a standing lunch invitation with the Einstein’s every Thursday (see Ravin, 1997*). 

* (Ravin, J. G. (1997). Albert Einstein and His Mentor Max Talmey: The seventh Charles B. Snyder lecture. Documenta ophthalmologica, 94, 1-17.)

Perhaps the first thing I learned in researching the story of Vincent van Gogh and particularly the events of 23 December 1888, is that scholars are not always agreed on historical events, and particularly why events may have occurred the way they did. 

This left me with wriggle room to “rewrite history”, but also with having to make some clear choices as to which theory of events I would employ in the plot for this novel. As to the latter aspect, I have chosen to pursue two narrative lines. 

The first relates to Vincent van Gogh’s diagnosis. Van Gogh’s time in Arles and the deterioration of his mental health during this time is one of the most documented events in art history and there is a burgeoning literature that puts forward several possible medical and psychiatric diagnoses to explain Vincent’s changes in mental state. 

I will not list all that literature here. A theory that appealed to me was put forward by Dietrich Blumer** and is essentially as I have detailed in the novel. Blumer argued that Vincent may have had a pre-existing head injury which acted as a focus for absence seizures, the occurrence and frequency of which were influenced by absinthe and perhaps stress. The seizures in turn resulted in a post-ictal psychosis, a mental health condition of losing touch with reality after experiencing seizures. 

There has also been much speculation around the severing of van Gogh’s ear. One assertion, published in 2008 by two reputable German academics, Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans***, was that it was Paul Gaugin who cut off van Gogh’s ear with his fencing foil. While this theory remains controversial, it offered an opportunity for a dramatic subplot within this novel that I couldn’t resist. 

My account also relies on documents such the analysis provided by Martin Bailey**** in 2005, which cogently synthesis both facts and speculation of Vincent’s crisis.

I especially delighted in reading the correspondence between Vincent, his brother Theo, his sister and other artists and acquaintances, which are publicly available (https://vangoghletters.org/vg/letters.html). They not only brought Vincent’s experiences to life for me, but I found his descriptions of certain places, like the Restaurant Venissac, to be vivid and to offer an unprecedented window into the visual mind of the artist. At times I was guided by the English translation of Vincent’s letters for my own descriptions of people and places in 1888 Arles. 

Of course, van Gogh’s art itself provided an incredibly personal and emotionally tinged window into Arles and its people, bringing to life places like the Café de la Gare, the yellow house and Vincent’s bedroom, and people like Monsieur Roulin or Dr Felix Rey.  

In addition, I sourced as many pictures of Arles in the 1800s as I could, especially of places like the train station. And I am once again indebted to Google Maps and the Streetview feature which allowed me to get a sense of contemporary Arles.

As described by Martin Bailey****, Gauguin did attend an execution two days after returning to Paris. Although I have woven this event into the narrative and provided my own justification for Gauguin’s attendance, his real motivation for attending this event so soon after returning is historically unclear.

Finally, if I have made any errors in terms of historical detail or misinterpreting events, I take full responsibility and humbly apologise in advance.

** Blumer, D. (2002). The illness of Vincent van Gogh. American Journal of Psychiatry, 159(4), 519-526.

*** Kaufmann, H., & Wildegans, R. (2008). Van Goghs Ohr: Paul Gauguin und der Pakt des Schweigens (Van Gogh’s Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence). Osburg.

**** Bailey, M. (2005, September). Drama at Arles new light on Van Gogh's self-mutilation. In Apollo (Vol. 162, No. 523, pp. 30-42). Apollo Magazine Ltd.