Thanks for your letter of December 26. While you answer some of our questions, the important ones are still left outstanding.
You should not have taken it upon yourself to sign a contract on Velikovskys books without Velikovskys authorization, and actually against his wishes, as expressed in two telegrams. Whatever you may think is best for Velikovsky, you cannot make decisions for him. That any contract would need Velikovskys approval was clear to all concerned when you left here on May 1; and you knew it as late as October 20 when you wrote: Umschau in due course will wish to have proper signatures to the contract. You would have to empower me accordingly. Your obligation was to consult with Velikovsky at every stage of negotiations, leaving him to decide what is acceptable in a proposed contract and what is not (footnotes in the back are, for instance, not); You were required to take his advice on ail points and await his instructions before finalizing any agreement. You do not have the power to conclude contracts, only to negotiate. It was with this understanding that Velikovsky let you negotiate with publishers in Europe.
Some of your actions have already been damaging: Your opening an account for Velikovsky in December 1977 instead of January 1978 was undesirable for practical reasons.
If you would have followed Velikovskys advice, as you were obligated to do, and given option on the remaining volumes instead of selling them outright, vie would not now be repaired to pay a 25% commission to Doubleday. As it is, Doubleday is the agent, whether active or not, and the commission belongs to them; you cannot, of course, expect to receive any on top of this. (I refer to Earth in Upheaval and Oedipus and Akhnaton.)
I repeat what I wrote in my last letter, that Velikovsky is against the setting up of a Velikovsky Institute.
In scientific matters, writing to scientists and scholars in Egyptology etc., you cannot act for Velikovsky in any official or even semi-official way. If you want to act on your own, as a private person, I can only offer advice: to deliberately provoke scientists Is counterproductive and can be very damaging. If a scholar wants to have nothing to do with Velikovsky, leave him alone!
We would also like to know if there are any negotiations going on with other European publishers.
In your letter to Velikovsky dated December 27 you write that you feel indebted to his good will. We are a little puzzled at this statement, seeing that Velikovsky did not give you any reason to think that he approved of your actions.
Finally, you ask about the Glasgow conference: the meeting is on, so far as I can tell. Velikovsky was invited to come, but originally the SIS did not count with his presence, and they will continue without him.
We would appreciate a quick response to the above.