Dear Mrs. Velikovsky,

I have read your letter of March 1 carefully, coming to the conclusion that in fact you wish to terminate the agreement your husband had proposed and I had accepted on my visit of last year: whereby I am to negotiate, to conclude and to secure contracts, at good pace, for the publication of Velikovsky’s works in non-English speaking countries, especially on the Continent. It was obviously understood that the very nature of this business would demand my long-term involvement, this also being reflected in some further directions I received from Velikovsky. Equally obvious is the delegation of wide powers to conduct this business according to my own judgement along the guiding thoughts that Velikovsky had explained to me in our daily discussions (which I noted down at the time), including many details as well as general information. We shook hands on this.

You wish to terminate this agreement—at the very moment of our first achievements—on the basis of a sentence you are quoting out of all context of the developments that with your intimate knowledge had been leading to the successful German contract (and which I shall not repeat again here). Even now you are unable to give a single practical reason that should have kept me from signing, saying instead that against the true sense of my agreement with Velikovsky I should have abided to a code of conduct that was never foreseen. If this really had been anticipated, Velikovsky would and should never have left the many dispositions and decisions to me, which had to be reached about the numerous questions I put to him (repeatedly, in many cases) throughout our correspondence. Indeed, it is this very way of carrying on that has distinguished our dealings, and which I honour. (Otherwise, if this hadn’t been mutually understood, I should have felt terribly let down, in the fewest instances only to have received adequate answers even in possibly pressing matters such as the planned new Vorwort to “Welten im Zusammenstoss”; or improvements to its appendix; or completing my “Ramses” MS. for finishing the chart you are reminding me about...)

I wonder, then, why you should call my expectation of formalizing my power of attorney “baseless”, now that first objectives have been achieved. It strikes me as odd, that only today I should hear of a decision “already last summer to keep everything within the family”, which I certainly would have liked to learn about at the proper time, from Velikovsky personally. And I disagree with your view, coming on top of all this and being obviously uninformed, that the UMSCHAU contract is “voidable”. Isn’t it asking a bit much, finally, to request my being content with such remonstrations?

I disagree, therefore, that by “demanding I must not negotiate with other publishers for any of Velikovsky’s books” an agreement should recklessly be violated when it is producing gratifying results, showing much promise for the future, and in which I today have vested interests, besides the time, expenditure, and connections already invested on long-term thinking. Much would become lost with nothing to go on compensating for it.

In the last instance, of course, on the basis of my ten days dialogue with Velikovsky, I simply must have his own word on such all-important topics. I’ll be going to the Glasgow conference, and hope to meet him there for discussing these plus other, still unanswered issues. Or in case he cannot come, I offer to put in a visit to Princeton either immediately before or after the conference (which takes place from April 7 to 9), if at that time the existing agreements can be replaced by formal ones of the same significance. Substantial changes, however, I would like to be able to consider before having finally to decide about the journey.

Do please arrange for this, and give my best and friendly wishes to your husband.

With kindest regards, yours

Marx