Im glad to have the letter of August 15 (sent by Ms. Velikovsky from New York) as a lead to possibly finding a new modus vivendi which, even if you were not so emphatic personally, your family is certainly striving after (according to your wifes letter of March 1, 1978). Practically it is two years to the day (August 31, 1977!) since I had the last letter signed by yourself, and it is of course this very fact — of receiving neither supporting nor reasoned data or criticism or reactions for such lengths of time — that makes it impossible for me to wait for your approval and written authorization before concluding a contract (of course I would inform you — as I have done — of any negotiations in adequate form and consider reasoned arguments in businesslike manner). Therefore indeed (according to the letter) you may wish to revoke your authority for me to negotiate any book publishing contracts in further countries.
This, of course, will have consequences which, however, have already appeared even, e.g. if it were just for never having received Continental inquiries having reached you since 1978. I therefore have not, and I also could not, signed any other contracts than Umschau and Kluwer (covering the German and Dutch language areas, i.e. including Switzerland, Austria, etc.). This, your revoking your authorization (which I obviously have to accept as a fact, not being able to comply with your proposal for a fundamental change), and a list of pending problems that should have been met with a long time ago (foremost those points that we agreed on in 1977: microfilming your archives; delivering the sections for extending Ages I into two parts for the German edition; making available the Einstein title; or even such points as explaining, why in your view both the Umschau as also the Dutch contracts are claimed to be damaging ) I must consider myself as damaging to a degree to be evaluated at not less than the returns from German language rights. As I do naturally not wish to lose more than necessary in what I could fairly expect to acquire from our agreement as it has been standing up till now, and toward which I have invested and expended much time, effort, and money, I cannot transfer to you the money from German royalties until your commitments have been realized, or subject otherwise to a new agreement.
So there! Your letter is speaking of grievances, mistakes, and bringing order into the situation. Out of our deal I cannot imagine grievances other than my own. Not a single mistake has been explained to me. Though paralyzed by your revocation, affairs are in perfect order. And accounting according to our 1977 agreement (though now subject to what I said above) you could easily do by subtracting 20 % each from the German and Dutch amounts, settled both on the DM-account. To bring into this errors in translation, map, etc. in Seevölker, instead of telling me about them in a straightforward way, seems strange indeed!
Nevertheless we must, I hope, find an amicable solution. I suggest — and, not having your personal word within reasonable time, would assume for granted — that in return for the annulment of our actual and implied 1977 agreements you will transfer to me the German language rights including the Umschau contract for a nominal 5 % of the royalties (so that you and your family automatically know about German business, and we do not lose sight of each other). This will set you free to negotiate any other language areas at your will, or you may wish to use my services to negotiate, or to make arrangements say for the checking of translations, on a simple expenses-payed basis, without my participating in royalties or your renouncing your right of approval and authorization. As you know, such German monies are not going toward an enrichment of myself; I have already invested thousands of Francs of my own money in our cause, of which I would have asked you to share some part — a question I would now, of course, do without. No other people in the world need your works as urgently than the German speaking peoples.
Let me repeat, however, that I look on this as a conciliatory proposal on which my losses would seemingly be equated by the gains only because I could count among them your relief from some agitation and worries. Nothing, of course, will change in my stand for your analyses, and against revisionism.
PS: In Tuesdays letter I put the question, whether we should meet. The letter I had from you since, and the one I now had to write, makes me feel there would be too little time (due to my being pressed for it) to talk and think everything over in case we dont agree. And for what I wanted to say about taking some initiatives with regard to the present NASA experiments and therefore opportunities of advancing our objects being lost over and again, there would appear to be too little enthusiasm now anyway — Ill have to put these ideas to paper. So I suggest we shall meet again at some better suited opportunity.