526 WEST 113TH STREET, N.Y. 25

(Temporarily: c/o William Pfaefflin,
       Smith Hill, Winsted, Conn.)

July 17, 44.

Dear Mr. Hatcher:

Dr. Pfaeffer sent me a copy of his reply to you. I see that he declined to be the reader of my work, but he evaluated it without reading.

Two years ago he read an early version of my work: he expressed at that time his opinion in an adequate form, and his immediate reaction was put down in a few letters - copies of some of them are before you. He wrote that my work is “of fundamental importance” (Aug. 24, 1942), had not one argument to oppose my scheme, asked me to show how my shceme can be proven on ancient art, and we agreed that in his lecturing on Biblical History, Egypt and Assyrian history at Harvard Un., he will not mention my work before it is published.

Since then I worked for two years on my Mns. and in volume and in material it is now more than twice as large as it was in August 1942.

One year ago—on Aug. 8, 1943 I showed you my work, but not before one month ago—on June 14— that I completed the Mns and brought to you the second part of it. I hoped that Dr. Pfeiffer who “confessed” that he was “shaken but not converted” and who admitted that “some of your (my) clues are most disturbing to one who cannot suddenly give up notions about ancient history which seemed unquestionable.” (letter of March 6, 1943), and “fascinated by your unheard of identifications and dates” (letter of April 17, 1943)—I hoped that he would be entirely converted by reading of the completed work. The present form of my work was called to give him the coup de grace and to free him from the agony (or “[illegible]” as he put it) of teaching of what he was no more sure). The prospects of making thousnads of books and articles obsolete because of the chaos in the ages, makes a scholars shy and shrink from his responsibility.

The qualities of “revolutionary” and “sensational” are an invitation for a publisher to print a work. You and I relaize taht my work cannot be correct or incorrect on a basis of percentage. It is correct or wrong. But if the Empire State Building of the world’s ancient history is appraised by one of its builders as 10% liable to crumble because of unstable construction—you will like to come out of it and not remain in its vicinity. I means taht the belief in the integrity of the ancient history is gone.

We cannot expect by means of an Mns to explore the old concept of history. One scholar is expecting what will other scholars say. It is the task of a printed book that will come to all of them at the same time.

But if you like a further investigation of my Mns instead of making your own opinion to decision, I would agree to have Prof. Olmstead named by Prof. Pfeiffer as one of the readers of my work. Prof. Albright on the other hand, is the exponent of the scheme assailed; can be be defendant and judge in one?

Prof. Horace M. Kallen would also propose a general historian as a reader, who should be able to judge the work from a broader angle. He has somebody in mind. Was this not your wish to find out what interest the book could be outside the circle of specialists? I show that with the chronolgy, the entire history is changed.

I wish you healthy vacation.

Very sincerely yours,