while youre puzzled by a cordial observation of mine. Im somewhat worried about the greater part of your exposition. So let me give an overview of my understanding:
1) While Dr. Velikovsky gave advice about the points he would like to have improved in the contract, I really was never under the impression that apart from these points being resolved there was any principal opposition against the Umschau contract after my letter of October 16. According to our cable exchange of October 23/24 I did not yet sign (as your telegram implied I could) with Mr. Curths when he visited at my home on October 31. Immediately after this visit Dr. Velikovsky called by phone to inquire how things had gone, my wife (in my absence) understanding that signing should be put off by a fortnight to coincide with the publication of Sagans book (and the phone call I regarded as compensating the letter promised in the cable of October 23). I accordingly informed Umschau of your principal acceptance, and that I could sign that future date, but also pending perhaps some minor changes that might yet come from Princeton. Next I had your cable of November 8., alarming me at first, but finding during a phone talk with Dr. and Mrs. Velikovsky that but the length of the contract, the duty for Umschau to publish, possible Nazi past, the translation rights and some really minor questions had led to the telegram. While I promised to clear these points, a letter of the same day, at the latest of the following day was also promised in case anything had been forgotten. Again I got into touch with Mr. Curths, and we resolved all objections within the frame of a newly formulated contract, and the ten points in my letter of November 28. When I did not have your letter with any additional changes within a reasonable 10 or 12 days, I confirmed the contract to Mr. Curths just before I had your cable of November 21 about the possibility of harming Umschau because of the Sagan publicity. I certainly couldnt go back on my word, even if this whole Sagan business hadnt really been old stuff in my discussions with Mr. Curths, as I have explained before. Another night letter arrived on November 24, now really too late, and also not giving a single clue about the substantial changes I had not been told about in time. I feel taken aback when being told that I did not consult, or did not make the effort to consult with Dr. Velikovsky on all points, or that I was not willing to await his advice. I also do not have any doubts about knowing what is acceptable in a contract and what is not. Mentioning the footnotes as an instance, I would indeed like to see further instances of points that are not considered acceptable. And with regard to these footnotes I consider myself empowered enough to be able to decide on this side point whether we have to accept this admittedly silly German usage in an otherwise better contract than you could have hoped to have, or not. In addition Im mystified by the suggestion that I had not been empowered to sign with Umschau on the conditions set out above - a further consideration being my understanding of how distasteful Dr. Velikovsky would regard a duty to sign a German contract personally.
2) Again I would invite you to mention the additional actions of mine having been damaging to you, as the wording some seems to imply. The point you mention here about the account really is of no relevance at all, because you are still free to make any arrangement you like with me; and for the very practical reasons you mention I had also proposed the Institute to hold the foreign rights of Dr. Velikovsky. -
3) While Oedipus actually is an option according to your own ideas. Earth in Upheaval as you know will have a format extended by illustrations. We shall talk about this when the time has come. However, Dr. Velikovsky expressly pointed out to me in Princeton, that I must not worry about these rights, that he would settle this matter with Doubleday at the earliest opportunity. And even then, from the very time I left Princeton, it was clear that for Germany at least Worlds and Earth should be sold together. Why,then, would you wish to relieve me of the commission?
4) Im sorry about Velikovskys stand on the Institute because I do not know one reason for his rejection of the idea, while I can see a number of positive ones (as I have explained before). If his decision is final, I would consider it a loss to him and the movement.
5) I thank you for your advice regarding scientific matters, it being completely equivalent to my own convictions. Where you refer to Huber, I would say that my correspondence goes initially back to 1974, and that my questions to him, considering our Swiss environment, were quite legitimate: there was no reason to burst in, putting a relation into peril that may be valuable here in future. And where you refer to Hornung, neither the initial nor the provocation of last summer was damaging or counterproductive, especially when taking a long term and overall view of our interests.
Now this point needs some additional discussion when viewing developments in the German language area. To promote Velikovskys work I have offered to support special selling days in bookshops with questioning, answer, and discussion sessions. It may be expected that Einführungsvorträge will follow from this, and indeed Im already anticipating such a small lecture to be organized with Israelitisches Wochenblatt, in Zurich. Thus I hope to gain experience for the time when larger audiences or the media may have to be satisfied.
Of course I will act not as the representative of Dr. Velikovsky, but privately as one of his followers, which is obvious; and officially as somebody versed well enough with the subject to assist the publisher with his promotion. This policy is also in line with the appendix of Welten (which I have now adjusted accordingly, receiving neither advice nor corrections from you in time). For my answers I shall draw on nothing that has not been published, but all of that, including Theses and Cosmos. I mention this expressly because in some discussions with students I have found, that once Velikovskys method is understood, and the reconstruction is considered correct, it is not difficult for a lively mind to close the not yet published gaps with the source material, following the Theses. It may be imagined, that if after Ramses the last volume will not become available in time, the pressure of public and publisher might provoke a secondary Conquest; what is our position? Has work been progressing on this book?
Please take a look at the correspondence copies with Der Spiegel, and Buchreport. I would like from you the copy of the letter of May 17, 1954 by the German correspondent who wrote to Velikovsky about Kohlhammers refraining from publishing Ages, and giving up Worlds (perhaps you remember we didnt find the letter at the first try, during my visit).
6) You have copies of all negotiations with other publishers, and also my thoughts on them. I am postponing further efforts on purpose, awaiting the results, and then the new inquiries from what we expect to be a successful launching in Germany.
This answers, I hope sincerely, your questioning satisfactorily (your letter with the date of January 9 arrived here on the 20th). On the other hand, when you go through my own letters, you will find still a number of points to discuss. Will you be able to take these up, or should I again make a list of them?
Im sorry, Jan, to put what I realize to be quite a strain on you. Please pass my friendliest greetings also on to the Velikovskys, and that I shall write to him after this working week personally, too.