mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Grazian Archive:  [1] HOME  [2] INDEX   E-MAIL:
[3]eumetron at hotmail.com

[4]TABLE OF CONTENTS

[5]previous.gif      [6]next.gif 
_________________________________________________________________

COSMIC HERETICS: Part 4 : 
by Alfred de Grazia
_________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER TWELVE

THE THIRD WORLD OF SCIENCE

For a decade from the appearance of Worlds in Collision, no
quantavolutionary circle existed in the world. V.'s correspondence
with his readers was voluminous. Immanuel and Elisheva were socially
active for several years, but no scholar who could be said to be of
catastrophist persuasion was a frequent correspondent or friend. In
July 1956, Claude Schaeffer, author of the monumental comparative
study of archaeological levels of destruction wrote Velikovsky his
appreciation of receiving from him a copy of Earth in Upheaval. V. had
used Schaeffer's work in preparing the book. In 1957, Immanuel and
Elisheva visited with the Schaeffers for a week at Lake Lucerne, in
Switzerland. Schaeffer did not agree with any part of Velikovsky's
ideas except what Schaeffer himself had printed before V.'s work had
appeared, that periods of sudden destruction had befallen Bronze Age
Civilizations.

Two decades later, Deg and Anne-Marie Hueber visited Schaeffer at his
home near Paris. Deg wanted to update Schaeffer's inventory of sites,
and they had corresponded briefly on the matter. Schaeffer had offered
Deg the materials of his files about which he had written to V. many
years before. Then he had spoken of "new confirmations of the reality
of these crises on a continental scale which I have tried to analyze.
I would be glad if I could write now immediately the contemplated
second edition of Stratigraphie Comparée in two volumes, for with the
new confirmations these Crises could no longer be questioned... so
striking are proofs and so accurate the dates established by the new
discoveries..." V. had not told Deg of his correspondence or of
Schaeffer's intention of moving forward. V. had passed up a rare
chance at statistically demonstrating his theses. Nor had he exhorted
others to undertake work with Schaeffer. Deg had to suggest the idea
to Schaeffer as if Schaeffer had never been aware of the possibility.
Schaeffer was ready to collaborate. It was clear to both men that V.'s
reconstructed chronology was not be at issue. Their aim was to confirm
the ubiquity and internal cohesion of Schaeffer's set of catastrophes.
Deg was made aware of Schaeffer's doubts of V. 's chronology,
especially that coming after the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, doubts that
were even stronger with Madame Schaeffer, who at one moment was with
the group and at the next was out of the room tending to her visiting
family. Deg conveyed his belief that the catastrophic sequence of
Schaefer could slip forward nicely, using the same intervals, to fit
the scale that he had drawn back to the neolithic age, which included
V.'s fifteenth and eight century disasters. Thus Schaeffer's sequence
could serve both the conventional and the quantavolutionary calendar.

Deg sought funds for the research from the American Geographical
society, without success. [The proposal is carried in The Burning of
Troy.] He tried to reach Schaeffer in Paris in 1983. Schaeffer had
just died.

With the appearance of Stargazers and Gravediggers in 1983, a reader
might see how barren was Velikovsky's personal and scholarly life
during the 1950's of the very people who were capable of or were
independently pursuing studies in quantavolution. The characters in
the book are mostly his opponents; few friends and supporters appear.
The only persons of catastrophist persuasion mentioned were Alan Kelly
(but on nothing to do with his catastrophism) and Claude Schaeffer.
Alan Kelly, and Frank Dachille who was his collaborator in Target
Earth (1953), lived far apart and they worked alone.

In American biology, Goldschmidt and Simpson knew there had been
quantum jumps in paleontology and presumably their students acquired
some inkling of the anomalies. In circles espousing Biblical
literalism, the work of Price and others was discussed. There must
have been other catastrophist scientists of the 1950's in America and
England, but to this day Deg has not been able to name any. The
existence of perhaps half a million readers of V. 's books meant
little so far as research and writing were concerned. Some bootleg
teaching of catastrophism was occurring, especially among
fundamentalist Christians. In Germany there were Schindewolf and
Nilssen in paleontology, as I noted elsewhere in these pages.

Significant differences came with the sixties. The civil engineer
Ralph Juergens left his business in the Midwest and moved to
Hightstown, near Princeton, so as to be near Velikovsky and to use the
libraries of the University. Warner Sizemore, a minister and graduate
student of philosophy appeared on the scene at the same time.
Stecchini, historian of science and unemployed professor, was already
there, indulged by his wife Catherine, a star teacher of young writers
at Princeton High school. While teaching at the University of Chicago
in 1950, Stecchini had signed a letter of protest to Macmillan against
the treatment given Velikovsky's book.

When Deg met V. and decided to publish his story, there was none else
in sight. They thought of Eric Larrabee, but none would be paid to
write, and Larrabee was busy with unrelated affairs. Since Deg could
not do the whole job himself, Velikovsky recommended Juergens, then
working for McGraw-Hill as a scientific editor, and Deg and V.
persuaded Stecchini to do an historical portion. Thus, all the
effective resources of V. amounted to three men who could and would
write about his case in depth. This was the first time any cooperative
group had engaged itself in the study of V.'s problems. It was also
the first time that V. realized the values and capacities of
voluntarism in America. He was, however, cunning about the media. For
instance, as soon as the American Behavioral Scientist was in the
mill, V. could persuade Larrabee to write an article for Harper's
Magazine. Larrabee was spurred into action and the article came out
two months before he ABS issue appeared.

V. was inspired and a new outlook, that of a movement, of helpers,
even of collaborators, dawned upon him. Before then he had been a lone
wolf in his field of study. Now he had friends who talked his
language. Sizemore began to organize locally and to suggest that
others organize in other places clubs or study circles under the name
of "Cosmos and Chronos." V. referred often to these ghost legions.
Sometimes they sprang to life to extend invitations to V. to speak at
various places, or they were used as a letterhead denomination when
rebuking critics. It was, for example, on 'Cosmos and Chronos'
stationery that the Philadelphia disciple and high school teacher of
psychology, Robert Stephanos, addressed the Franklin Society in
seeking to arrange a lecture invitation to Velikovsky. When the
Society reconsidered and hastily closed its gates to V., it brought a
certain public disgrace upon itself.

Inspired though he was by his association with new and competent men,
V. himself could not be organized by them; he could seek only to
determine all of their activity, without becoming controlled by them.
Time and time again, spurts of organization occurred, with excellent
initial results, but thereafter the efforts would slump and expire.
The most successful organizing and activity was done out of his reach,
in Canada, England, and in Oregon, He was too immense to allow himself
even to be the leader; for a leader implies followers who are assigned
responsibilities, are allowed judgment, employ initiative, and can be
trusted. V. allowed none of these. There was to be no control over
this leader; he was superman, distinct from the following, distinct
even from a field of science for he refused to call it by a name, such
as catastrophism. He would deny such allegations and not even perceive
the distinctions. Nor would others, because it was unbelievable. It
was nonetheless true of him. Among the types of activists of a
movement there may be distinguished: the theorist, the researcher, the
publicist, the agitator, the organizer, and the fund-raiser. A
movement is oligarchic to the degree that the functions are
concentrated in a few hands; it is bureaucratic to the degree to which
the oligarchy assigns and restricts these tasks to specialists; it is
democratic to the degree to which anyone can do whatever one pleases.
Pensée was an oligarchy, Kronos developed beyond oligarchy into
autocracy. The S. I. S. was an oligarchy with high turnover and open
access. The cosmic heretics as a total aggregate were anarchic, and
formed and transformed plastically, so that one could perceive the
aforesaid stable organizations, then glimpse pairs, trios, bands,
circles, and groups in process of becoming (such as C. Marx's small
Basel group that embraced Professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University
of Bremen, and Milton Zysman's Toronto band, and Luckerman's small Los
Angeles operation). The attentive public shaped itself over the period
into ad hoc opponents and task forces (such as the AAAS panel), into
members, supportive audiences, subscribers, book buyers, gossipers,
fund-donors, materials-copiers-and-circulators --reflections indeed of
the several functions, anarchically undertaken.

An instance of the highest type of voluntarism came with Alice Miller,
a San Francisco librarian, who put to herself uninvited and
uncompensated the task of indexing intensively the works of V., and V.
made the necessary arrangements to publish the book. The few scholars
who obtained this work could now search to their heart's content for
the fullest play and nuances of ideas (where such fullness existed)
and for contradictions and errors. The first operation to be performed
in serious criticism in as index; the memory of a reading or two
rarely sets up written material adequately for analysis. Would that
every high school student who today is being hastily introduced to a
computer would be instructed in the philosophical logic underlying the
indexing of content. Deg longed for an Alice Miller for his Q Series;
his indexes were inadequate, even more than V. 's, because his work
contained a larger proportion of abstract materials, which are harder
to index. He found, for instance, that searching for "monotheism" in
V. 's own indexes was useless; in Alice Miller's the idea came forth
nicely, even beyond what V. might have wished to expose.

We return to Deg's favorite pastime of counting, listing, and
categorizing, and to his figures of the numbers involved. They are
impressive for they may be exponential. Despite the casualties, the
deaths, the desertions, the languishing, and the waywardness, and
counting parallel little groupings and isolated active scholars, by
the end of the decade of the sixties there were perhaps thirty true
scientific catastrophists who had come up by the non-establishment
route into the field of quantavolution, and by the end of another
decade, there were fifty more creative workers in the field. Shadowing
these, watching intently, and supporting them were several hundreds of
others, close in.

Shadowing the cosmic heretics, too, were a new group, union-card
holders of the establishment, who are distinguished most readily by
their denial that they are or ever were sympathetic to Velikovsky or
any other quantavolutionist, or that they have ever sought or do now
seek any ties with cosmic heretics. And these were equal and greater
in numbers, carrying out the revolution by partial incorporation, the
process whereby a revolutionary movements, as it advances, meets an
opposition that has already been infected by and has adopted in part
the principles of the revolution. It is at this point that most
successful movements subside or are destroyed; their heirs are their
enemies.

As one can see, if workers number, say, 15 in 1 decade, 30 in another,
and 80 in the next, a doubling process may be occurring, against all
predictions that might be based upon resources available, unchanged
state of the opposition, and so on. At this rate, with 150 to 200 in
the 80's and 400 in the 90's taken with the activists who lend support
to their views, the quantavolution viewpoint should enter the
millennium primed for a large role in scientific thought. At the same
time, it should be borne in mind, there will be attrition and
desertions, doubling, and trebling the numbers of quantavolutionists
outside of (but beginning to merge with) the establishment. But the
threat of nuclear warfare to all civilization overshadows projections
of science. One is tempted, in all of this speculation, to recite
Keynes' ironic words, not about short-term economic policy but about
short-sighted world politics: "In the long term, we'll all be dead."
_________________________________________________________________

Be it admitted that Deg, publishing a special issue of the American
Behavioral Scientist, had a perfect subject and extraordinary
materials in the Velikovsky affair. But why should he stick with
Velikovsky? Let Velikovsky say his piece and then be done with it.
What of next month's issue of the magazine, and the month after? The
journal needed continuous attention. What of the state of political
science, and of higher education, if which he had always been so
critical? What of the state of the nation, ibid? What of his family
staggering into adolescence in the disturbed and unruly Princeton
atmosphere? What of his meager fortune, skating on a thin monthly bank
balance and a home mortgage? And his friends, the women and men who
had been no more conversant with Velikovsky than he himself? And his
book contracts: especially the American Way of Government, a good
textbook in need of revision, whose care would lift his finances from
year to year and carry his name around to hundreds of college
communities. And the radical book on behalf of congressional supremacy
that he was writing?

What of his reputation, that, in line with the customary in academic
careers, should now begin to rise to a peak, abetted by the constant
"mending of fences" and "nursing of the constituency" ordinarily
pursued among scholars in his circumstances? Or should he not now
throw in his fortunes with a political party, Democrat or Republican,
it mattered not, for in both he had "friends in high places." Close
friends welcomed his participation in Barry Goldwater's camp and in
Hubert Humphrey's; this would appear strange unless one understood
that subjectively Deg was confident that he was his own man, and that
he could find equal opportunities in both camps to exercise his skills
and ideals, which, to put them in several words, were:
decentralization, basic income guarantees, voluntarism, legislative
rule at home, and representative government for the world. The
American party system, however, no wise shared his bent for change.

In all of this and through it all, why did Deg continue to involve
himself with Velikovsky's problems? Did not he have enough problems of
his own -- larger and more serious and worse? Did he not have as grand
and earth-shaking ideas himself? Most of all, if he was to spend a
great deal of time in promoting somebody, and it was not to be "the
next President of the United States" then why didn't he build up his
own reputation?

He had had mean reviewers, scornful ones, too. His books had not sold
very well, he had not yet won any considerable prize, no Pulitzer, no
National Book Award. Still he could drum up audiences at colleges
around the world. Bill Baroody wished that he might tour the country
on behalf of the reconceptualized American Enterprise Institute,
addressing public issues and garnering funds in the end. He was in
mind as a political campaign manager here and there in the nation. He
was offered the job of heading the social sciences division of UNESCO
in Paris (and refused). Why should he waste his time on a political
campaign in science, especially one that had already been victorious
in principle (Jastrow, Polanyi, Sagan, Motz, Neugebauer, Kurtz, Hadas,
and dozens of other personages had sooner or later pronounced
themselves against the ill treatment of Velikovsky). Did not Elisheva
insist to the end that he had opened up the final phase of
Velikovsky's public appreciation? Was the establishment of the motions
of Venus so important? Or the evidence of ancient catastrophes on
Earth? Or the likelihood of collective amnesia, a common enough idea
of wise men of all ages? Must the world of science sign line by line
in agreement with Velikovsky's book -- the ultimate wish of a cult?
No, none of this was so important. Well, what then? Was he sexually
deprived? Did he identify Velikovsky with his own father? Many more
motives offer themselves. Can one ever know? Why bother to ask, too?
Yet it is a question that was asked at scores of lectures, receptions,
meeting, and in personal discussions, a question that came out of the
interest that people felt in their own motives, out of curiosity about
what might be construed as altruism or some other form of abnormal
behavior. It's Alfred's halva, Nina would say, meaning the joke about
the man who loved sweet "Turkish Delight" and would turn the
conversation to it at the slightest cue.

Deg behaved as he did partly because he had enjoyed enough successes
in other matters and success bored him. Deg did not attend to
promoting his academic career because he was already a tenured
professor, "heavily published" as they say, and where was there
anything further to be gained; universities and colleges seemed ready
to succumb to stupidity or insane revolts, but not to total
self-evaluation and reform. They were, with governmental help,
becoming ever more bureaucratized and inane.

Besides he found self-promotion an embarrassment, all the more as he
watched his acquaintances climb the rows of ladders inclined against
decrepit edifices where committees and trustees held sway, and
important research was kept in a corner like a bastard. He was not
adverse to fame. To the contrary, he expected it to be "handed to him
on a silver platter," to use one of his mother's expressions.
Subjectively, he desired glory; objectively, externally, he had to
scorn it. He was having his last words on Congress and the executive
force, an appeal for the preservation of republican government that
went against every major political and economic interest in America
(and that communists and socialist when in power also and even more
rampantly suppressed). He was, as I said, uninspired by the political
movements of the moment, and even more so as they developed through
the sixties and seventies of the century. The kindling problems of his
family would burst into flame but he had no intention of becoming
party to a decade of adolescent rebellion of the kind that ruins the
best years of many Americans' lives. Besides, did he not have such
splendid plans for going en masse to Europe for a year to teach the
children foreign languages and escape the menacing youth and drug
culture of Princeton?

But look particularly to the controversy surrounding the Velikovsky
matter: was it not exciting? The ideas at stake were of the highest
order. Not only in sociology: for what sociology is more important
than the sociology of knowledge (Sozialwissenschaft) that he had cut
his eyes teeth on with Mannheim, Wirth, Shils, and Leites, and which
was really the theme underlying his first book, Public and Republic,
where ideas of representation were shown to be unconsciously operative
and externally effective over hundreds of years and many different
political generations? Also there was excitement in the substance of
this strange new kind of science. Scattered about but eager to stay in
touch were dozens of intelligent people interested in one or more of
the hundred fields upon which quantavolution impinged. More exciting
and elevating than yachting, the horseraces, gambling, cocktail
parties, tourist travel, religious routines, better than the
eviscerated or wrongheaded politics of the times. In the final
analysis it was the unlimited firing of sky rockets in all directions
that held Deg to the course of quantavolution and bound him to his
friend Velikovsky.

There was the intransigent personality of Velikovsky. Even some
opponents, Robert Jastrow, Walter Sullivan and Motz, for instance,
found him fascinating. He was always there, the tallest mountain in
Princeton and anywhere else, so far as Deg could observe. A series of
entries from Deg's Journal, most of them from the year 1968, show what
I mean. But first a letter from Velikovsky to Deg, before the ABS
issue of September 1963 had made its impact, to show that V. had no
intention of letting his new friend escape his camp by crossing the
ocean:

August 16, 1963 
Dear Professor de Grazia:

It was very good to have a letter from you in Paris. I like to hear
that you may come to the States in October. No old castles here, no
ancient arenas, but you will be most certainly engaged in some
skirmishes in the tournament for which the scene is being set.
Larrabee's article produced certain effect (I assume it was mailed to
you) and the foundations of the establishment are being loosened.
(...) A few papers started to comment on the issue, one or two
colleges invited me to speak before their students, much discussions
going on without reaching the printed page, and I am emerging from the
"shadow of darkness." (...)

I wish I could bring to our side a few prominent scholars and
scientists. I write to de Madariaga about Lord Russell whom he knows.
You may say again, 'Cabot', but visualize the effect on the closed
scientific ring of one such renegade.

I wish to think that Mrs. de Grazia and your children are enjoying
their many new impressions, and the old villa makes them feel that
theirs is part of an old heritage. Turgeniev wrote someplace that two
urges live in a human soul -- a striving for far away lands and a
longing for the homeland and home. Mrs. Velikovsky joins me in wishing
all of you good health and animated months ahead.

Cordially Yours, Immanuel Velikovsky 

PS The mail brings an envelope with copies of letters received by
Harper's. Menzel of Harvard Observatory writes a 17 pages letter,
unfair, emotional: he exposes himself to embarrassing statements of
fact. A battle of letters started. At the present, the response runs
50% against 50%. Therefore any articulate supporter -- or opponent --
should enter the fracas, the earlier the better. Mobilize your
friends! -- I. V.

A year later, Deg was not only still in the camp, no matter where he
was, but he was suffering privately the annoyances of the camp. His
journal of September 1st, 1964 from London is relevant. He is on his
way to the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, to lecture on American
politics and will from there go to Marina di Massa where his daughter
Catherine will be wedded to the best-looking boy on the beach, Dante
Matelli.

Left for London at 10 AM. On way to airport penciled a crude note to
Velikovsky, finally telling him bluntly of my feelings towards him. I
said, "Dear Immanuel, I am writing this on the bus to the plane. Last
night I went again over the letters and material for Rabinovitch, to
the detriment of many pressing affairs. I finally decided to send out
nothing at the moment.

"You will receive the page proofs on the Margolis critique. Please
make only absolutely necessary corrections (I do not care if you offer
to pay for them.) Issue is already late.

Please do not call my office or the printers. Your inability to let go
of anything will be the ruin of our friendship and of the magazine.
Sincerely, Alfred".

I handed the letter to a passenger agent just before stepping aboard
the PanAm Clipper. It culminated a day of annoyance and desperation
that began when I courteously called Velikovsky to say goodbye. To
those who know him well, the history of the next 24 hours was to be
clear. He wanted to rewrite letters, call lawyers, discuss imbroglios,
in short, utterly and without conscience disrupt my carefully measured
out and urgent last hours before departure. And worse, he succeeded.

This hardly matters. The friendship, the campaign, continues, and V.
is still the mastermind. When Deg goes abroad in 1966, V. has ideas of
how he should spend his time in Israel and Egypt:

Feb. 14, 1966
Dear Mrs. de Grazia: Please do not send this letter to Alfred if he
already left Italy. Im. Velikovsky. 
Dear Alfred:

I received your note written before leaving for airport. Should you
visit Jerusalem you may wish to give personal regards to President
Zaluccan Shazar -- our friend, especially of Elisheva, of many years.
He will be glad to hear that Elsheva is active as sculptor and as a
chamber-musician (as good as ever); and Elisheva wishes him to know of
the change in the attitude of the scientific world to my book with
many discoveries of the Space Age; the fact that I am invited to speak
at Yale, Princeton, Duke, Pittsburgh, Wisconsin, Oberlin, Brandeis,
etc., is an indication.

I wish you good weather (pleasant driving, good new friends, and many
invigorating experience).

Regards from Elisheva and my regards for Paul and John. Yours,
Immanuel. 

[P. S.] It would be good if at the Cairo Museum you could obtain some
organic object of the time of Ramses II or Ramses II (or of both) for
radiocarbon test( better seed, mummy swathing, leather, papyrus, linen
-- and not wood, if possible) at the lab of the University of
Pennsylvania (Dr. Elizabeth Ralph.) To apply to Dr. Isnander Hanna
(Director at the Lab at the Museum). The material needs to be sent
from museum to museum with all the precautions. By far better not to
mention my name.

If any difficulty, I shall try to obtain the samples by asking Dr.
Ralph to write to Dr. Hanna.

Deg's Journal, January 18, 1967 

Phoned Velikovsky tonight. Elisheva came on the wire too, at his
request. I told them what I was doing to institute a Foundation. He
was quite subdued. He is not used to having anything taken out of his
hands. Both were happy, I could tell, at the thought of something they
had talked so much about moving so quickly to a climax.

Anti-Velikovskianism's first line of defense is the impossibility of
his theories. Then, I suppose, if proved right, it will be said that
he was a simple scribe: he read an inscription which told what
happened. That position will not endure, either, for he worked in a
superhuman way to piece together the shattered mosaic.

Deg's Journal, November 15, 1967 9 P. M. 

Immanuel called met at twilight to tell me Stephanos had called his
attention to the Nov. 3 issue of Science magazine wherein Professor R.
Eshleman of Stanford University, Electrical Engineer and Co-Director
of the Stanford Center for Radar Astronomy had raised briefly the
question whether the baffling puzzle of Venus being 'locked-in' to
Earth might be answered by the Velikovskian hypothesis of an
historical collision of the two bodies. A year ago Science refused to
accept an advertisement for one of his books. "who knows, Alfred,
whether the Nobel prize, which has had a poor record very often, might
not come." I said, "Immanuel, your biography is your triumph. You do
not need these foolish prizes."

Deg's Journal, 1/ 4/ 68 [Providence] 

At 2: 30 I left the ribald company of Mike N., N., Jim Kane, Al
Saglio, Tom Yatman, and Edwin Safford at the Spaghetti House to visit
Prof. Otto Neugebauer at Brown University. His office is in an old red
brick house next to the new Library and has an entrancing scholarly
air to it, closed into the basement, holding several tables,
everything with a century old appearance that I too should find a
perfect atmosphere for quiet study and work. O. N. was somewhat
suspicious of me, as well he might be, knowing that I sponsored a
special defense of Velikovsky's work. However, like most true
intellectuals, once engaged, his defenses were down and he spoke
vociferously, indignantly, said he couldn't waste time on the
foolishness and trickery of V. but proceeded to amplify at great
length, his little blue eyes peering directly into mine and his slight
but determined German voice carrying effectively, even colloquially,
his arguments. He disputed hotly the idea that there had been or was
any conspiracy against V., (I stated that I too disagreed with V. on
this point), and he felt that V. was employing the tools of propaganda
and sophistry against him and others. Who can deny this, too? But
there seemed to be little reason to go into the political aspects of
the controversy, inasmuch as O. N. could not know, more than V., the
dynamics of this process, and I essayed questioning him upon several
critical issues concerning Babylonian tablets. He declared twice that
he had "no investment" in the words of the tablets and could take or
refuse any interpretation, depending only upon its truth. They were
only a minor interest with him, not even "minor," less than minor.

He said he had not read Stecchini's interpretations of Kugler's work
(and declared offhandedly but vigorously that much had been learned
since Kugler's time anyhow). He declared that the observations in the
Venusian tablets of Ammizaduga came from erroneous reportings of lunar
movements that, in turn, had been used by the Babylonians to measure
the movement of Venus. An amateur, he said, would transfer his
ignorance of the ancient reports into a wrong interpretation that it
was Venus, not the Moon, that was moving erratically. He declared
emphatically that from their beginnings around 700 B. C. there were no
unexplainable irregularities. (He kept reasserting, and I had to stave
off as not relevant to the argument, which was the empirical facts re
the tablets, that the whole V. thesis was mechanically impossible,
that any 10-year old schoolboy would know how the Earth would be
destroyed by anything approaching a collision with Venus, and so
forth). He said further that there was little or no reporting of any
planetary behavior in a scientific way priot to about 700 B. C. ( I
didn't press for the exact date) that, for instance, there was no
reporting of Saturn before 400 B. C. Earlier records are largely the
oracles which deal with sun, moon, and a bright star (which could have
been Venus, since it is the brightest and hence would oppose V.'s
theories of the non-existence of Venus before ca. 1500 B. C. ) He
asserted further that Egyptian chronology was perfectly established,
on the basis of the Egyptian lunar calendar (based on a thirty-year
cycle) that carried back to the very earliest times. He claimed that
the whole V. affair showed the basically anti-intellectual atmosphere
of the population.

I asked whether it did not show also the failing of the establishment
of science to perceive its "public problems," and offered the opinion
that if he, and others such as Harrison Brown, had dealt with V.'s
work more seriously, there would have been no prolonged vicious
aftermath, to which he grudgingly acceded.

Then he added that there should not be such an accent on "going to the
moon" so that billions were being largely wasted, for which sums the
whole of Mesopotamia could be dug up down to its virgin soil. Then
said he, we should have all of these problem solved. To which I
agreed.

I asked whether someone should not set forth the thirty or sixty
principal factual theses of V. and find specialists on each topic to
criticize V. He had mixed feelings about the idea (first taking it
personally, of course, "I don't have time for that!") holding that
V.'s ideas were too vague to discuss, that this would prove that the
"conspiracy" actually did exist: that there would be too few to
undertake the job in certain areas (such as his own of Assyriology and
Babylonia); but that it might be a proper way to get to the heart of
the matter. He was, on the whole, quite negative re the general
problem and hostile to V. As I was leaving, he said: "I just received
a letter from Chandrasekhar of the University of Chicago. He is the
physicist. He asks whether we shouldn't do something about the Yale
Scientific Magazine issue of V. I replied that there was no use to
it."

I walked out into the winter snow-threatening afternoon and down the
streets of exquisite old structures of Providence's East Side to
Mike's house, thinking of what I had learned and of the beauties of
this old part of town.

1. N [eugebauer] is convinced V. plays a tricky game: "He couldn't
answer my colleague's questions at a Brown University meeting, but
said he would reply to them the next day. Then he didn't appear."

2. He believes V. to be a foolish and wicked amateur. 3. His direct
assertions concerning the Venusian tablets should be worked into a
direct encounter with V.'s words (...)

4. N appeared uncertain about Kugler, and unconvincingly dismissed
him.

5. N is persuaded that V. is arguing in a great circle, using
established theories as grounds for criticizing deviations and
unknowns and for proving the deviations accord with his theories, then
destroying the established framework without perceiving that his
interpretation of the deviations is itself dependent upon and
sponsored by the established theories. N. did not say so, but this
kind of problem is fundamental to all theoretical change: man is
dependent for what he sees on what he has been taught to perceive, so
how can be prove wrong what he has been taught, if his new vision is
wholly dependent upon being preceded by the old one ?

6. I feel the need to organize an 'Anti-Velikovsky' symposium where
highly reputed scholars are asked to address themselves to a
meaningful segment of a carefully prepared set of questions that test
the whole fabric of V.'s theories. Logically V. cannot dispute this
procedure. It would, I think, cause him to be angry with me. So be it.

Deg's Journal, January 20,1968 

I have been visiting with Velikovsky once or twice a week since
November, and have reread Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos. Since I
have been heavily occupied with the theory of activities of the
federal government, the American Government text revision, a plan for
a business company should I decide to leave the academic world, and so
forth, I indicated to V. ten days ago that I could not organize the
magazine that we had always talked of publishing. Then, for some
reason, a week ago, I thought "We must start a foundation for V. and
his work." I asked Richard Kramer to initiate the papers for
organization of a corporation not-for-profit in N. J... settled on PO
Box 294 and my home as the address, and decided to ask Juergens,
Stecchini, Kramer, and Herb Neuman to join me in the first Board of
Directors. I called each man to invite them aboard and received their
prompt acceptances.

Deg's Journal, March 2, 1968 

This morning I am resolving to withdraw myself as much as possible
from Immanuel's campaign for honors and recognition. A full eight
hours went to him yesterday; it is too much, considering what I must,
do for my own work. In its way, it deserves the same kind of attention
V. gives to his and I give to his. My intellectual children may be
scrawnier but I cannot turn them out to starve in the cold. I give up
lectures that, just like his, might explain my ideas and bring me
income, as for example one that I turned down today for $100 and
expenses before an audience of civil service officials in Washington.
My ideas go undefended, many aspects of them go unexpressed. I do not
give them the tender, fierce, loving care that every man's respectable
notions deserve. Let's see whether I can behave by this resolve.

Deg's Journal, March 3, 1968 

March is come cold and blustering. Jill and I rode our bikes to Mom's
where Ed and his young friend, Margaret C... were visiting. We arrived
frozen. M. C. has just returned from 2 weeks in Boston, under the
tutelage of a Yoga guru. I say to Ed, in greeting, 'Ah, here is the
"slim, elegant Sicilian!" ', quoting Norman Mailer's autobiographical
novella of the "March on the Pentagon" that is printed in the current
Harper's Magazine. [Edward organized the legal defense of the arrested
protesters.]

Jill says, of Margaret, 'Girls who have had trouble with their fathers
work it off well. Girls who have had difficulties with their mothers
do not. ' She cites Jung on the point. And we string out many
examples. It is probably true, even as an unrefined statement. I
ruminate: so important, so simple are basic truths. What conceals it
and them? Great truths and discoveries are not hidden by their
complexity but by jamming of our ideological cognitive, and perceptive
machinery.

Velikovsky, the other night, quoted me Butterfield's comment that the
very young can understand principles of science and nature that have
baffled the greatest minds of history. I think V., who is in essence a
philosophical realist, uses this idea in only a limited way. He means
that the young haven't had their tender minds distorted by unfact. It
is more importantly to be understood that the mind is structured in
each generation to receive some truths and reject others, or better,
some half-truths. Both V. and perhaps Butterfield unjustifiably
abstract the mind from its context. It has, for instance, been pointed
out by numerous defenders of classicism, such as neo-Thomists, that we
believe the ancients foolish or unperceptive of truth because of our
partial and current truth-idolatry; freed from contemporary ideology,
we can understand truth as the ancients discovered it and agree with
them.

Deg's Journal, April 30, 1968 A. M., en route to NYC 

Half of this past warm flowering weekend in Princeton has been spent
with Velikovsky or on matters related to him. We spent Saturday
afternoon going over materials that might be suited for the proposed
book "V. and his Critics" that I am discussing with Kluger of Simon
and Schuster. We spoke also of the foundation for Studies in Modern
Science, which I have organized. He named eight major problems that
are critical to his theories, and I am taking them into consideration
in the memorandum which I am preparing on the program of the
Foundation. Bob Stephanos called me on Friday night upon my return
from NY to tell me that Mr. Mainwaring of Philadelphia, an admirer of
V., intended to help financially. Both V. and I had written letters to
M., who runs a family manufacturing firm and is, I hear, a person of
some intellectual stature. V. was naturally pleased. He talked on and
on, I edging him back to a subject from time to time.

Sunday evening, V seized the initiative and called Prof. Philip
Hammond of Brandeis U. to ask about his possible interest in
excavating at El Arish for signs of the siege of the Hyksos fortress
by the allied armies of Saul and Thutmose, about 1050 B. C. in V.'s
chronology. The digging would be a crucial test of the V. theory of
ancient history. Hammond, who had given indications of sympathy years
ago, appeared enthusiastic. He offered to go El Arish with two
assistants if we could organize the expedition.

After learning this from V., I called David Dietz to ask whether he
would still be interested in taking part in the expedition. He was.
Yesterday, Monday, I asked Harry Hess of Princeton University
Geological Department to serve on the Board of Trustees of the
Foundation. After some demurral (later, V. would be mystified by his
hesitation since 'Hess definitely agreed to join. ' but I was not
mystified.) Poor Hess who is one of the busiest man alive with his
Space Board, Mohole and other activities, couldn't take the leap into
the cold water without encouragement. So I purred gently,
sympathetically, and finally he said with a hopeless smile "Aw hell,
OK, put me on"! (...)

Deg's Journal, May, 1968 

N [ina] and I met at the Museum of Modern Art at six yesterday after
discussion with Kluger, of Simon and Schuster. A surrealist exhibition
was on. Max Ernst, Nadelman, Matisse, Ram bear up very well. Picasso
rarely becomes human enough to excite me. His lines are cold and
cruel. De Chirico's colors seem shabby now. It was a brave moment and
said a lot.

We drank beer and ate cheese and crackers in the garden of the Museum,
which filled with grey rosy lights as the sun set. Rodin's Balzac,
seen from above, is stern and emotionally stirring. A Picasso She-goat
is my great love.

Back at Washington Square, N. prepared a light supper at her place and
accompanied me to my work. I talked to Velikovsky at length,
recounting my conversation with Richard Kluger and explaining my plans
and hopes for the expedition. As usual, he was difficult to converse
with but excited more than I've ever felt him to be before. I told him
that I thought we should film the El Arish episode from beginning to
end. and he was fully agreed. I wonder, or course, continuously,
whether we shall find what we are after beneath the town -- the siege
evidence and artifacts of Saul's army, the Egyptians, the Hyksos.

I hung up the phone and went to work sorting out materials to be used
in my Reader on American Government N. said "Velikovsky can never
finish his work." "Nor can I!" I replied. "He has thirteen books to
go, when we last counted them. I am as badly off." She asked me what I
had to finish: "You have done so much." "Not at all," I said,
impatiently. "We do not measure ourselves by other men, but by an
absolute criterion of what we might conceivably do." And then I ticked
off what I imagined I might yet do:

the publication of my collected papers of the past the American
Government books another book of poetry several novels, mostly
autobiographical a philosophy of science "the new political order"

and whatever would intervene, such as the El Arish story and the
government operations study, and who knows what else: editing the
Velikovsky and His Critics book, for example (...)

I spoke to Sebastian about other matters on the telephone during the
day. We are concerned about the troubles that Eddie is having over the
custody of the children in divorcing Ellen (...)

Bus told me of a quarrel between Renzo Sereno and his wife one time
over a lady, possibly a mistress, of Renzo. "The only reason you like
her is because she thinks you're great," declared the wife. Bus and I
breathed reverently over this gem for a minute of ATT long-distance
time and charges. What has come over womankind? What do they imagine
to be the foundation for a man's love and devotion, even charm, even
presence? After a day of labor selecting readings for my American
Government Reader in the company of Eric Weise and John Appel, I
entrained for Princeton, snoozing aboard, and arriving happily into
the fresh air of the countryside. John, Carl, and Chris were all in
excellent mood, the one fixing things on the old Cadillac, Carl
playing his Beethoven pieces, and Chris shooting baskets. Mom came to
dinner, bringing some freshly picked and cooked wild cardoons.

At nine I biked to Velikovsky's home, Francie loping alongside and for
two hours, while she stretched comfortably in the middle of his
parlor, we talked and argued over who should do what about books,
magazines, and the ever-growing prospect of the expedition to El
Arish. Prof. Philip Hammond caught me by telephone soon after I
arrived from N. Y. C. to reaffirm his interest. I asked him whether he
would, in addition to his usual excavation reports, accept
co-authoring of a popular book on El Arish that I was proposing to
Simon and Schuster and he accepted promptly. I like the sound of him,
though we have not yet met.

V. was difficult. He holds out things and then pulls them back. He
wants to do too much himself. I try to take responsibilities off his
shoulders and he fights to keep them and even to take new ones. He
wishes to discuss every small decision, to control every document. He
is elated over our plans but becomes more demanding and even a little
more paranoid as events speed up. He has a poor sense of organization
and scheduling where other human beings are involved. His own immense
mental world can grab and hold everything and shake it out in
marvelous patterns, but the world of affairs has its own ruthless
laws, that treat all men equally, and that make their own patterns.

Now came time for the Foundation to form and the incorporators met to
elect themselves and additional members to the Board of Trustees, and
to transact business. R. P. Kramer, L. Stecchini, R. Juergens and Deg
coopted Horace Kallen, Harry H. Hess, A. Bruce Mainwaring, John
Holbrook Jr., Robert C. Stephanos, and Warner Sizemore. The date was
June 2, 1968, a day that would not go down in history. Deg was chosen
President and other preliminaries were disposed of. Then the ill-fated
excursion to El Arish, where the capital of the Hyksos supposedly lay
buried, was taken up. Everyone knew already that Mainwaring and
Holbrook had put up some funds, that a Dr. Hammond had been approached
to lead the group, and a contract had been drawn up. Deg set forth a
budget, even the minimal costs of which were well beyond the pledged
resources of group. Besides the preliminary soundings at El Arish,
papers on the "hydrocarbons" of Venus and its temperature changes were
to be commissioned, a publication was to be prepared, preparations to
receive and use V.'s archives were in order, a magazine was to be
inaugurated, and besides there were provisions for work on collective
amnesia, dating systems, magnetic polarity, evolutionary theory, the
psychology of catastrophe, electromagnetic cosmic models, and the
reception system of science. A happy set of prospects indeed, every
one of which the foundation was to fail to inaugurate, much less carry
on to any extent. The case of El Arish will suffice as an exemplum
horribilis. 

In June, A. Biran of the Israeli Department of Antiquities wrote to
Deg saying:

Indeed there is much interest in the archaeology and history of the
area but unfortunately it is not always possible to satisfy this
curiosity. Even I with all my interest and curiosity have not yet been
either to Kadesh Barbea, Mons Cassius, or Qantara...

July found Deg in Naxos, ready to go to Israel if needed, and John
Holbrook had gone to Israel to seek permission to begin a site survey
at El Arish. Deg is getting a variety of inputs from his assistant:

July 10, 1968 ...

I spoke with Velikovsky today. He told me that Holbrook had arrived
here yesterday. A copy of all the correspondence is on its way to us.
The gist of it is that Holbrook saw Biran and Dotan, the chief
archaeologist, and that the Israelis would like to see more solid
support from Americans. Biran said that FOSMOS seems a bit
fly-by-night to them. Another problem is that they don't want to grant
foreigners the right to dig in occupied territory. But apparently they
have softened a little, and if they could see something more
established in support of the dig, well then... So Holbrook is going
to ask somebody at Yale about it, a Professor Popo.

I read your report of the Natural Museum with interest. I will
probably get to the Met sometime this week. The figure you described
on the one vase are usually interpreted as Amazons, and I am going to
compare the costumes with those of the Busiris vase, out of curiosity.
I think there is also a book on Greek arms, with should have something
in it about helmets.

I am sure you are enjoying Greece -- it's so wild, beautiful, clean
and clear...

Meanwhile John Holbrook is grinding his gears in Israel and is
addressing a set of marvelously detailed letters to V., a copy of
which he then sent to Deg.

Holbrook writes to V. on July 10, 1968:

Now I am in a bit of a quandry. First, I have no reason to doubt
Biran's word that the military situation in the Sinai area prohibits
any extended work at El Arish at this time. Second, although I shall
certainly see Dothan when he returns from the field at the end of the
week, I cannot pledge the support of the foundation to the extent of
$50,000. Although we have great hopes for it, the treasury of the
foundation is still a bit empty. That being the case, I can only
explore the possibility of organizing an expedition to El Arish at
some indefinite time in the future (when military situation permits)
on the most tentative basis. Much will depend upon what I learn from
Dothan. At the very least, I hope that I shall be able to get a look
at the site before I leave.

One other matter deserves mention. There is no way of telling the
extent to which opposition to your work played a role in the rejection
of our proposal. There were other reasons for rejecting it. Latter
Holbrook ventures an opinion on the actual site: Quite frankly,
although I am sure that a complete archaeological survey of the Wadi
El Arish and its vicinity might be extremely useful, I am willing to
bet that the first trench which is dug in the area which I have
described above, the northern quarter of town, will not be found empty
or unrewarding.

Little could be done with the El Arish party, upon which V. had set
the highest priority (and did for the rest of his life and rightly so,
says Deg). The failure was bad enough, but to Deg the most
disagreeable part of the episode was the way in which V. began to find
grounds for opposing Hammond after he had agreed on his competence and
leadership qualities, and had invited him to lead the operation. V.
soon convinced himself, and then Holbrook, that Hammond was pro-Arab
and would be persona non grata to the Israeli authorities, until they
were actually approaching the Israeli saying in effect "We know how
you must feel about Hammond, but we are aware of this situation and
are taking care of it," whereupon the Israeli, in the case of
President Shazar, said, "What are you talking about, who is Hammond?"

Deg's Journal, October 20,1968 

Velikovsky and I talked for the first time in a week yesterday
afternoon and again last night. He leaves for a grand lecture tour of
Texas today. We have counseled him not to go to California to talk, a
little later on, because he would become tired and he absolutely
should finish Peoples of the Sea. He continues to add new data to the
work, which is slender still though, like a stick of dynamite.

We argued over the final contract details of Velikovsky and His
Critics, which I am not keen to do anyway, given my poor financial
state and other projects of greater personal importance. He wanted us
to guarantee mutually that we would not submit the final manuscript
without his approval, in effect. It is of course a perilous idea, for
he hangs onto everything and cannot suffer any criticism. I drew up an
appropriate missive, but added words to the effect that we would also
be jointly responsible if Simon & Schuster publishers sought damages
from us for non-delivery of the manuscript. As I suspected, he balked,
and talked of legal formalism. I laughed and expostulated "But you
want everything, complete authority and no responsibility!" It is the
same with the Foundation we are creating: he wants it to follow his
every wish, but does not think that he should be identified with it.

He then said, "All right, Alfred, we will agree just among ourselves,
without a paper. You will not submit it without my approval."

"O. K." And then we went on to argue over the student strike movement,
which he fears will undermine authority and disrupt education. "A tiny
minority has no right to interfere with the majority who want to
study." I told him that minorities are the media of change in any
field. I asked whether, if the French students had not rioted in May,
there ever would have been the Faure reforms of last week, "No
matter!" He would change his mind. I can always win a argument with
him on politics, by citing his own case and the history of modern
Israel. On these two great contradictions of order, stability, and
authority, much of his life is built; they make all of his defenses of
authority and majorities vulnerable.

"What do you think of Onassis?" I asked to change the subject. "Who?"
Onassis, and Jackie Kennedy. "Oh! I tell you that I think it is a
second assassination of Kennedy." Beautiful, I thought, either way.
His idea is the same as that of all the maudlin sentimentalists,
Kennedy-dead worshippers, the sanctimonious, the suttee-ists. My way,
it is revenge for a not too great love, followed by the maddening
experience of suffering all of this cant and sick reverence. All of
these mass-media addicts were hoping she would end up with a crew-cut
college sophomore from Princeton. So she picks the ugly old Greek
pirate, and I am personally pleased. The Hollywood and Madison Avenue
brainwashed crowds have their fairy tale exploded once again. I know
that people live off of these fairy tales; that is what makes valid
history and rational politics impossible for them. Perhaps I should
feel sorry for the great boobery, but I am diabolically pleased with
Jackie's revenge upon them. And upon JFK too, with his harrowing
political life and difficult character and mistresses. What is there
to insult in his memory, I ask myself, and what business is it of old
ladies and shopgirls to define her husband. "Onassis, I don't know the
gentleman. Probably they like each other. I wish them happiness."
Basta.

We returned to majorities and here is how he defined the Jewish
majority in Palestine. "Over history, the dead of the Jews are a
majority in that country. They live in that tradition wherever they
are," Voting the dead to make a majority, like the Confederate
southerners do, or the bosses of "rotten boroughs" in the northern
cities. Grussgott! What would V. say to these majorities and so many
others that are alive, as well. But Israel is the idée fixe; facts are
the dependent variable. Indeed, as I have known for as long as I have
known him, the idée fixe, the highly conventional, traditional literal
interpretation of and respect for the Biblical passages: from this
conservative position spewed forth in all directions the most radical
theories.

Deg's Journal, October 25, 1968 

Reflecting upon the failure of our infant foundation to launch an
archaeological expedition at El Arish last summer, I think it may be
well to set down my view, which contrasts somwhat with that of
Velikovsky and Holbrook. V. was too willing to accept rumors about
Prof. Philip Hammond and placed too strong a weight upon adverse
facts. V. had no right, as I told him bluntly, to destroy Hammond's
possible role as leader of the expedition on grounds that Hammond was
pro-Arab and that he had a mistress who would accompany him. Holbrook,
whom I regard highly and even warmly, with all his youthful arrogance,
was too ready to accept V.'s evaluations and then afterwards the
position expressed by the Israeli authorities, to wit, that we could
not afford to support the diggings and that the political situation
was dangerous. I felt that we had gone so far in our adventure that we
ought to have let Hammond himself battle with the Israeli. He might, I
think, have outfaced them and dragged in his crew and equipment over
their grumpy dispositions. I doubt that we would have uncovered
anything of great significance in a few weeks, but we would have
planted our flag. We would have moved on from there.

Deg's Journal, November 2, 1968

Met with Velikovsky this afternoon. He is back from a triumphal tour
of lectures in Texas. We argued over plans for the foundation.
Juergens was present. I asked him pointblank to pull out any materials
he might have that others had sent him and might be used as articles
for the proposed journal. He did so. [There was almost nothing.] I
asked him also to pull together all his address lists and to let us
place a man in his house to built up a list of friends with whom we
might communicate. He agreed. I was most pleased. I borrowed V. 's
manuscript on Peoples of the Sea to read again, and left with everyone
in cordial spirits. What a difficult man but what an enormous grasp of
everything, intellectually and physically!

I must set some probability theorist to work on some of V. 's proofs.
They are strong as they stand in their conventional historiographical
form. But an application of mathematics would do much more, e. g. the
chances that the Greek letter on the backs of Ramses III's tiles might
be some 'flowing' or shorthand hieroglyphics.

The Foundation spent the fall of the year, following the El Arish
fiasco, in some small constructive matters and in self-destructive
self-appraisals prompted by V.'s misgivings, Ralph Juergens addressed
the Board of Trustees extensively on November 13, writing inter alia: 

1. ... He [Velikovsky] is concerned that funds collected, as it were,
in his name, as gifts intended to further his own researches, will be
diverted to other purposes. Among such other purposes he includes such
FOSMOS projects as the Institute in Connecticut, the journal Cosmology
(...) To the doctor's way of thinking, only two projects thus far
discussed would be legitimate applications of such donated funds: a)
the El Arish dig, and b) the hiring of Princeton graduate students to
carry out library and/ or laboratory research under his direction.

2. Dr. Velikovsky is aware of our plans to launch a direct-mail
campaign early in January and he is offended at not having been
consulted in the preparation of mailing pieces. (...) He insists, at
the very least, that literature sent out make absolutely clear to the
reader that he is not the power behind the foundation and that he will
not be a recipient, direct or indirect, of any funds collected by the
foundation.(...)

It seems to me... that some rather fundamental misunderstandings
remain to be cleared up, not only between Dr. Velikovsky and the Board
of Directors, but perhaps also among members of the Board. In the
first place, there is confusion as to the purposes of the foundation.
It may be that Dr. Velikovsky has never seen a copy of our by-laws,
which seem to make the point that the foundation is to serve as a
clearinghouse for a variety of information, not all of it necessarily
related in any obvious way to Dr. Velikovsky's work. This would appear
to leave us free to tread ways not yet probed by the Doctor. And of
course we thus face the danger of becoming what Dr. Velikovsky would
call a clearinghouse for cranks. But our statement of purpose at least
broadens our horizons to the extent that we cannot think of our
organization as a 'Velikovsky' foundation.

Or can we? The confusion seem rooted in the fact that we members of
the Board, almost to a man, have been brought together through our
common desire to see his work get a fair hearing. Do we really intend
to operate a "Velikovsky" foundation in spite of our more abstractly
stated purpose? If so, we must accept certain consequences, e. g.,
foregoing a tax-exempt status and placing absolute veto-power -- quite
properly -- in the hands of the Doctor. If not, I suggest that we make
haste to disillusion ourselves and Dr. Velikovsky.

On November 22, Deg writes a harsh letter to V.:

November 22, 1968 

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky
78 Hartley Avenue
Princeton, New Jersey 08540

Dear Immanuel,
As you have no doubt expected, your succession of favorable and
unfavorable comments concerning the progress of the Foundation has
created a crisis of morale among the Trustees. For years you longed
for just such an organization to dedicate itself to the testing and
propagation of your theories, and now that we have constructed it you
are undermining it.

You trust nobody, delegate nothing, and have, partly therefore, no
capacity for administration. You also do not wish anyone to speak in
your name but wish help to drift down like manna to dispose of as you
desire. Actually, we shall be trying to do both things --
administration and help in spite of you, if you do not disrupt the
process.

The Board of Trustees has unanimously pledged itself to an independent
course. Whatever the Board of Trustees believes to be useful to the
advancement of science, it will seek to foster. It cannot bargain with
anybody. If it chooses to do one thing rather than another, it does
so, not out of friendship to you but out of respect for the work that
you and others like you have done.

In order to make demands of others, both inside and outside of the
Foundation, I have to make demands of you. You should cease making
accusations against the Board, even if only among the inner circle.
You should cease bargaining over your Archive and the materials that
you do not intend to personally use, and let the Foundation work with
a copy of them as soon as it can arrange to do so. You should accept
what we can offer you (or reject it) in good spirits, knowing that we
are doing our best in a complicated setting over which we do not have
complete control and that some times we must obtain indirectly what we
cannot gain directly.

The men on the Board are your friends. If you have better ones, let
them step forward and we shall welcome them. The men on the Board are
not the best scientists in the world and, if you know better ones, we
shall welcome them too. The Board has to finance the Foundation's
activities in whatever ways it deems appropriate. If you have the
names of persons who, you believe, might contribute to its work, we
shall be happy to receive them. If you wish to reserve the names of
certain individuals or groups for your personal solicitations, please
let us have their names and we shall not approach them, whether in
your name or in the name of the Foundation. If you disagree with the
policies of the Foundation, we would value your opinions. But you
cannot have a veto over anything that the Foundation does.

If you do not wish to relate to the Foundation in all of these ways
and want to dissociate yourself from the Foundation, I believe that
you should do so, either by a personal advertisement in a journal or
by letter to all those of your acquaintances who matter. I shall then
put a resolution to the Board to the effect that the Foundation will
go ahead with its philosophy and plans. If the vote is positive, we
shall go ahead with its philosophy and plans. If the vote is positive,
we shall go ahead; if not, we shall dissolve the Foundation, an action
which will disappoint me and give me immense relief at the same time.
Of course, if you do not desire to take any such measures, I would
assume that you are basically pleased with our work and will work in
tandem with us.

With warm personal regards, as always, Sincerely, Alfred de Grazia 

V., Deg learned from Elisheva and Ruth, was upset. Then he proceeded
to put some of the blame upon Juergens, where it most certainly did
not belong.

Dear Ralph:

Yesterday morning, as you know, I received a rude letter from de
Grazia with unfounded accusations and it shocked me. Suspecting some
provocation, I called you. You disclosed to me that already on
November 13 you have sent a memo to him and to the members of the
Board of FOSMOS. Next I was surprised to read the memo and its content
being your interpretation of a discussion we had at one of our
meetings. I wonder why you have not checked with me on the correct
presentation of my views or at least mailed me a copy of the memo.
Giving it yesterday to me, you gave me also a covering letter. Your
intent was good -- you must have suffered observing that I am under
wrong impression based on oral declarations made to me, whereas the
Board assumes a different policy; and it is good that you brought the
situation into the open.

Your memo, however, is full of inexactitudes; knowing you for
pedantically accurate, I wonder at your rendition of our conversation.
The only explanation I would know, is psychological: your opposition
to the idea of the Foundation -- or only to the dichotomy (you use the
term 'duplicity'), and that can be a subconscious urge during your
writing. (...)

The sentence in your memo that obviously outraged de Grazia who
repeats it is "veto power." Nothing of the kind was spoken between us
or between anybody else. There is a wide gulf between a "veto power"
and being kept in the darkness, as several instances in this letter
testify. (...) If time permits, I shall also put in writing what I
exactly expect from the Foundation. As to yourself, you know how I
value you; you are also at this time the closest. To you I always
opened all my files. I wish you would be the one to organize my
archive. I never promised Alfred anything concerning the disposition
of it, though we discussed its lodging at Princeton University. Most
offensive to me is his reference to my "bargaining" I never responded
to his many approaches...

Juergens then writes to Deg and passes along a never-sent but typed
letter to Deg from V. with the hand-written notation "This transcript
of a letter drafted was not mailed nor typed -- it dates from probably
1967. I. V. November 26, 1968."

Dear Alfred:
Yesterday evening when I was already preparing for sleep I had your
telephone call. Elisheva listened too. You told us of your plan to
incorporate a foundation for studies in modern science. At your last
visit about a week ago you first mentioned of some step taken by a
partner of yours to charter a search along the lines pioneered in my
books, thus to exploit possibilities now neglected because of the
inertia or ever opposition of scientific groups or the entire
scientific establishment to new approaches and especially those
embodied in my work. You told me yesterday of the founding committee
that you intend to convoke in a few days -- two names out of the
business world, unknown to me, but also Livio and Ralph, and a few
more. You indicated that I should at some point assume honorary
presidency of the new venture. A new publication should be one of the
projected activities. Organizing of my archive, another project.

I was through with my sleep at 3 a. m. when Elisheva that did not yet
fall asleep came to discuss the project. Her thoughts and mine
(crystallized by the sleep) were very similar.

The positive in your plan needs not be recapitulated by me for you.
But here are the adverse conditions.

For over a quarter century, since 1939, when I came to this country
and dedicated my time to research in ancient history, I carried the
material load of existence and study and writing with their concurrent
expenses entirely by myself. This, at the end, gave me great
satisfaction since alone and a stranger in the land facing since 1950
the concerted opposition of faculties, scientific societies, and
scientific publications, I now find myself in a changing climate, even
though animosity in some circles, or among some individual is even
more vitriolic than before, but this can be recognized as defense
mechanism.

Should your Foundation and money drives be instituted, the following
will occur:

1. My adversaries who tried to present me as a charlatan but could not
point to any unproper action on my part, would be supplied with
ammunition -- a money collection [sentence unfinished]

2. Scientific organization like American Philosophical Society or
scientific publications, like Science of AAAS show recently some
change of heart; this mimosa-like attitude would be very sensitive to
any activities [sentence unfinished]

3. Also many of my friends and followers would experience some shock
if they should feel that a monetary pursuit under whatever guise
accompanies my work and I would feel embarrassed.

4. I am most averse, even afraid of being made affiliated with other,
so numerous, unorthodoxies. Through these years I am under an
incessant barrage of such proposals to study the works of others, and
in some instances what is known as lunatic fringe. The Yale Scientific
issue caused a flow of letters to the editors from various individuals
with appeals to have their theories given similar handing to that
given to mine. I found often in letters given claims that the writer
is in the possession [of ways] to prove me right (as if I failed in
this) or to improve my work by modifying it.

There are, no question, other worthy unorthodoxies. But I wish to
continue my progress not burdened with the defense of others, like
say, the organon theory of the late W. Reich. A foundation for studies
in new [word missing] cannot close door to new ideas; I, however,
cannot and wish not to become a pope all malcontent.

5. Organizations, like foundations, from the start or after a while,
institute salaries, incur liabilities, oblige itself [sic] for grants
etc., and should the organization be intimately connected with my
name, it may disband under conditions of insolvency, after a promising
start, causing an irreparable damage to my cause.

6. The small organization of Cosmos and Chronos groups is given to my
close supervision and I fell quite comfortable in separating my
scholarly pursuits from the work assigned to Cosmos and Chronos
extending it to [sentence unfinished].

I know that S. Freud and to even greater extent C. Jung made use of
donations, usually by their ex-patients, to establish schools of their
respective modes of psychoanalysis or for publishing magazines. But
their activities were not in the form of solicitation of funds.

In the morning after your call I drafted this letter to let you know
how I feel.

Deg's Journal, November, 30 1968 

Yesterday was one of those fine mornings when most things seems to go
wrong, but I didn't much mind. The mail brought a batch of documents
from Ralph Juergens -- the gist of which was that Velikovsky was
deeply perturbed by my ascerbic letter to him of ten days ago. V. had
promptly asked to see Ralph's memo describing V.'s thoughts. Then V.
wrote a letter indirectly answering mine, and implying that Ralph has
misstated his position, etc. V. added a newly typed version of a
letter that he said he had once written me but never mailed, full of
forebodings concerning my establishment of the foundation, together
with a letter from Arens of Gimbel's of Philadelphia, also full of
doubts about the wisdom of proceeding with a foundation. All of this
was to justify V. in the face of my attack. I know V.'s pattern of
responses so well now that I could tell there was nothing new about
the whole business. He writes everything down to have it on paper for
some future strategm. He warns against everything to be ready to be
proven a prophet should things go badly. He cannot let go of any power
over things or people, but plays upon every means of entrapping and
embroiling them, sucking them in and pushing them off as he feels the
one way or the other in his succession of mobilizing-for-action and
trust-nobody moods.

I phoned him and visited him in the afternoon. I brought him the copy
of Etruscan Tombs at Sesto Fiorentino which Prof. Nicola Rilli had
inscribed to him, and he surlily carped at every point of Rilli's
development that I brought out. 'Very risky, ' 'I don't think much of
him from what you tell me. ' 'He does not seem to be a scholar. ' 'He
has very little evidence for what he is saying. ' We finally got to
the sensitive subjects of the flurry of documents. He claims his
position has never changed. I said, 'Very well, you need not have
anything to do with the Foundation, but if you wish to write articles
for it or refer people to it, or receive support from it, you are
welcome. ' He agreed. (He will of course not keep his agreement, but
will intervene at every opportunity.) I offered also to turn the
Foundation over to him completely and let him designate someone to
carry it on, but he refused that. I said, 'Please name those men and
foundations whom you do now wish us to approach for support. ' He
would not do that. I promised that his name would not be used in
support of the Foundation, which satisfied him. I know what he would
like to see happen: the Foundation helping him in every possible way,
but he criticizing it constantly for its faults. And provided it does
not demoralize others, I do not mind. I have from my first meeting
with him concluded that I should do what I thought he basically would
want and weather as best as possible the glooms, the negativism, the
wounded shouts, the suspicions, and the ingratitude.

We drank a glass of dry white wine (the Israeli wines are becoming
excellent), and he showed me a few late letters, as he usually does.
With some emotion he declared that, for all I have done for him he was
going to give me sooner or later the whole history of the case -- the
reception of his ideas by science and the public. I didn't fell as
grateful as I should, for I need nothing so little as another pile of
documents and a book to write, though it be the richest such case
archive in history, and I thanked him. I prepared to leave, bidding
Elisheva goodbye, and he stepped into the next room to get something.
When he came out. I stepped close to him and said 'You know, there is
nothing that you can do that will drive me away. ' He said 'I will
read you a line of poetry that you wrote' and quoted "the most opposed
I will most believing be." 'Not a bad line, ' I said, smiling, and bid
them goodbye again.

Deg's Journal, December 1, 1968 

The Foundation Trustees met today and perused the volume of recent
correspondence relating Dr. V. to FOSMOS. They agreed that his conduct
was sick. Still Juergens and Stephanos are under his thumb. I pointed
this out and questioned whether the Foundation should not slow down
its program for a year until everyone clarified their position,
especially Dr. V. But we decided to move ahead anyhow, and suffer V.'s
conduct as well as possible.

The more I think of his behavior, the more indignant I become. Every
kind of evidence comes out in his letters, actions, and the
experiences of others. Today he told Juergens that the Foundation
should get another box number, because he wishes to go ahead with his
absurd, presumptions, and self-glorifying Cosmos and Chronos 'Clubs'
(of which, in truth, none exist). Day before yesterday, he tried to
buy my loyalty by the gift of his papers and documents on how science
received his work. 'only for you, not for the Foundation. ' A great
collection, but I wish it for others to use, not myself. He is
incredibly obtuse on some matters, I try to love him for his faults,
but they are too numerous and large to embrace.

On Dec. I, the Board of Trustees met in Princeton at Deg's home,
without the important presence of Mainwaring and Holbrook. Nor were
Kallen and Hess, who played no part in these proceedings anyhow,
present. Juergens carried a new letter from V, to the Board, divorcing
himself from the Foundation, which, as he asserts, he had never been
married to in the first place but with which he is hoping for good
relations nevertheless.

I repeat the following from the Minutes of the Meeting:

"An extensive discussion developed around the subject of the
Foundation's relations with Dr. Velikovsky. Juergens reported that Dr.
Velikovsky was of the opinion that FOSMOS' aims and activity were to
deal only with such work as concerned him directly and as he might
approve, and that FOSMOS was changing its direction since its
inception.

The President moved that, after examining the record, the Board
resolve that the Foundation had not deviated from its original aims,
which remain unchanged and are reflected in the following description
offered by Stecchini, plus the subjects of 'Communications of Science'
and 'Science of Science':

The Foundation is concerned with conducting and aiding in the
investigation of theories A. That the geophysical and astronomical
history of the planet Earth has been characterized by sudden changes;

B. That these changes have taken place in historical times and, as
such are documented by historical records, archaeological findings,
mythological traditions, religious practices, and scriptures; and

D. That these changes have affected the human psyche and Affect
contemporary social behavior."

Afterward, Deg addresses V. once more, to tell him that the Foundation
agreed with him and had always pursued the course that he now was
advocating.

And then Deg receives a rather surprising letter from Stephanos who
now becomes the instrument of V. in a new way; he lists his
benefactions from V. as if he were under hypnosis, and declares:

... I must state that I find your letter to him [Velikovsky]
misdirected (it should, perhaps, have been addressed to another), and
in its tone, totally unjust and unwarranted. I believe it could be
damaging to the interest we all claim to share, the acceptance of Dr.
Velikovsky's work, and capable of great personal harm to him and to
his good name.

Since I was privileged to receive a copy of that letter (...) I want
and do here deny its content as my experiences allow, and respectfully
request, as a member of the Board, that you write a retraction to Dr.
Velikovsky as soon as possible...

Deg replies to him:

Dear Bob: I am afraid that your letter to me of December 5 and the
circumstances of its preparation tend to confirm the contents of my
letter of November 22 to Dr. Velikovsky.

It also indicates that Dr. Velikovsky should probably not have
circulated a personal letter. But thank you for your concern. I am
sure that all will end well. Sincerely yours, Alfred de Grazia 

It did end well enough, except for poor Stephanos. The Foundation
moved along cautiously, doing only small projects such as
disseminating materials on the Velikovsky Affair, supporting Eddie
Schorr's work on the Greek Dark Ages, and soliciting memberships. It
was disturbed by a new attitude that V. had taken toward Stephanos,
hitherto his most faithful and welcome disciple. He seemed to believe
that Stephanos had encouraged persons from the lunatic fringe to
become followers of V. and was giving them inside information of V.'s
activities and archives. V. wished to dissociate himself from
Stephanos and expected the Foundation to do so, too. Sizemore stuck up
for Stephanos in private conversation with Deg, who sensed no great
loss should Stephanos resign. Then he saw Sizemore's point --
Stephanos should not be sacrificed to V. -- and did nothing. Stephanos
resigned anyhow. By the following Spring, Deg was withdrawing, too, as
this Journal entry of April 19 seems to indicate.

On occasion Dr. V and I have discussed a biography in dialogue form.
But the three occasions on which we went to work with a tape recorder
were disappointing to me. He becomes stiff, even more aware of his
role and audience, and though I try to break through with my informal
comment, he remains fixed like a peasant before a camera.

I have not seem him in several weeks. My own problems with women and
children are many and my book Kalos cries for completion. Immanuel's
magnificent self-centering is not consoling or even rational, under
the circumstance. I have ceased completely to work on FOSMOS, in part
because of the foregoing, but also because the members of the Board
were not up to editing a Bulletin, or raising funds. Bill Dix
[Director of the Princeton University Libraries] told me, too, that
the Velikovsky's during V.'s illness of December, had sought to give
(with tax deductions well in mind) V.'s archive to Princeton
University. Yet FOSMOS was to have been the beneficiary.

Holbrook took over active management of the Foundation, working out of
his new office in Washington. He did not succeed in developing it
well, and, by general agreement, it was dissolved several years later.

V. was doing well enough as his own majordomo as we discover when we
read Deg's Journal of October 7, 1972 in Princeton:

I borrowed Jill's bicycle and rode it to the Velikovsky's. Francie,
whose memory of me hardly dims with my long absence, loped alongside.
Velikovsky was issuing directions to a University representative on
how to set up the stage for a forthcoming lecture to the Graduate
School Residence Hall Club. He spared the man no detail, prescribing
publicity releases, and his desire to have his full first name spelled
out rather than I. Velikovsky (is there a wish here to conceal the I,
egoist, or the normal desire to spread out one's own name, as he
said?). He requested that all his books and even a copy of Pensée
dedicated to his work be on sale at the University Store beforehand;
asked that two parking spaces be kept for his car and that of his
daughter; wondered, since the British Broadcasting Company would be
video-taping the show, whether the President of Princeton might not
come if invited; denied a suggestion that a local radio station
broadcast the speech but insisted that provisions for a televised
relay into an adjoining hall be provided for people who could not
crowd into the banquet hall. He stipulated that some announcements
reach New York and Philadelphia so that disciples might come from
those places to hear him. The young bald impresario left the Presence
dizzy with details V. is many things but he is also a master
impresario. He has had to be; his overwhelming need to be recognized
for what he is can only be satisfied by mobs of admirers under
instructions which, given his detachment from the Establishment
machinery, only he can provide, or by some wonderful stroke of
recognition, a great prize like the Nobel Prize, the Fermi Prize, or
an invitation from a head of state to deliver a series of lectures. I
believe that he would then retire from his promotional labors and give
himself over to finishing several important books.

I thought so yesterday as I watched him masterfully, but yet
exhaustingly, promoting himself and his work, and later privately
conveyed this thought to Sheva, when he had gone up to nap. For when
the door closed on the graduate club representatives, he sat back,
listened to me for a few minutes, ate an apple, and began to doze. I
enjoyed the chance to talk to Sheva; she can tell me less flamboyantly
all that has happened on their trips and where all the characters of
the drama of recognition are at the moment -- Mullen and Schorr and
Bucaloe and so on. I borrowed a book and biked home to Mom. After
dinner, Immanuel called to apologize for falling away from our
conversation and I assured him that I was delighted that he could
sleep well and hoped that he would always behave in exactly the same
way. I had mentioned to him that I contemplated a little book of
forays into myth, science and our adventures over the past decade of
our friendship; he wondered how I could write it without his archives.
I can imagine how I might, but if he would dig into them a little, my
work would be greatly improved; I did not, however, suggest that he
give me materials. I shall show him the table of contents when it is
sufficiently elaborated. Then, if he wishes, he may find some material
that would help me.

Deg is living in New York City, and only visits Princeton on occasion
now.

Deg's Journal, October 23, 1972 

I telephoned Velikovsky at 10 PM to see how he was. He was well. We
talked of the book I intended to write. When I said that I was
investigating Hermes he warned me against starting to repeat his work
of 20 years. I guess he'd like me to ask for his files and then trap
me into an endless affair. I said, don't worry: I have only in mind
making several penetrations in depth, at widespread points, to show
the method that should be followed to mine the ore. He said that he
couldn't "approve" my book unless he read it. Of course. And no doubt
there are some bouts ahead. In general, he likes the idea that I will
write the book.

Then I gave him some firm advice. I said "you must finish Peoples of
the Sea and the Ramses II volume promptly and publish them. You must
not lecture and run around. Ten people can go around lecturing about
you but only you can finish these books. Furthermore, you must not
work on the Einstein book, or Stargazers and Gravediggers, or Ash.
These can be finished by someone else. You must write something, if
only 30 pages, on your theories of what happened in the skies before
Venus in 1500 B. C." He agreed, "You are right!" He added, however,
that he must write his autobiography because nobody knows him really
or how he did his work. He only let out a few facts here and there.
Alright, I responded, add that to your required list, following the
ante-Venusian article. But that's all. "You're right!" he said again,
with unusual accord. And so we left the matter, saying good-night. P.
S. V. told me that Harlow Shapley had just died at a nursing home in
Colorado. After reading the extensive obituary in the New York Times,
V. concludes that Shapley, always a great self-promoter, had seen to
it that the Times possessed his own account of his life. Thus Shapley
hurls his last insult to V. from the grave.

Again on November 9. Deg exhorts him:

Had long telephone conversation with Velikovsky. He was in a grim
mood, I tried to cheer him up. I also read him the list of chapter
titles for my projected book. He said a few approving things but
generally he was critical, full of admonitions. careful of his own
sources of information, making no generous or even modest offer of
assistance, wondering how I could have any new idea (though he did not
say this explicitly) when he had them all, and in some manner had
published them all.

I don't know how he expects ever to encourage serious efforts to
follow or parallel him. He beseeches this from the world but then
denies in advance that they can either be original or important.

I tell him to move rapidly on his theory of the pre-1500 catastrophes
-- to publish at least a synopsis of it, lest he accuse even his
supporters of plagiarizing him. All I know of this work are a few
remarks of John Holbrook relating essentially the truth of the Greek
theogony -- Uranus, Chronos (Saturn) Jupiter.

I am telling V. that if he doesn't do something soon here instead of
parading around the country he will become a successor instead of a
predecessor of someone else, Further, his predecessor will probably do
a poor job because V. has withheld his information and assistance.

And he is concerned whether V. will be elected to greatness:

Deg's Journal, November 72 

I. V. is running for election. The office he wishes to achieve is
premier of 20th Century Science. I believe that he has as good a
chance as anyone up to this time of winning the election.

However, I am not a campaign manager. And though an election in
science is unfortunately like a political election -- in that a
campaign biography should be written that will show the candidate in
gorgeous lights -- I feel I must pass up the chance to win glory as a
publicist. My interest in biography is as Conant [President of Harvard
University and chemist] once put it: to find the full meaning of
science through its means of creation.

Immanuel V. as I see and know him is here, and you must understand to
begin with the fact that no person can fully know another one.

Problems of health depressed V.:

Deg's Journal, December 22, 1972 

Called V. He is gloomy, The doctors told him that he must go away to
rest. His days are full of calls, visits, correspondence -- too much
to handle; his writing lags. I invited him and Elisheva to New York
for a day of rest and walking around the museums. Maybe. I also
suggested he might go to Yucatan and see the ruins there. He doesn't
"want to be carried around by the tour buses." "Let the buses go
without you. Stay at hotels. Then provide and make your own daytime
itinerary." He wondered when I would be in Princeton. I didn't know, I
told him I would think of what he should do and would call him back .

The "Apollo" Program suffers severe cutbacks;

Deg's Journal, December 23, 1972 

Called Stecchini. He is feeling better after a gradual six months'
recovery from an old back injury. He said V. may be depressed by the
closing down of the Apollo Moon project which, whatever its premises
and procedures, had brought forward some support of his views. The
signs of volcanic activity are still being reported, though their time
of occurrence is naturally placed conveniently far away -- 100,00
years, 500,000 years, their freshness suggesting "recency," but
recency being defined arbitrarily on the lengthy geographical scale.
If 100,000, why not 3000? No answer. No question, in fact, by anybody,
save the Velikovskians. Cape Canaveral (Kennedy) is already being
dismantled. The scientific community did not rise to the occasion,
said S. "I didn't rise, either," I said. "It was a great waste of
world resources." He half agreed.

Deg worries both about V.'s health and his attitude towards a friend:

Deg's Journal, December 26, 1972 

Called V. again yesterday. He is more cheerful, but says his diabetes
is moderate, not light. He is grumpy over the stricter diet he must
follow. He asked me about all my children and I recited their
whereabouts and conditions of life. He asked whether he could help me.
I should have said, "Yes, let me read your pre-Venus notes and
correspondence." I didn't. He wouldn't; not now. He would ask me to
show that him all of my ideas. I would do so, but he might well not
reciprocate and even though his materials must be better than mine on
the whole, he might very well absorb them and simply look the gate on
me by putting me onto this or that matter stretching on endlessly. He
cannot help himself. He is authoritarian. And he finds it difficult to
think that anyone in the world but himself can supply anything but a
few details nor indeed should until he has breathed his last word.
This kind of game seems bizarre between friends, but the reason I am
perhaps vulnerable to shock by its exposition. As certainly as the sun
shines (sic!) he would reject my work repeatedly, absorb all that he
had not known, and accuse me in the end of plagiarism.

V. begins to exhibit alarming symptoms:

Deg's Journal, February 10, 1973 

Velikovsky Visit - V. not well at all. Extremely nervous, thin,
paranoid cryptic references, taciturn jerky movements from time to
time. Is diabetic. Asked him whether 10 years of good work might
reconstruct 10,000-600 B. C. He didn't have an opinion. He said he
doesn't know whether deluge was 4000 or 9000 BCE. Deg's Journal,
February 1973 Called Velikovsky at 5 P. M. Says he is felling better,
but is having troubles with "people." Has matter of importance
(ominous tone) to talk over with me. If I want to hear it, I must come
to Princeton tonight. I tell him it is difficult. Won't tomorrow night
do. Maybe. "Who is it?" I ask. "Can't I help." "You come." etc. All
remote, intimations of disaster, confusion of personal and the world
and of all past with the present. I try to talk of article about Mars.
'The author believes in all miracles except yours. ' He's not sure he
read it. But uninterested really. He is involved in his personal huge
caravan of suspicions, lawsuits on his house in Israel (so Ruth tells
me to make clear his references), forebodings of catastrophes,
possible suicidal impulses (my enemies wanted their martyr; now they
have it.) Nina hands me a note as she overhears me. "Do not try to get
abstract conversation. He is trying to talk about himself." But he is
uncommunicative. Finally, I leave it that I may come tonight or in the
next couple of days. He is reluctant to close but finally I end the
call.

Called Ruth Sharon. Father not feeling well. Diabetes out of control.
She tells me not to go to Princeton. He will be better and there is
nothing I can do. I tell her I fear he will regress irretrievably. She
cannot answer to that. She says he may even resent me later if see him
in weakness. I tell her I am more concerned with whether he will be
helped now if his situation is serious. Maybe she and her mother
cannot suffice to pull him out. I ask her to call her mother and if
they want me to come to call me.

8. p. m. Ruth calls me back. She has talked to her mother but her
father hung onto another phone throughout the conversation. She says,
however, that he was feeling a little better and was thinking of
driving out to purchase several articles. So I should call and give my
regrets for not coming.

8.15 I called V. Sheva came on the extension phone. I said I had not
finished my proofs that had to go to India and asked him to excuse me
if I did not come this night. He assented. I said further that I did
not wish to see him before I could show him an outline of my work on
pre-history. He replied that he would have no time to read it, for he
was so behind in his reading. Sheva interrupted gracefully to say that
it was short piece and I hastily agreed, saying that it was only a
page or so. He said nothing then; I uttered a few additional inanities
and hung up with the promise to see him soon. He sounded at a bit
stronger of voice.

V. then recovers:

Deg's Journal, April 4, 1973 

I phoned V. this morning and found him much improved since my last
call before leaving the country. Three weeks in the hospital had
somehow restored him. I said, "Life without a telephone to bother you
was good for you." "No I had telephone. I took my calls."

Anyway, he is better and will drive perhaps to Youngstown, Ohio, for a
speech next week. He is working of Ramses II again. He is pleased that
Carl Sagan is writing an article for Pensée on Venus. He agrees that I
shouldn't bother with book reviews for Pensée but should present a
significant paper. Maybe I shall get down to preparing one.

He is hopeful. He speaks of Particular tasks. He has even begun
rearranging some files. It is a great relief.

Bill Mullen is getting ready to move from Princeton University to a
new appointment at Boston University. He is glad to be away from V.'s
moods. He writes to Deg:

August 12, 1974 ...

The summer has been curiously unproductive and jammed as far as
Velikovsky is concerned. He has spent virtually all his hours talking
about what he is not accomplishing and bewailing the magnitude of the
battle against his enemies on all sides. I've contributed only bits of
help here and there, otherwise being forced to concentrate on
preparation of this fall's course. Eddie [Shorr] has been of
tremendous help, spending day after day in the library going through
The People of the Sea with a fine-tooth comb. But here too the result
has not been of the kind to cheer Velikovsky up since Eddie has found
many minor errors which need correction. Nothing that shakes the
reconstruction, just a lot more nitpicking work that really has to be
done if the book is to be spared the dismissals by Egyptologists on
the grounds of inaccuracy which are feared. In short, be thankful for
the serenity of Naxos. Al, since little would have been gained by
being close to Princeton this particular summer (...)
_________________________________________________________________

But V. reorganizes his forces and this time calls upon Irving Wolfe,
who graciously responds by addressing Mullen, C. J. Ransom, Juergens,
Rose, Steve Talbott and Milton:

Dear Alfred, I visited Velikovsky last week, along with Lynn Rose and
Earl Milton. We discussed several matters with him, among which were

- the number of books he's working on at once - his archives and
related issues - he wants people to submit and keep submitting
articles on or arising from his work to scientific journals, whether
they will be accepted or not -- setting up a Newsletter, about which
several steps are being taken -- public recognition for advance claims
and theories.

You will be familiar with most of these matters already, but I've
drawn your attention to them because I think we need to get a number
of people thinking about them and coming up with solutions because
Velikovsky can use help in all these areas.

With regard to the last item above, here is an example -- the recent
discovery of substantial quantities of argon and neon on Mars seem to
puzzle scientists, as an article in Science, June 21, 1975 indicates.
Yet Velikovsky predicted argon and neon on Mars as far back as 1946.
Key scientists must be given the facts -- dates of original advance
claims, letters, confirmations, etc. -- and urged to write the major
scientific journals. Velikovsky feels he's too busy to do this himself
each time, and so I've offered to handle it for him, telling him,
telling him that, wherever a case like this arises, he's to send the
relevant document to me and I'll compose a covering letter and send it
all out to the right people.

This is where I need your help -- I want to make up a master list of
key people, perhaps divided into two or three categories, to whom such
things can be sent as each occasion arises...

Deg could imagine the huddle at 78 Hartley Avenue, planning the
counterpropaganda campaign, the "truth squads" as the Republicans and
Democrats had come to call their counterpropaganda teams. Next year,
Wolfe was calling for an "alarm system" which he had worked out with
Milton in Canada. It was to be a network, highly sophisticated, with
members divided into generalists and specialists, with squad leaders
who would call upon their assignees to respond to the alarm. Wolfe had
been called by V. to activate the system, as he had promised the year
before, and V. nominated as a test alarm the publication by Doubleday
of Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered, which should exercise the network
to produce reviews, letters, and public discussion.

This meant helping the Talbotts who were otherwise blacklisted by V.
and several of his circle. "Regardless of what any of us feel about
the Talbotts," wrote Wolfe, "I agreed because Velikovsky asked."
(Actually, I doubt that Wolfe ever felt antagonistic towards the
Talbotts himself; the plea was for others.) "He (V.) may feel that he
wants to aid the success of that book because it will affect his own
case." So the Talbotts and the inner circle were momentarily in bed
together again, an event that had not occurred since the Talbotts'
Pensée had collapsed. The results were not remarkable, and after a
time they got out of bed.

There came a lull in attempts at general organization; V. continued to
turn his attention and the minds of his several collaborating
followers to the AAAS affair, a story to be told later. It is
noteworthy how much time was taken up with all the maneuvering,
research, writing, and wrangling connected with a single sitting of an
AAAS panel in San Francisco, much of five years of V.'s time and of
the time of several others, the time too of Elisheva, but who counted
that? -- more hundreds of hours blanked out; there the tragedy is
marked, for she was a sculptress and musician of consequence.

She never complained, so I am reporting Deg's complaints on her
behalf, unsolicited. Moses would have been pleased with her
self-sacrifice; Deg was no Mosaist. When she lay dying after a long
illness, and he had not seen her for months, he thought to write a
poem for her.

Then came the infatuation of V. with Christoph Marx, and following
upon Marx' return to Switzerland, V. addressed Lynn Rose, who was
perhaps feeling both grumpy about the affair and pleased that suddenly
V.'s attention was turned elsewhere. However, V. was writing in a
euphoric mood, and one could see the alarm bells ringing around the
world.

The letter to Lynn Rose is dated May 11, 1977, and I summarize it.
Marx was to be "a central figure" on the European continent: Isenberg
sends a paper he gave to a conference of science editors and V. urges
him to send it to the major hostile magazines -- Nature, Science, New
Scientist and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist, "as coming from
the convention" ... A letter from Langenbach, a supporting attorney
working in the Harvard scene... A call to William Safire of the New
York Times, a self-designated "great fan" to get advice... An
announcement that Juergens has resigned his engineering job and would
probably now work for him, V... A hope to teach a course in Egyptology
at Princeton University... A report of Deg's taking issue with Lustig
of the Encyclopedia Britanica Yearbook... Last minute changes to the
English edition of Ramses II... A carpenter-mason is building a room
for guests and Elisheva's music... A letter from the widow of maligned
Harvard supporter, Professor Pfeiffer... Mainwaring will be sending a
complete file of all C14 communications with the British Museum and
the University of Pennsylvania museum... A conversation with Holbrook,
once more in Washington... A gift of Czech rights to Jan Sammer who
helped so well with Ramses II... Some minor foreign rights also to his
early copy editor Marion Kuhn, now ailing... Reporting plans to
sponsor publication of Alice Miller's Index to his works... Detailing
the distribution of 1000 free copies of Kronos to College libraries,
financed by Jerry Rosenthal... Denouncing Steve Talbott for
recommending in a pamphlet that all subscribe to The Zetetic Scholar
which has recently defamed V's Urges that the five former associate
editors of the now defunct Pensée "should make a common statement and
try to teach the subscribers of Network (Talbott's serial pamphlet),
deluded into believing that the Network is an organ to defend and
protect my work... Dr. Gowans of the University of Victoria "comes
back to the fold" after consorting with the likes of Dietrich Muller
of Lethbridge... An exchange of letters with Jacques Barzun... Reports
that Peoples of the Sea just released had already outsold Earth in
Upheaval (11 printings since 1955) and Oedipus and Akhnaton (12
printings since 1960)... He resists Doubleday's efforts at putting
Peoples into a book club as an alternate selection... Ramses II is to
be delayed once more, this time by the publishers... He is happy that
his British publishers, Sidgwick and Jackson, have given full
prominence to his Peoples while somewhere in the nether pages "Patrick
Moore is modestly displayed for his '1978 Yearbook of Astronomy, ' and
has to take this pecking order, he being the author of 'Do you speak
Venusian? ' presenting me as a King of Fools"... More letter
exchanges... He doesn't want Rose to be distracted from their plan to
write together "The Grand Ballroom" dealing with the AAAS affair which
was already the subject of several books and many articles... "....
The hammer of the builder sounds like a song... do you know that my
real vocation is in architecture, and the years that I visited the
Library on 42nd street, I regularly visited also the room with
architectural journals, watching for a chance to compete for a plan
and construct a public building?"... "Keep well, act strong, Lynn."

V. was obviously in fine fettle. The Mastermind was back. He had a
great deal going for him on two continents now, it seemed.

The euphoria subsided. The resistance to all of his ideas continued
unabated. It seems that he could say nothing that would be right in
the eyes of his opponents. His growing disenchantment with Christoph
Marx was not compensated by new faces. (New ideas were out of the
question; proofs were wanted, and defense.) He had now close to
himself principally Greenberg and Sizemore; for them Kronos was not
fun and games anymore. On June 3, 1979, Sizemore writes Deg, "This
issue is going through hell -- trying to get V.'s approval on Lew's
article about the latest probes."
_________________________________________________________________

By now I believe that you and I Know enough of the principal
characters here to venture a more fundamental answer to the question
which I dealt with unsatisfactorily at the beginning of the chapter:
why did Deg stick with V.? It appears that the two men were close to
each other even when separated and out of touch. I conclude that there
was a familial relationship being reenacted between V. and Deg. It was
not father to son, but older to younger brother. In significant ways
V. was of the character of Deg's older brother Sebastian, and Deg was
relating to him as he had to his brother throughout life but
especially from two years to twenty years of age.

It was as Lasswell somehow discovered, a sibling rivalry between Deg
and Sebastian, more intensely activating for the younger than the
elder. No matter what Sebastian did, he couldn't put down his younger
brother; and his younger brother, while trying to outdo him, was
absolutely fond of him and set him up as a model for others, to be
surpassed only by himself, and he was determined all the while that
none was going to put down Sebastian so that there was a strong
protective impulse going incongruously upwards -- material and
demanding -- rather than downwards as one might expect.

V. had two older brothers, neither of whom he saw after 1921 and with
whom communication was rare, if only because the "Iron Curtain" barred
East from West and he said once to Deg, speaking of his scientist
brother, Alexander, I would not want to jeopardize his position over
there by reintroducing myself into his life.

And Sebastian and V. were of the same rawboned, tall and handsome
physique, unlike Deg's more compacted from and features, both were
umbrageous, too Both felt that Deg could do anything he set his hand
to, but that he was always off on some wild goose chase when you
needed him.

There were of course differences. However the song goes: "I want a
girl -- just like the girl -- who married dear old Dad," no girl is
ever quite like mother: and so with siblings, no two sibling
relationships are quite a like. The major differences were two: like
Deg, V. was fantasmogenic: he day-dreamed much and often and duelled
with the universe of nature and men in his mind. Sebastian was not a
dreamer. And, further, V. was there, in place, at home; for seventeen
years Deg knew where to find him at Hartley Street whose number he
could never remember, and that he would be welcomed like a brother,
which, no offense intended, he could not always count on from
Sebastian.

I think that the crux of the relationship, that which proved its
psychogenesis, was the fact that Deg, unlike so many of the cosmic
heretics, could be constantly critical of V. without risk to his
affection for V. Then, too, while V. would never let Deg take away his
toys, nor admit that he was equal, he would not stop him, short of
outright usurpation of his position and place, which Deg in any event
would never wish to do. Indeed, one of Deg's main virtues and
weaknesses in human affairs, if it can be called that, was that he
would often win a contest, but could never administer the coup de
grace, Neither V. nor Sebastian lacked this capacity except in the
case of their younger brother. Sebastian never became friendly with V.
but supported him quietly, just as he never committed himself to Deg's
efforts on behalf to V. nor to Deg's quantavolutionary ideas. He
engaged himself mildly one time in their futile effort to obtain an
honorary doctorate for V. at Rutgers University. Another time, when
Deg was abroad, Sebastian perhaps prompted by his wife Lucia, thought
of getting V. and Elisheva together with the Director of the Institute
for Advanced Study, Carl Kaysen, Ambassador George Kennan, and their
wives. Perhaps V. should be invited to join the Institute (which would
in fact have been an ideal place for him and ideally in keeping, too,
with the Institute's professed aims). Elisheva and Immanuel were
irritatingly preoccupied with the menu for dinner, however, and
settled finally for a visit during the cocktail hour, which went off
nicely.
_________________________________________________________________

Deg's communication lines generally thinned out in the years 1976 to
1983. Even his lateral communications in quantavolution dwindled as he
pressed to break through with the several large studies underway. Here
he is writing from Naxos to Professor Ernst Wreschner in Haifa on
December 21, 1976:

"I am returning from three weeks in Mexico as a guest of the
government. I attended the inauguration of Jose Portillo as President,
gave a paper at a special conference on the 400th anniversary of Jean
Bodin's Six Books of the Republic (author of my least favorite
doctrine -- absolute sovereignty), and visited a number of Olmec, Maya
and Aztec ruins and sites. It has been a good trip and I found a
considerable interest in translating my political works and even some
surprised involvement in my questions about mythology and
catastrophes. I did not find the lost tribes of Israel but perhaps
learned something of pre-"Atlantean" survivals. I also had a car wreck
(I was not driving), had my wallet stolen by a large fat Indian lady
with an overpowering smell that put me to sleep on the bus alongside
her, and then later on my little camera as well -- before I could turn
around, the pickpocket had dived into the marketplace mass.) C'est la
vie.

With luck, by late spring I shall have a general manuscript ready on
the holocene destructions and human development and will send you a
copy. I hope that my present letter finds Ella and yourself very well
and in good spirits. I have resigned all teaching at NYU and am now
free to give my time to research and perhaps sometime to a visit to
Israel, unless you meanwhile visit here. (...)"

Deg showed his materials on Homo Schizo to Harold Lasswell who
approved their significance. Deg wished he might get the famed
polymath involved in seeking the origins of the human mind, even in
contemplating quantavolution, for Lasswell was as much a fantasmogene
as Deg. But not long afterwards, Harold Lasswell climbed into the
bathtub of his apartment overlooking Lincoln Center, suffered a
stroke, and spent two helpless days in the tub before his apartment
was entered. His friends rallied around and attended the cheerful but
addlepated great man until he died. Deg hoped he had not been unkindly
critical when they had last been sitting at Lasswell's place, drinking
whisky and looking down upon Manhattan, for he had been suddenly
seized with impatience when Harold spoke of a great new understanding
overcoming the medical profession owing (by inference ) partly to the
introduction of techniques for better human relations in complex
technical situations (in which he was playing a part, as always)
inasmuch as Deg felt like raging -- not only against the system of
medical care, but also against the world at large for its frightful
bungling.

When I went back in time for Lasswellian material related to
quantavolution and the heretics, the latest was from November 4, 1972,
when Deg's Journal reads:

I met Harold Lasswell at the University Club 7 and after two Scotches
and 'what have you been up to' and 'what are families and friends
doing, ' we taxied to Washington Square, where Nina prepared dinner.
She pulled out all the stops of her culinary organ and enthralled
Harold with poached whitefish and freshly made mayonnaise, stewed
hare, spinach and egg salad, Port-Salut, stewed pears in brandy, and a
variety of wines and cognac. We talked until after midnight.

He is looking as he has for thirty years. Still grey and pink, still
ranging all over the world and talking upon every subject; the chasms
of unintelligibility when he swings into Lasswellian sentences from
time to time still enchant me. It was Nina's first exposure to them
and she couldn't decode them.

He described his unexpected walk many years ago up a set of 18-inch
spikes hammered into the walls of Santa Sophia in Istanbul. He had a
hangover from a night of drinking sweet Turkish liquor and could
barely save himself from nausea, vertigo and panic. How I know the
feeling. He talked too of a ride in a military plane from Paris to
Vienna after World War II, where he sat on a metal bucket seat with
two other men and watched a cargo of coffins creep through their bonds
toward the freedom amidships.

We talked of economists and he expressed his pleasure that the social
sciences were being recognized for Nobel Prizes, particularly Ken
Arrow and Samuelson, but his subtle manner of speaking, which one must
watch carefully, indicated he was a little hurt that he who had
achieved so much for the social sciences had not been recognized with
such a prize. I agreed with him, without mentioning the matter; what a
corrupting influence the Nobel Prizes are; they pretended to
omniscience, in whose name, on what grounds; what presumptuousness.

He is now working on a Policy Sciences Center, promotes a world
university, heads a Rand Corporation Board, etc. He was delighted with
my stories of the University in Switzerland and would have gone the
whole evening on the subject. His mentioning Arrow and Samuelson came
when I reflected upon the betrayal of human economics by the
economists. I explained my struggle with Scott-Foresman over
publishing a chapter on economic policy and especially on a guaranteed
income. Harold says that A. & S. and others just published a statement
indicating their adherence to such in principle. I should use it to
back up my attack on the subject.

I mentioned my advice to Velikovsky to publish now instead of awaiting
the 'no mistake' nirvana; H. L., who feels a certain competition,
insisted that I was right, that V. wanted to be God, that it was
unscientific, that no man could expect his work to stand free of error
indefinitely, that the courage to err was the glory of a true
scientist.

Lasswell spoke of a book called Chariots of the Gods by a Swiss, who
apparently believed in the depositing of inventions upon Earth by
superterrestrial beings. I thought this was a modern version of the
gods of the Greeks descending at will upon earth bringing discoveries
as well as evil. I added that I am pursuing a theory that the
flowering of certain early metal ages came in consequence of the
showering of metals upon earth from comets and meteorites.

Probably I should add a chapter to my book on the descent of the
Metals. If the metals are heavy, they should have sunk to the core of
the Earth's molten mass, never to surface again. Why should in theory
the earth's crust contain them? For none says that the turbulence of
the crust descends to greater depth.

Before our last cognacs had been finished, we spoke of the family
system, Nina presenting the nostalgic view of the extended family,
Harold asserting that the blood family has little to offer any longer,
while admitting her argument. He described his early family -- he an
only child, but with numerous relatives, now scattered from the
Midwest to California and Florida, those graveyards of American
families. I had been urging him earlier to write his Autobiography; he
is silent about his past to an abnormal degree. He is noncommittal.
Perhaps he prefers to remain a Great Man of Mysterious Origins. Very
well, but a good autobiography is worth more than a large question
mark.

Washington, 1979 In Memoriam HAROLD D. LASSWELL (1902-1978) 
_________________________________________________________________

Harold! Greetings! Snifting bubbles, are you, this season, in the land
of the tall drinks? Are they pouring you doubles? 

Come back to Chicago, Vienna, Nanking. Sounding like we know it all,
in tones serene as your very own, We slump in low divans and hunch
over brown tables Spilling smoothly the news about how you walked upon
the Earth once. 

Welcome back to Washington, New York and New Haven; your train is set
to run on time. You said straight what you saw Without hee-haws,
oinks, or meows No winks, curtsies, or knotted fists No cow-eyes, or
stony gaze. Viel Blitzen, kein Donor, No "Ho-ho-ho." 

Pleasant, agreeable Hero of our times, "if-then" propositions
cornucopiously emitted. Two pounds of value-sharing for all men alive.
Mix one pound of deference, a dash of income, well-being and safety
added to taste, Be generous with enlightenment. 

Now that you're not in it. More Seasoning is needed. some of the gusto
is gone. In-put, out-go. 

Hearing the world's secrets and ours nevermore, You heard them all,
and those to come that we must explicate ourselves. 

Thanks for configurating the North pole under your gray hair, behind
your glasses, in your midnight coat. You gloves are too thin. Come
home again, if you get the chance The New Year is here. 

So long, Saturn! 
_________________________________________________________________

Deg's Journal, November 18, 1980 

It's cold outside. I received a letter from Gilbert Davidowitz' sister
telling me that my letter to him arrived but that he had died 'of a
heart attack' last July. Poor lonely mad scholar. He was only
fortyish. He must have committed suicide. Never an academic
appointment. Nothing published. Brilliant worker in the origins of
languages. I immediately wrote Charles Lee [Director of the State
Archives of South Carolina, one time President of the American Society
of Archivists] who will be startled to hear from me after 38 years,
explaining my memorandum on the archives of the dying and their total
loss to our culture. I feel extra sad about Gilbert, because he was so
alone and so incapacitated for everything except the history of
languages. But what a fine capacity. If he might only have known when
dying how I like and admired him. He must have known. But he needed
just then to be told so.

References

http://www.grazian-archive.com/index.htm