“…One member declared that Benjamin Franklin, a founder of the society, who looked down on the gathering from a portrait on the wall, would have relished every minute of it.”[/quotr]
It is also worth mentioning the article titled “Democracy’s True Religion” published in
Saturday Review of Literature by Horace Kallen, who had been watching “the goings-on” in American science. The article, with just a snippet here form his opening, is from July 28th, 1951, and if you can find it, it paints an interesting perspective:
Horace Kallen said:
There is a widespread and dangerous disposition to consider science as in some sense holy and to attribute to it that assurance of salvation greater than any other which defines the supernatural. In the life of the mind the communicants of such a religion of science figure as so many more dogmatists of another intolerant cult, with observatories or laboratories for churches and with formulas as infallible revelations ordaining the rites and liturgies of their respective specialties. Such religions of science insist on their own Index, and impose their own Imprimatur…”
When thumbing trough this book to its end and before putting it down during this absents, I realized that it contained a great many letters, article quotes, discussions with people, more barbs from detractors, many in defense, with also some friendships discussed with interesting people and scientists alike. For me anyway, reading further would be slow, soaking up what was being said, and more importantly, trying to suss out the contrasts of the people and interactions of those times – and time does not seem to have changed people exactly it seems.
When in coming closer to the end of this memoir (later published after Velikovsky’s death at the request of Elisheva - 1983), and not long after the passing of Einstein, the interactions between the two of them, Einstein and Velikovsky (you can read the letters between them link at the end), are further discussed and there seemed much more to this than at face value, or so I think.
It is of no mystery that Einstein seemed a critic of Velikovsky, as can be read, and yet this does not well describe the last eighteen months before Einstein passed on from the world. Velikovsky discusses his interactions along with those of his wife, Elisheva:
On November 8th, 1953 we were invited by Einstein to visit with him. The story of my relations and debates with Albert Einstein, from his first reading of the manuscript of Worlds of Collision until his death, is related in a separate book, Before the Day Breaks…When, after three quarters of an hour during which we were served tea, we rose to go, Einstein kept us saying, “We have only started.” In order to not to appear a bore or a fanatic of one idea, I repeatedly changed the theme of conversation as is so easy with Einstein, whose associations are rich and whose interests are many. The conversation was vivid. We spoke again of the problem of time, which appeared to occupy his mind then, and of coincidence and accident. He observed that it was an accident of unusual rarity that his chair should occupy its very rare position in space, but that it was no accident that two were sitting together, because meshugoim (Hebrew for crazy people) are attracted to one another…”
“Einstein made no secret of his interest in my ideas and his good feelings toward me; often he asked me not to go away when it was late, but to spend more time in discussion. He was surrounded by much love but was a lonely man. Not once and not twice he called me to follow his example and be content in isolation “Don’t you feel fine being alone? I feel unconcerned being alone.” The fact was that most physicists of the younger generation, including those connected with the Institute for Advanced Study, opposed his later stand in physics that conflicted with quantum theory, which required the principle of change or indeterminacy in natural events. On one occasion I answered to his motion: “Yes, there are heretics in Princeton. Only one is glorified’ the other vilified.’”
“His theory increased immensely the regard the general public has for science: If a scientist’s theory can be understood only by a very few in the world, as it was in the beginning with Einstein’s theory, what a supreme race are the scientists! But if one comes with a theory which, if true, would let many reputed scholars appear in error before the public, what should he expect from them?”
“One evening in May 1954, sitting with Einstein in his study, a few days after another ugly attack on me and my theory, I referred for the first time to the behavior of the scientists against me, and I showed him a file with some letters quoted earlier in this book. He read them with great interest, and he was obviously impressed. He thought that the letters and other material must be put into readable form, as a story, and that someone with a talent for dramatic writing should be entrusted with the composition; he was already concerned with the success of my defense. He wished to read more letters, but I was interested in taking up the problem that really occupied my mind: my theories.”
“The same evening I left with Einstein Chapters VIII to XII of Earth in Upheaval in transcript, and we parted close to midnight. Upon reading these chapters, he wrote me a long handwritten letter with criticism. In this letter he also inserted a few passages concerning the letters he had seen. He thought that Shapley’s behavior could be explained but in no way excused (“erklaren aber keineswegs entschldigen”), and he added:
“One must, however, give him credit that in the political arena he conducted himself courageously and independently, and just about carried his hide to the marketplace.
Therefore it is to some extent justified if we spread the mantle of Jewish neighborly love over him, however difficult that is.”
Velikovsky states that Einstein did not change his opinion that “the material pertinent to the suppression of my book must be made public” – Velikovsky wrote back:
”Too early you have thrown the mantle if Jewish compassion over Shapley: you have seen only the beginning of the file of documents concerning the “Stargazers and Gravediggers” and their leader. His being a liberal is not an excuse but an aggravating circumstance.”
- Summer and fall of 1954 Velikovsky wrote most of this book
Stargazers and Gravediggers
- First reading was by Professor Salvador de Madariaga of Oxford.
Continues:
“A few months later I gave the manuscript to Einstein; it was March 1955, fully ten months after he had first read a few letters quoted in it.[/quote
Einstein had supplied back some of the pages of
Stargazers and Gravediggers with written marginal notes. Velikovsky states that some of the notes “were very emphatic: “mean” and Miserable” to some letters, and “bravo” to others, and which side commanded his sympathy is clearly discernable.
Upon reading the first of the three ring files of Stargazers and Gravediggers Einstein wrote me on March 17th, 1955:
Einstein said:
“I have already read with care the first volume of Memoirs to “Worlds of Collision” and have supplied it with a few marginal notes in pencil that can be easily erased. I admire your dramatic talent and also the art and straightforwardness of Thackery who has compelled the roaring astronomical lion to pull in to some extent his royal tail without fully respecting the truth. I would be happy if you, too, could enjoy the episode from the humorous side.”
- Velikovsky describes Einstein’s note (back page) concerning Larrabee’s,
Harpers article (1950):
Einstein said:
”I would have written to you: The historical arguments for violent events in the crust of the earth are quite convincing. The attempt to explain them is, however, adventurous and should have been offered only as a tentative. Otherwise the well-orientated reader loses confidence also in what is solidly established by you.”
- Discussion on Velikovsky asking Einstein to support tests for radio noise from Jupiter
- Shapley, reports November 1955 this was found in what he called “thunderbolts of Jove” – Velikovsky said that Shapley did not know the true significance of his metaphor (classical literature and of religions of the races of Earth).
- Einstein was embarrassed concerning not putting forward Velikovsky’s request for the test on Jupiter…more on this.
- Velikovsky asks Einstein to put forward (after being asked by Einstein what test should I ask for now) help with radiocarbon tests to check the reconstruction of history. Einstein was “emphatic in his desire to help me in this. This was our last meeting; he died a few days later. In fulfillment of his wish, a letter went from his home after his death to the Metropolitan Museum of Art with the request that some of the relics of Egypt be submitted for radiocarbon analysis.”
In one instance, speaking of Einstein in looking at this book
World of Collisions Velikovsky points out that “In our debate, which spread over eighteen months, I drove ever closer to a point not necessary for the validation of
World of Collisions or, but of prime importance per se: the revision of celestial mechanics in the face of the accumulated data pointing to the charged states of celestial bodies. When I wrote” “The real cause of indignation against my theory of global catastrophes is the implication that celestial bodies many be charged,” he wrote in the margin: “
Ja” (“Yes”).’”
In the case of Bernard Cohen, who was a historian of science (Harvard), comes to occupy a number of further pages, which relates to the death of Einstein and Einstein’s association with Velikovsky. In what Cohen wrote after meeting with Einstein (the one and only meeting) two and a half months following Einstein’s passing, this seems to have been a bitter tea indeed forced upon Velikovsky, which was further distributed among scientists and the public alike. More difficult, is that in the article in
Scientific America (1955) a plea to not only counter Cohen, but to correct his misguided statements was denied. When the article came out, the estate of Einstein’s was furious that they had not been consulted, and they even seem to suggest that they knew exactly the state of affairs between Einstein and Velikovsky, which was not how Cohen aligned it in print. They likely knew that on Einstein’s desk were Velikovsky manuscripts and books, not to mention the comings and goings of the Velikovsky’s; their teas and late nights, and even if at odds on scientific points, was their developed friendship. Cohen, imo, seemed bent on sullying this relationship for other scientists, and certainly the public, least they might get an idea that there might be something to Velikovsky's work or something more between them.
Velikovsky writes about this after his mention of their one and only meeting:
…The recentness of Einstein’s death made the interview appear like a testament, utterances of a now dead person spoken to a witness…
.
The article in
Scientific Americawas based on Cohen’s April 3rd visit with Einstein two weeks before Einstein’s passing whereby they discussed {quote Cohen} “the history of scientific thought and the great men in physics of the past.”
Velikovsky opined that “As Cohen reported it, Einstein started saying: “There are so many unsolved problems in physics. There is much that we do not know; our theories are far from adequate.’”
They spoke of Newton, Hooke, Leibniz and this turned to Franklin. Velikovsky referencing in this discussion how Franklin “prided himself for not engaging in polemics in defense of his ideas, believing that they must make their own way by proving their vitality.” Velikovsky said “Cohen professed his admiration for this behavior.” Einstein, however, disagreed. “it was well to avoid personal fights,” he said, “but it was also important for a man to stand up for his own ideas. He should not simply let them go by default, as if he did not really believe them.’”
Velikovsky further said: “Then, almost inescapably, Einstein talked about me and my work. Though my name was not mentioned, it was obvious about what book and author he spoke…” Velikovsky said of Einstein, “He was then very much taken by my work. He was reading the second and third files of
Stargazers and Gravediggersand was reading
Worlds in Collision once again, this time in German translation. However, in Cohen’s presentation Einstein’s comments went thus:”
“The subject of controversies over scientific work led Einstein to take up the subject of unorthodox ideas. He mentioned a fairly recent and controversial book, of which he had found the nonscientific part-dealing with comparative mythology and folklore-interesting. “You know,” he said to me, “it is not a bad book. No, it really isn’t a bad book. The only trouble with it is, it is crazy.” This was followed by a loud burst of laughter. He then went on to explain what he meant by this distinction.”
“According to Cohen, Einstein had said:
“The author had thought he was basing some of his ideas upon modern science, but found the science did not agree with him at all. In order to defend his ideas of what he conceived modern science to be, he had to turn around and attack the scientists.”
Of what Velikovsky said of this exchange, “I knew that Einstein could never have expressed himself this way about my work. In his report of the interview Cohen made Einstein appear as my opponent, while Cohen allowed himself to seem open-minded and sympathetic-
the reverse of the actual attitudes of the two men.
Cohen continues in quotation to explain cranks, unorthodoxy and then Einstein’s reply with the use of (let’s call the trigger words) “crazy” and “bad” to finish it off article and to perhaps plant those seeds. Einstein may well have said something very close that was changed slightly; Velikovsky points out that:
“The word “crazy” may have various connotations-one meaning “most unusual,” the way Einstein used the word meshugoim in refereeing to himself and myself in one of our conversations. Thus he likened himself to me. (Musuga is a Hebrew word: it means “crazy,” in both senses-like the English word-and more often in its milder meaning. Meshugoim is the plural form.)”
Velikovsky continues his analysis of Cohn’s words. However, in one sentence while reading, you get a sense of understanding of the hurt caused by Cohen not only to Velikovsky himself, but to his wife, his daughter and friends:
“I was deeply hurt. In the five and a half years of vilification, distortions, and abuse I had usually remained unperturbed; all the attacks that had taken place until then had not really stung. This time I was angered: Einstein, who obviously in the last weeks of his life was occupied with my case and my book-it was he who raised the subject with Cohen-was made to appear my antagonist. Several years earlier, under the influence of the agitation among scientists, Einstein may have felt hostile toward me, as so many other scientists did. But at the time of the interview with Cohen his relation to me was at its highest and closed point…”
In the hand written notes to Velikovsky, Einstein had conveyed a great deal. Velikovsky understood what this meant, he likely understood the critiques, the intents, the understandings, helpfulness and welcomed what seemed a growing friendship. Velikovsky said:
“before parting on March 11 that he thought it a great mistake on the part of scientists that they did not study my book for the useful information and fruitful problems it contains; with his writing me on March 17 the letter from which I quoted above, and my meeting with him on April 8, after his talk with Cohen; with his saying words of praise and offering to explain all in my book in the frame of accepted principles in science; and with his offering to help me with his authority so that a test of my theories could be performed.
During his lifetime the scientific establishment could not make Einstein express himself publically against my work or myself, though it must have tried. Now, as soon as he died, his name was used to combat me and my work.”
Velikovsky does further state here – prior to sending his letter of July 18, 1955 in reply to Professor Cohen, that he had written to Miss Dukas (Einstein’s secretary who knew of their meetings and letters) “a letter for the record.”
Velikovsky asks “Was it worthwhile to write a rebuttal to Cohen’s article (his letter is eight paragraphs)? The reader would have to decide where the truth was, and how could he know?”
Here is the letter: http://www.varchive.org/cor/various/550718vcoh.htm
Velikovsky, as mentioned earlier, speaks of Dr. Otto Nathan, Executor of Einstein’s estate, who was displeased with
Scientific America and Cohen for not vetting the article, as Einstein in life would have been careful of these things (words) where he is quoted:
Dr. Otto Nathan said:
In "An Interview with Einstein” published in July issue of your magazine, I. Bernard Cohen quotes remarks which Albert Einstein allegedly made about a recent published book and its author. Professor Cohen represents Einstein as having said that both the book and its author were “crazy,” but not “bad.”
As executor of Einstein’s estate and as one who has the responsibility to protect his scientific and literary interests, I feel compelled to say that I deeply regret Professor Cohen’s statements. The article was not submitted to me before publication. If it had been, I should have made every effort to prevent it from being published in its present form. Professor Cohen would certainly not have published it without Einstein’s approval had he been alive. Similarly, after Einstein’s death, it was Professor Cohen’s duty to seek permission for publication….”
Cohen replies…
Veliskovsk concludes: “Although Bernard Cohen, under pressure, wrote the above letter, I could only hear Einstein’s words: “Don’t let the abuse discourage you: are you not happy in your isolation?’”
Veliskovsk follows with a discussion on
Earth in Upheaval in the next chapters along with a reviews by Harrison Brown in a back issue and in a new review in
Saturday Review of Literature and
Scientific America respectively. In the 1950 review, Brown “was presented as an “atomic scientist, “ while this time {1956} a banner over the columns said: A geochemist views Immanuel Veliskovsk’s unconventional theory of the earth’s history.” Brown was not a geologist; his field was the origin of atmospheres on planets, and therefore most facts discussed in my book, as in the old, must have been unfamiliar to him….
