6020

Robert Oppenheimer Typed Letter Signed

Currency:USD Category:Collectibles / Autographs Start Price:NA Estimated At:600.00 - 800.00 USD
Robert Oppenheimer Typed Letter Signed

Bidding Over

The auction is over for this lot.
The auctioneer wasn't accepting online bids for this lot.

Contact the auctioneer for information on the auction results.

Search for other lots to bid on...
Auction Date:2018 Dec 13 @ 18:00 (UTC-5 : EST/CDT)
Location:236 Commercial St., Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, United States
ALS - Autograph Letter Signed
ANS - Autograph Note Signed
AQS - Autograph Quotation Signed
AMQS - Autograph Musical Quotation Signed
DS - Document Signed
FDC - First Day Cover
Inscribed - “Personalized”
ISP - Inscribed Signed Photograph
LS - Letter Signed
SP - Signed Photograph
TLS - Typed Letter Signed
Brilliant American physicist (1904-1967) who directed the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and who spearheaded the Manhattan Project, leading to the development of the first atomic bomb. TLS, one page, 5.5 x 8.5, The Institute for Advanced Study letterhead, June 25, 1957. Written from Princeton, a letter to Vernon Reyman, in full: "Thank you for your good note. I am working now to see whether I can recast the James lectures in a form suitable for publication; if I am successful, they will probably be published by the Harvard University Press. At the moment, I only have a rough draft of a partial transcription which I need for my own purposes." In fine condition. In 1957, Oppenheimer served as the William James Lecturer at Harvard University, a platform for some of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century. Sponsored by the Philosophy and Psychology Department, Oppenheimer's series of eight lectures, entitled 'A Hope of Order,' discussed relevant examples from atomic physics and quantum theory, with Oppenheimer placing a 'strong emphasis on the idea that examining an object from one point of attack may yield the maximum possible information about that object but not all the information, since another point of view might have given different information, but would have excluded the first approach.'