London: 4                                                                                       Oct. 26.2

Answer to Budapest, Berlin, Wien 3.3

Dear Friends:

1. Flügel is giving an official course of lectures at the London Universi- ty. Everyone here is crowded with patients and we badly need new ana- lysts.
2. I am greatly obliged to Berlin and Vienna for their help about the Leipzig group. I will discuss the matter with Flügel and let you know what we propose.
3. To Sachs: I congratulate you on your successes, but hope they will not lead you to strain your health. As you are busy I will get some one else to translate your Tempest4 if you have not done so already; can you arrange that some one else (Anna Freud?) does the second part of my Symbolism?5
4. To Rank: Will you please acknowledge the receipt of MS for the Journal so that I may know it has not been lost in the post. I sent you so- me on Oct. 1, 3, 7, and accompanying this letter.

5. To Ferenczi: I am sending you Cruchet‘s book6 by this post. Can you

   tell me with what safety one send books to Budapest nowadays? I made a mistake in saying that Berguer’s book was published in Paris; it should be Geneva. As to your question about Tridon and Kempf.7 Tridon seems to be a journalist (but perhaps is a doctor!) 8 who has just written a long popular book on psa.9 very bad and confused; I have reviewed it for the Journal.10 Kempf is an assistant of White11 at Washington, who tries to combine physiology a la Pavlov with psychology. He is hailed by Tridon as one of the four great psycho-analysts of the world (with Freud, Adler & Jung)! I recently tried to read his book on Autonomic Functioning and the Personality12, but could not understand the language (my American is getting out of date!), so sent it to Rivers of Cambridge for review; he has returned it with the remark that he cannot understand any of it. Would you like to try?

6. To Vienna. At the Congress it was formally agreed that the New York Society be invited to express their views as to the choice of Ameri- can editors for the Journal (a course which was followed by the London one). In a personal letter from Professor13 he says that he appoints Brill and tells me to write to Brill and ask him to choose the other two. Now comes the WIEN 314 letter saying that Brill and Frink are to be the two, and that I am to choose the third. We can not follow all three courses and I should like to know which of them Vienna really wishes me to follow. Nothing would please me more than that Brill should work with us, and I am more anxious to avoid offending him than all other Americans. But can we be sure that he will agree with Frink, or should I not ask his opi- nion? Further would it not be more correct to ask Brill, who is secretary, to put the matter before his society? He probably could do so in such a way as to ensure the appointment of whomever he wishes, as I did in London.

   From various recent reports I have had from America and from reading their recent literature I am sorry to say that I get a very bad impression of situation there. Everything possible passes under the name of psa, not only Adlerism and Jungism, but any kind of popular or intuitive psycho- logy. I doubt if there are six men in America who could tell the essential difference between Vienna and Zürich, at least at all clearly. I am con- vinced that no one is more loyal to us in heart than Brill, though unfortu- nately he cannot be called so in conduct. Still we cannot replace him if we wanted to (this in answer to Ferenczi‘s suggestion).15

7. To Rank. Re Holland and Switzerland. Would it not be better if we both wrote to both countries once a month, you about the numerous Ver- lags and Redaktions questions, and I about the societies and Vereinigun- gen? I fully agree with you about the necessity of remaining in constant and regular contact with them, as also with America. By the way, there was recently founded a Washington Psychoanalytic Society16, under White, but they seem to have such a vague idea of what psa really is that I do not propose to invite them at present to join the Association.
8. As Mackenzie never answered our Treasurer’s letters, I wrote to him myself about a week ago. I find it strange that he should notify his chan- ge from the British to the Swiss group through Oberholzer, Pfister, Rank17, etc. He had originally asked to join the British group and he was informed of his acceptance. We don’t want him of course against his will, but I see no reason why he should not pay the full Swiss subscripti- on, in spite of the low Italian valuta.18
9. Abraham and Rank. When Rank sent me Kolnai’s brochure19 for translation I gave it to Bryan, who is now at work on it. As Frau Dr. Ab- raham20 also has it, I suggest that she begins her translation at the middle of the book, and am sure that Bryan will agree with that.

10. To Rank especially. I am greatly obliged for your letter which I will answer separately, especially the editorial matters. But I wish you had answered my question about the future relation of the Press to the Verlag in the event of a fusion with Kola, for that is an important matter and one that is not obvious to me.

    I enclose a full list of our donations.21 As I know the private affairs of all the people I can say that those who have made sacrifices are Miss Low22 and Mrs Riviere, and those the least Flügel and Mrs Porter.23

I also enclose two financial statements24 of the Press-affairs, which I ho- pe will make many points clear. It is impossible to make them perfectly accurate, partly on account of the fluctuations in the American exchange, and partly because we do not know how much we owe you. The latter we approximately estimate at 215 pounds. You told me in The Hague that you had paid about £30 for books sent to us; the rest is the complete sum of subscribers to all journals (Z and J) without deducting discount or Filiale expenses: much of it has not yet been paid to us.

My two letters on our financial affairs was evidently misunderstood; they should have been more detailed. You overlooked the proviso »if we were to liquidate now«, i. e. if we were to close business as in bankruptcy. In that case we should, it is true, have a surplus of nearly 100 pounds, as I said, which you will find in the balance sheet. (ca. £87).

But when you talk of our sending you this £100 and also the £150 to get from the sale of our stock books, you overlook two things: (1) you are counting the 150 pounds twice over, for it is already counted in the li- quidation as parts of our assets, and (2) you forget that such a balance sheet is purely hypothetical, for we do not propose to close business; on the contrary, we hope that the Journal and publishing of English books will continue. There is all the difference between potential assets and ac- tual fluid money. For instance, many debts owing to us will not be paid till the end of the year; the furniture we are not selling, but we have ren- ted so as to secure the continuation of our address, which is valuable; stationary is very much to us, but hardly anything to a stranger, for our name is printed on it, etc.

It is true that after going myself into the accounts carefully (several eve- nings) I think they are more favourable to us than appeared from the only hasty glance I was able to give in August; still the two statements are quite compatible with each other, and the main conclusions remain the same. My chief point then was that there would have been a deficit had it not been covered by about 400 pounds of donations, and I was not sure how much of the latter we should obtain in the future. The results of the special appeal we made last week proved to be more successful than I dared hope, or could guarantee beforehand. At present, therefore, we are in an excellent financial state.

I regret to say that Hirschfeld25 refused to buy the books, after keeping us

waiting ten days, but we are now negotiating with several other booksel- lers.

If you tell us exactly how much money we owe you well send it at once. If there is anything you do not understand in the enclosed statements please ask, and in any case send me your comments on them.

I hope you did not mind my remarking on the disadvantages of a fusion with a commercial firm, but I did not know of any advantages, nor do I yet. I do not see why further cooperation with the Press on the new lines, which should bring us much profit, together with the American fund26 and Brill‘s money27 should not be able to provide for you the improved conditions of working that, as we all know, you so urgently need. But, of course, you can be the best judge of this. Only do not depend too much on Steiner, who is a very sharp business man, as I know well.

To end on a personal note. I am glad to answer all the friendly inquiries about my family in the most favourable way; both mother and child are doing excellently.

With cordial greetings to all

Ernest Jones