October 26, 1922.  
Dear Friends:  
I am writing a few days earlier because of the new difficulty over the Verlag-  
Press relations. As I indicated in my last letter, I felt optimistically about the  
matter and had extracted from Hiller a promise that he would give the new system a  
fair trial, that he would place all responsibility on Rank, and that then if he  
found the situation unsatisfactory he could openly say to all of us what exactly he  
objected to. In stead of which, he has written to me this week sending in his res-  
ignation. He wrote a long rambling letter, chiefly complaining about the meeting in  
Berlin, and I cannot really say what his true reasons are for his action. I suspect  
they must be neurotically conditioned. I have written asking him for a more precise  
statement, but have not yet had time to get an answer.  

As I see the case, it essentially turns on whether Rank can win Hiller over to  
act as his subordinate. I trust this will still prove possible. If not, then we  
must consider the situation de novo. I do not think, for financial reasons, that  
we could in any case continue the Press in England, and I am equally sure that we  
have no one here whom we could send to replace Hiller. Therefore there would be in  
the worst case the choice between (1) defining the relations of the V.-P. in a clear  
and business-like manner, allowing the latter a certain autonomy, as little as  
would be necessary to satisfy Hiller; (2) selling the whole concern to an English  
publisher, such as Unwin, a course which I should be exceedingly loth to pursue for  
every reason; (3) allowing the Verlag to conduct the whole Press concern without an  
Englishman, which I honestly do not think would be possible.
 

I have had a long interview with Rickman, who I hope will replace me in the business  
sphere, for I have more than enough to do editorially. He has drawn up a memorandum midway  
between Hiller’s position and Rank’s, and has sent copies of this to both. Hiller had also  
drawn up a detailed memorandum, but did not shew it to Rank, for he felt there was little  
chance of the Verlag’s accepting it. He sent it to Rickman, but not to me. Rickman shewed  
it to me, and although I find it is very clear and business-like I do not approve of it  
because it would involve a greater separation between the V and the P than I have always  
striven for and still hope to achieve. Personally I am willing to agree to absolutely any  
arrangement that Rank and Hiller can make together, and as I suspect that the whole  
difficulty is a personal one between them I do not see how any outsider can arrange  
anything.  

I hope that those who have criticised the Journal were better pleased with the last  
number, which seems to me to have been an improvement. It was only one month late, in  
place of the eight months of delay when Hiller went to Vienna, so that with hard work on  
the part of both of us we have improved in both time and quality. Now that Mrs Riviere  
is beginning we may anticipate further improvements, so that so far as the Journal is  
concerned we may feel a little happier.  

At the last (business) meeting of the Society three new associate members were elected,  
and five were promoted to be full members (Mitchell, Wright, Rickman, and both Glovers).  
At Professor’s request I also proposed that the Stracheys be made full members, but this  
was unanimously negatived on account of the rule that new people, who had not even been  
guests, must first be associate members for at least a year. I got a programme committee  
elected, consisting of Bryan, Flügel and Rickman, whose duty it will be to stimulate  
original papers, arrange for Referate and other material for the meetings.  
I was glad to get the photograph from Schmideberg, but am not so enthusiastic about  
its success, for I find that the efforts of the young ladies resulted in too much artifi-  
cial posing with several members.  

Brill certainly crossed to Europe in August, but I have heard not a word from him.
 

Has anyone else? I am afraid we shall have to discard him as worthless and unreliable.  
I am glad to say that our efforts have been successful in compelling McCann to  
withdraw his "Dream Psychology" plagiarism of Professor’s works. I think that the trouble  
Unwin has taken in the matter is distinctly to his credit. On the other hand, I have had  
a second letter from Tridon threatening me with a legal action to obtain an injunction  
against the admission of the Journal into America (on account of my review of the book).  
I do not think he can do this, have of course not answered the letter, and have placed the  
matter in Rickman’s hands.   

The latest American swindle is the following: Professor’s essay "Zeitgemässes" was pub-  
lished by Moffat, Yard in 1918 xxx in book form under the title "Reflections on War and  
Death". This is now conceived to be too old a title to sell, so it has been re-issued as  
"Reflections" simply, the advertisements saying it contains the thoughts of a master mind  
on the latest current problems of society, etc. I think I related how Ferenczi’s "Con-  
tributions to Psa" had changed its title and format, being advertised as a new book. On  
my protesting to Badger, he has made the equally misleading addition on the inner page  
"Second, Revised Edition". So much for the vaunted American morality.  
Berlin. I will make a special note of Mrs Garley. These personal pieces of information  
are most valuable. From what Mrs Riviere told me about the lady in Berlin I should sur-  
mise that she has been badly misled, for she was inclined to criticise Abraham’s  
"technique".  

Will you, my dear Karl, please write officially to Moscow. Probably letters reach  
there better from Berlin than from England. Also tell Delgado that he will be very welcome  
in London if he finds it possible to visit us.
 

Vienna. |Many thanks, my dear Otto, for inserting the further points in the Congress-  
bericht. I suppose I shall see the alterations before they appear in the Zeitschrift.  
I enclose Ermakow's letter for which you ask.  

Your kind remarks about my writings gave me much pleasure, but I am afraid there  
were some exaggerations in what you said about the principle of publication. The  
simple facts are these:  

I should be glad to publish my Congressvortrag in the J if you think it would be  
correct to do so. It cannot appear in Part IV, the final proofs of which have been passed  
weeks ago, and which should now be in the process of binding. Part I is not likely to  
appear until the end of January or February, although the Spiegel was arranged a fort-  
night ago. I want in any case to publish the paper in my "Essays" (incidentally, it is  
not true that all these have previously been published), and, as the final page proofs of  
these have long been corrected, this one paper should be printed and the book published  
before Christmas, at all events long before Part I of the J. I did not think it honest to  
publish in the J an article that had already appeared in book form, and that was my only  
reason for my action. If you or Professor think otherwise I am willing to change my mind.  

As for the idea that I "consistently withdraw" my writings from the J, well just  
look at the facts. Since the J started I have written four papers and four communicat-  
ions. All of these have appeared in the J, with one single exception (the Adolescence  
paper). This I could not publish in the J because it did not belong to me, but to the  
Brit. Psych. Soc. You can, it is true, say that I should have read it before our own  
Society, but the reason for this, apart from its unsuitability as being an educational  
paper, is simply this. I have so much to do in the way of duty, that I only allow myself  
the pleasure of writing papers under the pressure of some exceptionally strong stimulus.  
In this case the stimulus was that for the first time a special meeting was called of  
all the sections of the Brit. Psychol. Soc. as an honour to myself, and it would not  
have been politic to refuse such an invitation. The terrible result was that one eighth  
part of my writings did not appear in the J.
 

Nor is it any truer to say that I am in the habit of not publishing articles in  
the J on the ground of their being published in book-form later. This is a pure invent-  
ion, for it has never happened with any single article. On the contrary, every article  
to which it might apply, by Professor, Abraham, Ferenczi, and now your latest one, has  
been published in the J, although we have the intention of also publishing them later in  
book form.  

I have had a letter from some Society about Kaplan, who seems to be in a serious  
financial situation in Zurich. I do not suppose you need his help in the Verlag, but  
mention the matter in the event of someone being able to make a suggestion.  
I enclose a short communication for the Zeitschrift by my wife, which I hope you  
will find of interest.  

With cordial greetings to all,  

Ernest Jones.