December 4. 1922  
Dear Friends:  

Before writing this time I waited for Rickman’s return from Vienna; 
yesterday I had six hours’ talk with him. There is, however, so much to  
say on the subject of the Press that I must reserve it for a special memo-  
randum. The situation is certainly very difficult, but if we all cooperate  
cordially I hope it may yet be saved.  

In the meantime Rickman brought with him the Vienna Rundbrief of Nov.26,  
which is really a letter from Professor to Abraham and myself. I cannot pre-  
sume to speak for Abraham, which explains the purely personal note in what  
follows. Let me begin by expressing my regret that Professor should have had  
occasion to write such a letter and by giving my word that for my part I will  
do all I can to further his aim of restoring the original harmony. When  
Professor rightly contrasts the mutual regard and identity of interest  
characteristic of our Committee with the relative unimportance of the diff-  
erences then there can be only one single-hearted answer. Further, I am  
glad to be able to agree entirely with his opinion that in these differenc-  
es there is nothing “wirklich Arges”. Still, while there is no danger of  
overestimating them, it is also wise not to underestimate them, and my con-  
fidence in the unshakable solidarity of the Committee gives me courage to
 

discuss frankly matters which perhaps in another circle would be avoided.  
For while no one could agree more cordially than I with the fundamental  
aim of Professor’s letter, it would not be honest if I pretended to be equal-  
ly convinced, in spite of all the respect that I feel towards him, of the  
method he proposes for achieving this aim.  

Professor’s conclusion is that Abraham and I display a neurotic response  
to a normal stimulus applied by Rank, so that the remedy would lie in our  
recognising our neuroses on the one side and the impeccable correctness of  
Rank on the other. For me, on the contrary, the reaction seems much more a  
normal, though delayed, response to a long series of instances where Rank  
has shewn grave discourtesy and lack of consideration.  

In my own case Professor goes further in his diagnosis and maintains  
in effect that my reaction towards Rank is a displacement of an antagonist-  
ic attitude towards himself engendered by his recent criticism of me in  
private letters. It is true that such reactions, even if originating consc-  
iously, tend to get connected with unconscious material, but in this case  
I have been unable to confirm Professor’s suggestion because the analysis  
goes in another direction. In spite of his and Rank’s constant endeavours  
to identify themselves in this respect, my own feelings remain very differ-  
ent towards both and are not even a pair of contrasts. In fact, like Abra-  
ham, I could not believe that Professor actually read the Vienna Rundbriefe  
and was surprised to learn from his letter that he did so.  

The following facts also negative this solution: (1) The chronology  
does not agree. Professor’s criticisms of me began only last April, while
 

my protests to Rank are of far older date. (2) When there is a displace-  
ment of affect from one person to another there is usually some similarity  
in the complaint. Now it could occur to no one to accuse Professor of the  
sort of things I have commented on in regard to Rank.  

On which side between Rank and myself there has been most manifest-  
ation of uncontrolled affect, with distortion of the actual facts, the  
various Rundbriefe bear witness to any impartial judge; it will be seen  
that my side has been mostly confined to cold re-statement in defence.  
If in these circumstances I, who after all have had some, need analysis,  
then how much truer must this be for Rank, who has had none. I do not  
deny that it would help me in general –– no psycho-analyst could deny this ––  
and I shall take any opportunity that presents itself.  

After making these comments on Professor’s conclusions it is incumbent  
on me to make some positive propositions from my side. I am willing to  
admit that I have cared too much, and therefore been too sensitive, about  
Rank’s attitude towards me. I am taking all the steps in my power, analyt-  
ically, to bring this under better control. On the other side I should  
find this easier if Rank were able to accede to what seems to me a simple  
and fair request –– to adopt a similar tone to that used by the other
 

members of the Committee to one another. He may be sure that the slight-  
est overture of friendliness on his part will meet with no lack of gene-  
rosity on mine. Even if he cannot bring himself to change his past attitude  
I will nevertheless endeavour to suppress any reaction on my side, but  
Professor will hardly expect then that the Committee will be so ideally  
harmonious as it might have been and as it is my earnest wish that it  
may always be.  

Returning now to the outer world, I have only two pieces of news to  
report. From a newspaper report I learn that “the famous French psycho-  
analyst André Tridon” has died in New York. If this is true it will be a  
relief to our N.Y. colleagues and will also spare me the libel action  
he threatened à propos of his theft of Professor’s book. Last week I lectur-  
ed at the Medical School, Cardiff, on “Psychology and Medicine”, and at  
Cambridge on “Narcissism”, both times with an interested audience. Un-  
fortunately it cost me an exacerbation of an attack of very painful neur-  
itis, which has now lasted four weeks.  

In the hope that these personal differences will soon be a matter  
of the past, and with cordial greetings to all  

Ernest Jones.