Rank and Freud, letter to the ›Secret Committee‹ from 30.11.1920

Vienna Position

„ad Londoner Filiale: Wir geben zu, daß die Klarheit, die wir auch weiterhin in unserer Darstellung finden, uns erst allmählich geworden ist; trotzdem stellt es sich aber rein kaufmännisch betrachtet so dar, wie es eben dargestellt wurde: Daß nämlich London gar nicht in die Lage gekommen ist, für die Press etwas zu leisten, weil einfach nichts da war. Die Sache anders als kaufmännisch zu betrachten liegt wohl kein Grund vor.

Auf neuerliche private Anfragen von Jones wiederholen wir die Grundsätze, auf denen wir die Verhandlungen mit Kola basieren:

Es kann gar keine Rede davon sein, dass englische Geschäft von den anderen trennen zu sollen; im Gegenteil legt einerseits Kola Wert auf das Englische, andererseits wir auf Beibehaltung der bisherigen Beziehungen zwischen Wien und London, auch in der bisherigen Form. Für Jones würde sich also kaum viel ändern, immerhin sind die Sachen aber heute noch nicht spruchreif und wir bitten Jones, sich noch etwas zu gedulden.

Ferner, wenn wir alles an Kola verkaufen, dann sind wir selbstverständlich auch in der Lage, die Spenden der englischen Gruppe zurückzuzahlen. – Endlich wäre für den Fall des Verkaufes und der damit verbundene Wiederherstellung des ganzen Fonds nach anderen, neuen Verwendungsmöglichkeiten des Geldes Ausschau zu halten; aber das eilt nicht gerade.“

L.9. Nov. 30, 1920

Answer to W.7 & 82, Berl. 8.3

I sincerely hope that Ferenczi‘s indisposition is only slight, and am anxi- ous to hear some news of him. If his wife writes, no doubt the report will be circulated, but better still will be to hear a word from Ferenczi him- self.

I note that Berlin & Vienna accept the suggestion of a fixed day for wri- ting. There is no doubt that Abraham is right in pointing out that seven days is too short, for if this is true for Berlin, the centre of the four, it is still truer for London & Budapest at the periphery (though we have the advantage of having only one member each, which saves time). The di- sadvantage of writing every ten days is that the date will often fall on an evening when one is otherwise occupied, society meeting, lecture, etc, so that we must decide either to agree that the date is only approximate, i.e. that sometimes it will be a day late, or else lengthen the period to 14 days which could always be kept regularly. Will members please give their opinion on this. Personally I vote for the latter course. One could then always arrange to give a full evening, and could extend the circular to scientific purposes, as suggested in W.8, which I should very warmly welcome. In any case there must always be supplementary letters, as at present.

About Berkeley-Hill‘s Mahomet I have asked Professor for instructions in a private letter, but should also like to hear Abraham‘s comments.

Wien. I did not suggest that the Journal be sent to all Society libraries, but only to Berlin, Budapest & Vienna, as their Valuta makes English writings unobtainable for them (which is not so in Holland, etc).

I had already written to Holland & Switzerland some time ago, propo- sing a monthly letter, but have as yet had no answers. 

About the relation of the Press to Kola: I had no doubt that you have no intention to change the present situation, but I had the fear that facts themselves may have this effect (also that difficulties may arise with our Government), and so wished to know how you propose to deal with the- se problems, and to discuss them with you. Since, however, all you can say is that they are not spruchreif, there is nothing to be done. I do not feel that I shall have any longer the time to give to the business side of our ac-tivities, especially now that the editing work increases so much, so some other solution must be found. What so you think of making Hil- ler Director of the Press, that is, if, as I understand from you, you wish it to continue further as a British firm legally?

The difficulty already about the translations and abstracts, and the seri- ous danger of duplication of work, shows again the importance of what I previously insisted on, that such work can only be organised in one pla- ce, so that one person shall know exactly what is being done and how the work is being distributed. I understand that I am responsible for the English edition, so beg that I be notified first before arrangements are made elsewhere about such work. Any other system would not only pro- ve cumbersome and time-robbing, but would be sure to result in compli- cations.

Berlin. I was very sorry to hear the sad news about Liebermann. No doubt we shall hear later how he goes on.

Sachs. Besides the Cohen4, I have just sent you a book by Mordell5 to

review. Please deal gently with it. With best wishes to all

yours Ernest Jones.