November 1924

Dear Friends,

I entirely and cordially agree with Ferenczi’s suggestion that the Committee 
be re-established, and hereby transfer the Presidency of the Committee to Abraham,
after holding this for eleven years. As Ferenczi makes in his letter a generous
personal reference to myself, I may assume that there is now a general appreciation
of the impossible situation in which I was placed at San Cristoforo. Finding
myself, largely because of Rank’s skilful manoeuvring, faced with unanimous
opposition and condemnation, I saw how hopeless it would be for me to take a firm
stand that would be tantamount to denunciation of Rank; this was the chief, though
of course not the only, reason for my state of inhibition then.

I should like to make a few comments on the present proposal. In the first
place, I would suggest that the most suitable times for the correspondence would
be the first and fifteenth of each month. The question will naturally arise
whether we wish to adopt any fresh members. I have myself no definite opinion about
this, but suppose that the persons most under consideration are Fräulein Anna Freud
(both for her own sake and because she would be useful in her father’s correspondence),
Rado, Alexander, James Glover and Mrs. Riviere.

More important is the reconsideration of our general aims. To me it was
always clear that our central aim was the safe-guarding of psycho-analytic doctrine
by the device of having a central body of men who would consent to one condition:
that, before publishing anything concerning which there might be any doubt as to its
diverging from psycho-analysis, he should first submit such views to a discussion
among ourselves; afterwards he would of course be free to publish what he liked. It 
is obvious that the decision of which views came under this category cannot rest
with the author of them; it suffices if there is any suspicion that any single member
of the Committee might entertain any doubt on the point. This condition to which we
all bound ourselves seems a simple and straightforward one, and yet two members of
the old Committee have already broken it. In my opinion, this was because some
deflection had occurred from our central aim on to another aim which I judge to be
subsidiary though also important. The other aim, particularly championed by Ferenczi,
was, to establish an equal degree of intimate personal feeling among all members, then
trusting that agreement in other matters would automatically follow. I think that
this second aim, though obviously desirable and conducive to the main aim, is
inevitably impracticable among a body of men, where personal and temperamental
differences must draw some individuals closer together than others. These varying
degrees in personal attachments, like all other personal matters, should be absolutely
 

subordinated to the main goal idea; psycho-analysis should come first and
personalities afterwards.

I shall look forward to other expression of opinion on this important
matter and will begin the regular correspondence in the early days of December
as soon as other letters have been received.

With my cordial greetings to you all,

Yours always,

Ernest Jones