INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO‑ANALYTICAL ASSOCIATION

                             3O September 1927  London W1

Dear Professor,

I was just contemplating writing to you about the latest news and to express my pleasure at seeing you on the Semmering when your letter arrived with its rather painful contents.  It is, as you say, an enormous pity that we could not have discussed these matters together when we met.  Correspondence is a very imperfect mode of communication, especially when it is a question of explaining and describing a psychological atmosphere.  However, I will try to compensate for this by writing as fully as possible.

When I read your little essay^[1] in the Hague I expressed the opinion to Eitingon that I did not think either the tone or the content would offend Americans.  To this I made a reservation of three sentences which I suggested omitting.  Otherwise it was to me simply interesting, and I had no other motive for expressing the desire to see it published than the general one that applies to all your writings.  The incident had not the slightest importance to me otherwise and I find it impossible to connect it with any other matter.  You may, of course, be right in thinking that it would offend the Americans, but when I read it it did not produce that impression on me.

You ask what my aim is in regard to the American situation.  It is nothing at all else than to restore as much harmony as possible between them and us by trying to diminish the factors that have reduced that harmony.  Everything I have said and done has no other meaning than that, even though you may, of course, not agree with the particular means I advocate.  I should regret their secession much more than you apparently would, but for no other reason than that it would, in my opinion, impair the extension of psycho‑analysis in America; consequently I am prepared to make some effort to understand their grievances.  A secession is certainly possible, but I do not think it at all likely, and I am sure we could easily prevent it with some goodwill if we think it worth while to do so.  Kardiner, whom I met recently in London, said they were very disappointed with the results of the Congress and spoke again of a secession.  One of the things which, in his opinion, would certainly bring it about would be the official acceptance of the new Ferenczi lay group in New York.^[2]  I assured him that we had had no official overture from this group, which he thought we had, and that Eitingon was in the highest degree unlikely to take any such decided step before the next Congress.  Incidentally, it is really untrue to say that I threatened the meeting with an American secession.  This can only emanate from a misunderstanding and distortion of a sentence of mine committed by Ferenczi, which I publicly rectified at once at the meeting.

The two means I proposed for diminishing the tension between the two continents were exactly as follows.  The first relates to the conditions for admittance of candidates to membership.  The view I expressed was that, though every effort should be made to secure identity of these conditions in different countries, where this proved to be temporarily impossible it would be wiser for the majority to grant the individual societies (as has always hitherto been the practice of the International) the right to make their own conditions according to their knowledge of the local laws and general social situation rather than to attempt to impose an artificial unanimity which would not exist in reality.  In this view I was not supported by the general feeling of the Congress, though no vote was taken on it.

The second means I wished to propose did not come to expression because Rado, by a rather scurvy trick which we much resented and against which Anna herself publicly protested, prevented the question from being raised.  I am in complete agreement with Eitingon's theory and practice that we should be stringent in the selection of candidates for training, of course equally so with the medical and lay.  I wished to suggest that some further steps be taken towards tightening up the conditions of training, largely because if this were done most of the dissatisfaction under which the Americans and, to a less extent, the English suffer would be removed.  I refer to the matter of what I called wilde Ausbildung [wild training], i.e. very unsuitable candidates being taken in an irresponsible manner for a short time by individual analysts.  I found that only Berlin and London have a rule in the Society which forbids training of candidates except under the complete auspices of the Unterrichtsausschuss [training committee], and even Berlin does not apply this law to foreign candidates.  I am convinced that much more discrimination needs to be made in this matter, preferably by a responsible body.  Here also I know that, as you told me recently, I am not in accord with you, but I can only ascribe this to your not coming into direct contact with the practical consequences of the opposite policy.  I am fully convinced that if more goodwill and responsibility were shown in this matter on the Continent the tension with the Anglo‑Saxon countries would rapidly diminish and I should be entirely hopeful about the future.  You may not agree with the means I propose, but you cannot mistake my aim.

A third means I have in mind seems too chimerical in the present state of feeling.  It is that better relations and contact be established among the Training Committees (or their secretaries) in the different countries over this question of foreighn [sic] candidates.  I do not see, for instance, why the names of the candidates coming from one country should be withheld from the training committee of that country as Eitingon did recently when the New York group approached him on these lines.  This, however, is a matter which I do not think was raised at the Congress, except perhaps in private talk.

All this naturally does not mean that I am blind to the faults of the Americans and I have made myself pretty unpopular with them by telling them what I think of their attitude.  The rigid resolutions passed by the New York group, for example, last May,^[3] before even there was an opportunity of proper discussion of the questions at issue, was most tactless and unwise, indeed even discourteous.  Their blind obstinacy is also shown by their not attending the Congress in larger numbers or in preparing any reasoned statement of their case, which it would be easy to do.  Even after they passed their resolutions I sent a strong eleventh‑hour appeal to Brill and Oberndorf begging that they give way at least on the principle of lay analysts, even if they restricted their numbers in practice.  Brill's answer I showed you at the Semmering.

It is plain that if I consulted for a moment my personal interests I should have refrained from lifting a finger in the matter.  But I had no hesitation in risking this when I felt that two sets of people were drifting apart in mutual misunderstanding and that I was in a peculiar position of being able to appreciate the points of view of both.

Turning now to the second and much more painful matter, I hope to be able to show you that your complaint about my arranging a definite campaign against Anna and publishing an illegitimate criticism of her does not tally with the actual facts, and I will also give, as you request, a full account of the situation in London.  It is best to begin at the beginning.  For many years there has been a rather special interest taken in the problems of childhood in London, perhaps more than elsewhere.  I suppose the reason is that we have a number of women analysts, Miss Low, Miss Searl, Miss Chadwick, Miss Sharpe, Mrs. Isaacs, Miss Lewis, Miss Terry,^[4] etc., who have done a good deal of child‑study and child analysis.  I have taken a benevolent interest in the matter, for the reasons I set forth in my recent contribution to the discussion,^[5] dating probably from two very successful results I had myself with analyses in the latency period.  About three years ago we had a thorough discussion of the question of how far analytic methods can be pushed in childhood, particularly to what extent and to how early an age.^[6]  Various doubts and hesitations were voiced on much the same lines as those recently expressed by Anna, and the fact is worth mentioning because it shows you how familiar they were to us long before this recent occasion.  The outcome of our discussion was a progressive one.  We decided that only experience could prove whether the young child's ego was capable of enduring repressed material in the same way that we know an adult's ego can by the help of analysis, and that this should be more important than any theoretical reason to the contrary.  Some time after this Mrs. Klein came to London, first to lecture and then to work.  There is general confidence in her method and results, which several of us have been able to test at the closest quarters, and she makes the general impression of a sane, well‑balanced, and thoroughly analysed person.  We were somewhat astonished to learn with what little sympathy her work has been regarded on the Continent, but decided to give her work a fair hearing and form our own judgement about it.  This has been so favourable that we have come to regard her extension of psycho‑analysis into this new field as not only a valuable addition to our powers, but as opening up the most promising avenue to direct investigation of the earliest and deepest problems.  Holding such an attitude, we could, as you will well understand, only regard any attempt made to close this avenue as unfortunate.

Such is the pre‑history of the situation, which proves demonstratively that our general attitude about deep child analysis was formed without the slightest personal reference to either yourself or to Anna.  Anna's unexpected attack on her could therefore only evoke a reaction of regret here.  Mrs. Klein's new method, which seems so valuable to us, was repudiated as untrustworthy, early analysis, i.e. below the latency period, was condemned, and an extremely conservative attitude was recommended throughout.  A book issued by the Verlag and bearing the name it does could not fail to carry exceptional weight,^[7] in spite of the fact, which I well recognise, of Anna's personal independence from yourself; and that it has this weight is shown by the extent to which Mrs. Klein's work is thought on the Continent to have been discredited by it.  My own reaction, which I did not hesitate to communicate to you at once, was simply one of regret that Anna had been so hasty as to publish her first lectures in such an uncompromising form and on such a slender basis of experience.  I felt she might regret it later and that taking so decided a step would make it harder to adopt later on a more advanced position.

When Anna read her paper at Berlin Mrs. Klein, who was still at that time a member of the Berlin group, sent a written contribution to the discussion, but this was suppressed.^[8]  Rado had previously barred the "Zeitschrift" to her, and so she came to me to ask what opportunity there was for her to defend herself against this attack on her life's work.  I wrote to Rado asking if Anna's book could be simultaneously reviewed, as has been done before, by two people from different points of view, and his reply indicated that only a favourable review of it could be published.^[9]  There remained only the Journal.  I should, of course, publish the "Zeitschrift" review in translation in the "Journal",^[10] but I promised Mrs. Klein that our pages would also be open to any contribution of hers defining the points at issue between her and Anna and generally clearing up the situation.  You may well imagine that it never once occurred to me that Anna would claim immunity from criticism of her writings, still less that you would expect any such immunity for her.  Extremely important scientific issues were at stake and an open discussion on all sides seemed the obvious course.  I certainly could not sympathise with the possibility of one side of the case being artificially blocked, especially when it was the one that seemed to me to be the more progressive and promising of the two.

So the matter stood when in the natural course of things a review of Anna's book was read before the Society by my Miss Low.  It was an excellent and comprehensive review ‑‑ almost a translation.  The discussion that followed had to be continued to the next meeting, but was not in any way organised or influenced.  I did not myself parteke [partake] in the discussion on either evening (my own contribution was written afterwards as a sort of summing up) and I exchanged very few words with anyone on the subject.  It was certainly noteworthy that people so dissimilar and independent of one another as Edward Glover and Mrs. Klein, Mrs. Riviere and Miss Searl, should agree in deprecating the check that Anna's attitude was felt to impose on the development of early analysis.«FN1.××The contributors to the discussions of 4 and 18 May 1927, which were published as the "Symposium on Child Analysis," «MDUL»Journal«MDNM», 8(1927):339‑391, were Melanie Klein, Joan Riviere, M. N. Searl, Ella F. Sharpe, Edward Glover, and Ernest Jones.  Barbara Low's review did not appear.»  Though Anna's book was the topical occasion of focussing the subject once more in our attention, the whole range of child analysis and cognate problems were widely discussed, and so many definite points of view and considerations were adduced from diverse angles that we thought it worth while to publish the discussion as a whole, in the same way that has several times been done previously by other societies.«FN1.××"«MDUL»Vienna«MDNM»" is written in the margin.»  It was thought that definite contributions had been made to the problems of child analysis which it was worth while to print.  Everyone was invited to partake in this discussion and of course there were no special invitations or selections.  That they agree in certain respects is a fact, but not, as you suggest, an arranged fact.  What you refer to as the haste in publishing it (three months after the discussion) was simply due to our having very little other material at the time for the number of the "«MDUL»Journal«MDNM»" that was then needed, whereas to hold it over would bring us into the flood of the Congress contributions.

Owing to the rush of the holidays Mrs. Riviere and I divided the work of correcting the material, she attending to Mrs. Klein's contribution which she had translated, and I to all the rest.  If there is any illegitimate criticism of Anna in Mrs. Klein's paper I am of course technically responsible, though it happens that I did not read it until after your letter came this week.  It seems to me that any question of possible misunderstanding would best be left by us to the two people most directly concerned.  Anna must know that any reply or contribution from her would be received with welcome by the "«MDUL»Journal«MDNM»" and esteemed as an honour.  I was not myself aware of any «MDUL»illegitimate«MDNM» criticism in what Mrs. Klein said at the meeting nor do I observe that any have been inserted into the written account.  In saying this I naturally cannot make myself responsible for or defend everything she writes ‑‑ it is her own affair and all I have as Editor to see to is that the tone and content of such a contribution is within the usual bounds of scientific controversy.  In this case I trusted Mrs. Klein and Mrs. Riviere and I do not see any reason for thinking that they abused my trust.  As regards the Oedipus complex, the point you mention, what Mrs. Klein criticises is Anna's hesitation to explore this unsparingly to its depths, especially in young children.  So far is the criticism from being based on a misreading of a single remark, that Anna gave a series of reasons defending this attitude, all of which are dealt with «MDUL»seriatim«MDNM» in the criticism.

This letter is already too long for me to discuss here Mrs. Riviere's views, expressed in her characteristically uncompromising and rather vehement fashion.  All that matters in the present connection is that, instead of their being due to her being '«MDUL»hingerissen«MDNM»' [swept away] by the recent incident, they long ante‑dated it and arose quite independently of child analysis at all.

As regards publication in German, naturally I think it reasonable that some of our contributions, and particularly Mrs. Klein's defence, should appear also in that language.  I told Rado about our discussion, as about everything else the "«MDUL»Journal«MDNM»" is doing, and he replied that the "«MDUL»Zeitschrift«MDNM»" had no space for papers on child analysis.  He offered, however, to publish a two‑page abstract of the discussion and made the suggestion that it be published in brochure form by the Verlag.  I reported to Eitingon my conversation with Rado, of which this was only a part, but have not spoken of it to anyone else, nor indeed, thought of since.

This history of a perfectly natural and spontaneous order of development will, I trust, convince you that the situation here is much more objective than you thought and did not arise from any personal feelings about either Anna or yourself.  The mood here is one of entire devotion to your personality and fidelity to the principles of psycho‑analysis.  I am glad to be able to affirm that I do not know of a single exception to the whole‑hearted truth of this statement.

Long as this letter is, I take the opportunity of adding what news there is since my return.  There has been a correspondence in the "«MDUL»Saturday Review«MDNM»" on your supposed melancholia (dictated by Viereck's interview) and I have just sent them a contradicting letter.«FN1.××George Sylvester Viereck's interview with Freud is contained in his «MDUL»Glimpses of the Great«MDNM» (London: Duckworth, 1930, pp. 28 ff.), see Jones (1957a, p. 126; 1957b, p. 133) and Strachey's note in «MDUL»S.E.«MDNM» 21:168.

»  Last Monday I attended for the first time the Committee of the British Medical Association on Psycho‑Analysis and received a not unfavourable impression.  In all probability the final report will contain nothing denunciatory, the only difficulty being to clear up the confusion with the so‑called allied analytic methods (Jung, etc.).  The few hints dropped on the subject of lay analysts gave me the hope that the Committee may prove amenable on that matter, so that there may be some chance of regularising their position.«FN1.××See British Medical Association (1929).

»

I enclose two cuttings in support of what I said about the religious situation in England.  The Bishop in question got his Fellowship of the Royal Society for mathematics.«FN1.××See note 2 to letter 513.»  The doctor, whose paper on "Psycho‑Analysis and Religion" was read before the British Association for the Advancement of Science last July, is personally unknown to me.«FN1.××W. R. D. Fairbairn, "Religion and Fantasy," is abstracted in «MDUL»British Association for the Advancement of Science: Report of the Ninety‑Fifth Meeting«MDNM» (31 August ‑ September 4, 1927, Leeds, p. 397).

»

I have just been through Strachey's translation of your «MDUL»Selbstdarstellung«MDNM», which is as usual excellent.

I cannot expect you to agree with many things I have had to say in this letter, but I trust nevertheless that it will afford you sufficient reassurance about our attitude.  Please convey my greetings to Anna and tell her that, in spite of our unfortunate scientific differences which I hope one day will be resolved, I entertain the highest respect for her and am looking forward with pleasure to co‑operating with her in the work that we have to do together.

Yours as always,  Ernest Jones

^[1]           Freud (1927a).

^[2]           One of the results of Ferenczi's trip to America (autumn 1926 ‑ spring 1927) was the formation of a group of lay analysts who sought official acceptance by the International Psychoanalytic Association.  But their efforts were unsuccessful and the group dissolved in early 1928.  See Jones (1957a, pp. 294, 297; 1957b, pp. 316, 319).

^[3]           The report of the New York Society's Committee on Policy regarding their opposition to Lay‑Analysis was approved on 24 May 1927, see Journal, 8(1927):453.  See also note 2 to letter 506.

^[4]           "All lay" is written in the margin.  Susan Isaacs, Barbara Low, and Ella Sharpe are listed as members of the British Psycho‑Analytical Society, and Mary Chadwick, M. G. Lewis, and N. Searl are listed as Associate Members in Journal, 8(1927):123‑124.  E. M. Terry's name, as an Associate Member, appears in Journal, 10(1929):556.

^[5]           Jones (1927d).

^[6]           See Journal, 6(1925):238‑239, 359‑360.

^[7]           A. Freud (1927a).

^[8]           As reported in Zeitschrift 13(1927):367, Anna Freud delivered a paper entitled "Zur Technik der Kinderanalyse," in March 1927 before the German Psychoanalytic Society, Berlin, of which Melanie Klein was still a member;  the latter's election to the British Psycho‑Analytical Society did not take place until 2 October 1927.

^[9]           Rado's review was the only one that appeared, see  Zeitschrift, 14(1928): 540‑546; and the "Symposium on Child Analysis" was reviewed, but not published in German, see Fenichel (1928).

^[10]         This did not appear in the Journal.