INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHO‑ANALYSIS

                               26 January 1922  London W1

Dear Professor,

Another business letter!  Dr. William Brown, whom you may know as one of our unpleasant opponents, who likes to call himself a psycho‑analyst when there is no‑one present to contradict him, came to me yesterday.  I know him well as a scoundrel with a thoroughly bad character.  He will be in Vienna in April and asked me if he could see you as he wanted to discuss some moot theoretical points with you.  I told him I was doubtful as you were so busy.  I am sure that his sole motive is in order to be able to boast on his return to Oxford "The last time I discussed this question personally with Freud", "On one of my recent talks with Freud I pointed out to him his mistake in thinking" etc., etc.  It would be a pity to give him this pleasure, and in this way to enhance his prestige, and I daresay you will have the boldness to be impolite enough to refuse his request if you feel so inclined.

Kann tells me that his total now comes to 2737.

I had a long interview with Unwin yesterday to the following effect.  Both Moffatt Yard and he have acted honestly in regard to the Gradiva.  The only person to whom you could address any remonstrances is Stanley Hall.^[1]  The translation rights of the Gradiva would in any case have lapsed within a few months in all countries by the Berne Convention of ten years from the date of publication.^[2]  In America they had already lapsed, owing to the state of war, and Moffatt Yard first obtained the assurance from the Congress authorities to that effect.  Brill first raised objections, but then is said to have withdrawn them at the second interview he had with Stanley Hall, who then assured Moffatt Yard that all was in order.  No doubt Brill saw that nothing was to be done, and perhaps felt his own position insecure as a foreigner at that time.  Unwin has bought the American translation to sell in England.  He has neither moral nor legal obligations to us or Deuticke, but I have nevertheless extracted from him a written assurance that any future translation of the «MDUL»Gradiva«MDNM» we may choose to make will not be regarded as running counter to his copyright, provided it does not appear as a separate work, but in a volume containing other work of yours.

The other matter, that of the Dream Book, is not so satisfactory, and Unwin has asked me to request you to give your decision in the following crisis.«FN1.××See note 1 to letter 329, and note 7 to letter 332.»

As you know, in America all virtues are measured by dollars, and McKann's [McCann's] offer to pay royalties has changed the position over there.  The American agents of both the «MDUL»Traumdeutung«MDNM» and «MDUL»Über den Traum«MDNM» are said to have expressed their entire satisfaction, and Unwin, after consulting with other American publishers, is convinced that nothing we could do would harm McKann [McCann's] in the eyes of other publishers after his having made this financial offer.  The most he has ever secured from an American pirate is money, never a withdrawal of the piracy.  His chief concern is to injure McKann [McCann], and he thinks to extract money from him would be the only means of doing this.  He is therefore inclined to accept the offer, though this involves a note being printed on the title page that although the book was first inadvertently published without your consent, in the circumstances you now accord your consent to its continuation.

To this I opposed the following considerations.  Americans are to some extent sensitive of European opinion, as is shown by the new copyright act now before Congress.  We have no legal or other weapon against their piracy except the one moral one of expressing our vigorous disapproval of their methods, and publishing this disapproval broadcast, and I cannot believe that this would be without effect on McKann's [McCann's] colleagues and other people concerned.  It seems to me, therefore, wrong to throw away our only weapon, the moral one, and to acquiesce with their standards of piracy merely because it is a «MDUL»fait accompli«MDNM».  In the second place this particular case is more than one of piracy.  It affects your professional reputation by issuing in your name a book made up from cuttings of your writings by a stranger in a form that you would never select yourself, and it has been criticized in the press for this very fault of formlessness. Thirdly, your prestige is injured by having your work presented to the public through a long introduction written by a man, André Tridon, who has an unsavoury reputation, and is an unscrupulous and ignorant exploiter of psycho‑analysis, in short the very last man you would choose for such a purpose.

I agreed with Unwin to put the two views before you fairly, and ask for your decision.  There is a third alternative, namely, that Unwin and Heinemann should give their consent and accept the royalty without your doing so.  This seems to me a poor compromise, but I do not suppose you have any legal right to prevent Unwin from adopting it.  He says, however, that he would prefer to continue to work in harmony with us if possible.

I should be very grateful for any comments you would care to make on the enclosed Glossary.«FN1.××Jones (1924a).

»  By the way, I have not got a clear answer from Abraham about the difference between the meaning of position and Einstellung (attitude) (der Libido).«FN1.××In Jones (1924a, p. 7) the German word "Einstellung" is translated as "set, attitude (the former is the more technical term, the latter the more general term)."  In A. Strachey (1943, p. 18) it is rendered as "attitude" or "position."  Jones (p. 11) and Strachey (p. 51), however, also include the German word "Position" in their respective Glossaries and they both translate this as "position."»  Would it be correct to say that both terms describe the same thing from different points of view? ‑‑ the former from that of fixation and the latter from that of relationship to an object.

I enclose for your considertion an article by a certain Boven, recommended to me by de Saussure, which, in spite of its unnecessary length, I should be inclined to publish in the «MDUL»Journal«MDNM» and to recommend to Rank for «MDUL»Imago«MDNM».«FN1.××Boven (1922).»

No doubt you will communicate the substance of this letter to Rank, which will save me duplicating it to him.

With kindest regards,  Yours cordially,  Ernest Jones

[P.S.]  A Mr. Armstrong, a student at Oxford, has consulted me on account of his bad asthma.  Other treatments having failed.  I told him I was prepared to analyse him (he is otherwise neurotic), though I explained to him the experimental state of our knowledge on the subject.  He now suggests going to Vienna to get your expert opinion as to the advisability of analysis and I am giving him a letter of introduction to you.  If you think it a suitable case and have no vacancy yourself, I should be glad to take him and could do so in the middle of February.

^[1]           Freud (1907a) had appeared in English translation in 1917, with an introduction by G. Stanley Hall, and was published in America by Moffat, Yard.  A reprint was published in 1921 in England by Allen and Unwin.

^[2]           Jones must have in mind the 2nd ed. of Freud (1907a) which appeared in 1912.