THE INTERNATIONAL PSYCHO‑ANALYTICAL PRESS

1O June 1922

Dear Professor:

Your letter cleared up a great part of the situation and I am determined to do my best with what difficulties may remain.  I can begin by assuring you that you misconstrued my opinion of your relations to Mrs. Riviere.  I know both Psycho‑Analysis and yourself well enough to have been fully prepared that you could not undertake her analysis except by seeing her problems through her eyes, and I have not been concerned at the risk of this vision being adverse to myself.  My only fear about you was lest you might involve us all in too many «MDUL»external«MDNM» and permanent arrangements without having more than a one‑sided knowledge of the actual situation in London (I do not speak for myself alone),  in other words that your intellectual judgement might be influenced by information from a biassed quarter.  And I am bound to say I do not think this fear was unjustified.

About the analysis itself I need say little.  The account you gave of her was very clear to me, and I was glad to have my conclusions confirmed.  It is, I am sure you will agree, also in the purely analytic aspects a remarkably interesting and complex case, and, like most character analyses, very difficult.

There is more to say about the current situation.  You strongly disapprove of my cutting down the function of "translating editor to the «MDUL»Journal«MDNM»" to that of "revising translator".  Well, I have puzzled my head about this, and have looked through all the correspondence of the past two months, and I am sorry to say that I have failed to discover what this can refer to.  In the copies of my letters to Mrs. Riviere, after my immediate grateful acceptance of her offer, all I can find is the exact opposite, namely, an invitation to her to «MDUL»extend«MDNM» her offer to supervise the translations, so that it might also include the arranging with translators (allocation, etc.).  I am glad to leave in her hands everything on earth to do with the translations except perhaps the decision of which articles should appear at all, and even here I should welcome her advice.  I can only conclude, therefore, that she is under some serious misapprehension here, which I should be glad to clear up.

On the basis of this you conclude that either I must be jealous of her, which, as you rightly say, would be absurd; or else that I cannot delegate work to others, and so am utterly incapable of organization‑work and do not show proper personal regard to my underlings.  I should be very sorry indeed to think this could be your opinion; I feel pretty sure it is not the opinion of anyone acquainted with my way of working, least of all of anyone who has been in a subordinate position to me.

About the «MDUL»Sammlungen«MDNM» you have cleared up my essential point, that someone should have definite charge of the publishing, so that it should not be held up by continual uncertainty.  I have not yet received Mrs. Riviere's suggestions you speak of, but you may be sure I will give them every consideration.  Nor have I yet had an answer to my invitation that she revise the translations before I do, which would save very much time.  The only remaining question is whether I should read through these revised translations myself (to read them through in typescript or in proofs takes the same time, but corrections in the latter case would cost much more).  The books would of course appear sooner if I never saw them before publication, but I am immodest enough to think that they would not be so good.  Even with a first‑class translator like Mrs. Riviere I find many mistakes, made through her not knowing scientific terms, through the influence of her complexes, etc.  The other plan would save me much work, but I should prefer to revise them nevertheless, for it is my ambition that your writings, especially when produced by the Press, should be as well done as is in our power.

Two other details.  I did not write to Mrs. Riviere that the Press will not pay its translators.  On the contrary, I agreed with her that this would be desirable, but pointed out that as our means were limited we should not refuse to accept work done for nothing (quoting herself and myself as examples).  My idea is simply that until the Press is better established we should accept work that the translator is willing to do for nothing, and in other cases pay for it (i.e. not to make a rule of insisting to pay in all cases, as the «MDUL»Zeitschrift«MDNM» does for its articles).

There is a further matter on which you criticise me for an opinion I do not hold; namely, that I should send to the printer a revision of Mrs. Riviere's text before she has seen it and consented to the correction.  I not only agree with her view, but it has always been my practice; though, incidentally, I doubt if she intends to make the same concession to the people whose translations she revises (at least she did not with the Lectures).  So far as I can remember the only manuscript she has sent me since she has been in Vienna has been two Technique «MDUL»«MDNM»articles,«FN1.××All of the articles in the section "Papers on Technique," in Freud, «MDUL»Collected Papers«MDNM», 2:285‑402, were translated by Joan Riviere with the exception of the one  done by James Strachey (pp. 334‑341).» and, though I have revised these, they are still here waiting to be typed.  When ready they will of course be submitted to her.  If my memory is at fault here I should be glad to know about it, so that I may apologize to her.

Finally, I do not think it would be fair to test my powers of dealing with co‑workers (or of binding them to me personally) by the exceptional case of Mrs. Riviere alone.  It is true that I shall make every endeavour to bring success to our relationship, but the result will certainly depend more on her than on myself.  I can say that I have never yet failed to get on with a co‑worker and have made many excellent friends in this way, but I have never yet had to deal with one whose tone was so full of rude and overbearing superciliousness.  One would think that ordinary civility was not an unreasonable demand to make from a colleague, but in this case I am making the experiment of dispensing with it; and this quite vitiates your comparison between her and Rickman or Strachey, who surely both have good manners.

About the Nietzsche article I fully appreciate what you say.  May I trouble you to send the article back, so that I may return it to him with a further letter.  Altogether I am afraid that the «MDUL»Journal«MDNM» affairs are occupying an excessive amount of your time, but that belongs to the burden of your position.  I am beginning too, in my small way, to feel that leadership has its heavy disadvantages.

Since writing last I hear that Lissa & Kann have received from de Groot 275 and 625 florins (May 8 and June &),«FN1.××Possibly June "7" as the "&" is above the "7" on an old typewriter.» from Bernays 2759 florins, and interest 131 florins: also a few sums paid out.  Do they notify you of these matters, or should I still do so?

Your very kind remarks about my family were keenly appreciated.  They flourish excellently, all of them.  The latest production of the little girl (aged 2O months) was to procure some coins, insert them between the thighs and then withdraw them with evident signs that she regarded them as bodily products.  As she cannot yet know the food‑value of money it shews how primordial this symbolism must be, though one must perhaps remember that she is the child of an analyst and an economist.

With kindest regards,  yours always loyally  Ernest Jones