18 January 1933  81 Harley Street  London W1

Dear Professor,

I thank you for your friendliness in asking my opinion about Feigenbaum's latest proposal, and could only wish that some of our other Continental colleagues had shown the same sense of loyalty.  You say you do not know what arrangement the QUARTERLY has come to with the JOURNAL.  I know no more than you, for I sent you a copy of my final letter to Feigenbaum which completely defined the situation; if it is not accessible I enclose another copy of it.

My standpoint seems to me perfectly clear and simple.  Feigenbaum admits that the QUARTERLY has no special function ‑‑ such as concentrating American contributions, etc. ‑‑ but that its aim is identical with that of the JOURNAL.  This can only mean that in his opinion the JOURNAL does not adequately fulfil its purpose and needs to be supplemented.  If I knew what the basis of this criticism is, I should be only too happy to co‑operate with anyone who wished to remove the supposed defects, or else to be replaced by someone who could better fulfil the task.  Instead of discussing this, however, Feigenbaum launched an enterprise which can only have one effect ‑‑ that of increasing whatever defects there are in the JOURNAL.  By his activity he restricts the number of contributions available to us, so that the level of what we publish must necessarily be lower than before, as there is not the same field from which to choose the best.  And since few of his subscribers will also subscribe to the JOURNAL we are deprived of a certain number; we are so dependent on American sales that if the QUARTERLY succeeds the JOURNAL may well have to cease publication.  In short, co‑operation is replaced by competition.

You are the Herausgeber of the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL and entrusted me as Editor with the task of supplying the English‑speaking people in all parts of the world (from Japan to California) with the best contributions made by authors in every country in the world and in every language.  That task seemed to me a quite definite one and I have done my best to carry it out.  If now you were to agree with Feigenbaum that I am not carrying it out and that you wish officially to support a rival whose activities tend to displace me, then I should have nothing left but to ask you to accept my resignation and to appoint someone with whom you would be more satisfied.  I hope I should not take this contingency too personally, though I should naturally ask for information about the alleged deficiencies.  More important to me would be the effect on the international movement, to which I have entirely devoted myself.

I hear that several colleagues have already regretted their impulsive response to Feigenbaum's methods, which I will not more nearly characterise.  From Brill I hear this week that the internal dissensions and jealousy in New York about the QUARTERLY

are so great and so distressing to him that he is seriously thinking of resigning his positions and retiring from the whole field.  In fact he says that the only thing deterring him from doing so is his consideration for you and for me.  It does not surprise me that an enterprise founded on ill‑will should have dissension as its result.

With my kindest regards,  Yours always,  Ernest Jones