Letters Klein

‘DEAR STOKES’: LETTERS FROM MELANIE KLEIN ABOUT

WRITING, PAINTING AND PSYCHOANALYSIS

Janet Sayers, Canterbury, Kent1

In 1929 Melanie Klein (1882–1960), then relatively newly arrived fromBerlin in London, began six years’ psychoanalytic treatment of the writerand painter, Adrian Stokes (1902–72). During and immediately followingthis treatment Stokes became critically acclaimed for his books applaudingRenaissance and modern art, including the avant-garde creations of theballets russes, for their form- rather than ideas-led inspiration and for theirintegration of parts as a whole in the mind of the observer. Through bringinghis close friends, Ben Nicholson and Barbara Hepworth, to live with himand his artist wife, Margaret Mellis, in Cornwall in 1939, Stokes became thecatalyst of the subsequent transformation of St Ives into an internationalcentre of modern art which he continued to promote after the war in booksand articles in which he developed the ideas of Freud and Klein in terms ofthe integrating effect of art on the ego through inviting oneness with itsseparate otherness. (For further details about the life and work of Klein andStokes, see Grosskurth, 1986; Sayers, 2000, 2011.)

Unfortunately Klein retained scarcely any letters, even from herimmediate family, and none from Stokes. He retained the following letters,the originals of which (as indicated in brackets after the title of each letter)

Psychoanalysis and History 14(1), 2012: 111–132

DOI: 10.3366/pah.2012.0101# Edinburgh University Press

www.eupjournals.com/pah

JANET SAYERS is Professor of Psychoanalytic Psychology at the University of Kent inCanterbury. Her books include Mothering Psychoanalysis (Penguin, 1992), Freudian

Tales (Vintage, 1997), and Freud’s Art (Routledge, 2007). She is currently completing a

biography of Adrian Stokes. Address for correspondence: Dept of Psychology,University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP. [[email protected]]

1. My thanks to the Melanie Klein Trust for permission to reproduce Klein’s letters to

Stokes, to Telfer Stokes and Ian Angus for permission to reproduce Stokes’s previouslyunpublished letter to William Coldstream, to the Stokes family and the Tate Gallery

Archive for access to letters included in this article, and to Paul Tucker for help withtranscribing some of these letters.

are now with Stokes’s son, Telfer, with the Tate Gallery in London or withStokes’s widow, Ann. They begin with Klein’s response to a letter fromStokes about Telfer’s birth on 3 October 1940, written when she was stayingwith the family of one of her patients in Pitlochry in Scotland.

Klein to Stokes, 21 November 1940 (Telfer)

AshbankPitlochry

Dear Stokes,I am delighted with the good news and send you both all my good wishes

for the happiness of your son & your own. I was going to write to-day tofind out how things were when your letter arrived.

I am so glad that the feeding goes well. I suggest not to let the baby cryout [‘too’ deleted] much:– compromises like picking up for a little whilewhen he is meant to go to sleep or rocking the pram etc. can be madewithout affecting [‘th’ deleted] routine (which to some extent is necessaryfor a baby.) Even occasionally feeding a bit earlier is preferable to lettingcry hard. – Training: I don’t think it can be harmful to hold him over thepot if no discipline is yet introduced. I should discourage any such attemptsyet. On the other hand this [‘early’ inserted] habit thus acquired breaksI think in most cases down later and then the training problems come upfully. Mild attempts to discipline can be started in the second year – theyare unavoidable [‘at’ inserted] at some time and so long as the mother doesnot get worried, when they don’t succeed for even a year or so, thenprobably no harm will be done by them. But about this we can discuss laterand I shall be pleased to tell you [‘or Margaret’ inserted] any details youwant to know or if Margaret wants to discuss them with me. – At present[‘th’ deleted] as I said I think holding over the pot without worrying orinfluencing him does not I think do damage and saves some trouble.

I am very well & have good news from my children [Melitta and Erich]and grandson (my son’s son [Michael] who is now 3 and a very sweet child).My son was called up and I went for a few days to London to see him off,but the call up was cancelled and he is still in his job.

I shall spend Christmas with them in the country.Again good wishes

Yours sincerelyMelanie Klein

London was an interesting experience. I understand much better howpeople manage it psychologically.

The publication of articles by Stokes in the International Journal ofPsycho-Analysis and in the journal, Polemic, seems to have prompted thefollowing letter from Klein while she was staying in Walberswick in Suffolk.

112 PSYCHOANALYSIS AND HISTORY (2012) 14(1)

Klein to Stokes, 11 June 1946 (Tate)

Walberswicknr. Southwold

Dear Stokes,I meant to write to you for some time. I was very pleased to read your

article in the Journal for Ps. An. [Stokes, 1945a]. I think it is very good andinteresting. Only recently did I come across your article [Stokes, 1946] inPolemic which interested me very much for a variety of reasons. I thinkyou tackled courageously and successfully the problem of presentingsomething very difficult to convey. I am looking forward to the book[Stokes, 1947] of which this essay seems to be the beginning. I also heardrecently that you have published a book [Stokes, 1945b] some time ago andam looking forward to reading it. I gather that all this implies that you arewell? Your son [Telfer] must be a schoolboy by now and I hope he is givingyou and your wife much pleasure.

I have come well through the war. My son [Erich] will be demobilized ina fortnight. His two children [Michael and Diana] are developing well andare giving me much pleasure – I am now preparing my Collected Papers[Klein, 1948a] for publication and also finishing a few chapters which I amcontributing to a volume to be published soon. It is edited by Joan Riviereand the contributors are Susan Isaacs, Paula Heimann and myself [Kleinet al., 1952].

How are your parents? With my best wishesYours sincerely

Melanie Klein

By June 1946 Stokes had fallen in love with Margaret’s younger sister,Ann. He left Margaret and Telfer at the end of August and briefly resumedhis psychoanalytic treatment with Klein that autumn. Following thefinalization of his divorce from Margaret he moved with Ann to Asconain Switzerland where they married on 22 May 1947, and where he receivedthe following letters from Klein.

Klein to Stokes, 19 August 1947 (Tate)

Regina HotelMurren

Dear Stokes,As you see, I am now in Switzerland. I am having what after all these

years of restriction appears to be a perfect holiday. I stayed a fortnight atEngelberg and am going to stay a fortnight in Murren [sic] and it is difficultfor me to decide which place I like best.

I was very glad to hear from you. I had hoped that things would turn outsatisfactorily but it was very good news to hear from you that you are happy.

JANET SAYERS 113

I wonder what the effect on your painting is of not having for such a longtime done any.

Send me a word from time to time if you feel like it.With my very best wishes


P.S. – My paper [Klein, 1946] has just come out in the Journal. If you stillwish to have the proofs I can send them to you after my return to London(4th Sept.)

My collected papers [Klein, 1948a] are at the printers but I don’t knowyet when they will be out.

Klein to Stokes, 29 November 1948 (Tate)

42 Clifton Hill,St. John’s Wood,

N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

Thank you very much for your gift and for remembering me. I have beenmeaning for some time to write to you, but thought that sooner or later youwill let me know how you are.

I am keeping well and am still very busy. – We have a new baby, a granddaughter [Hazel] now 19 months old, another source of great pleasure.Another baby – and this my own – is coming out; my Contributions toPsycho-Analysis 1921–1945 [Klein, 1948a]. It has indeed taken a long time,but at last it is out.

I should be glad to hear something about you.With kind regards


Klein to Stokes, 15 February 1949 (Tate)

42 Clifton Hill,St. John’s Wood,

N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I have to thank you for three letters and I am sorry that I did not writeearlier. I know that you understand that this is only due to pressure ofwork. Even to-day I shall only reply to your last letter and leave it for someother time to write a more personal one.

Thank you very much indeed for the trouble you took over the review[of Klein’s Contributions to Psycho-Analysis] for ‘Horizon’. It will interest


you to hear that Connolly may have a very special reason for not wishingto publish the review however good it may be. He is on very good terms withGlover and has published at least on one occasion rather unpleasant remarksby Glover [1945] about me. Glover [1948, 1949] has recently published twoarticles on Jung with a third to come. Some of my friends are convinced thatthe third article will contain a not too friendly reference to me.

As regards your query about scientific journals to which you could sendyour review. I wonder whether ‘Nature’ would accept it. They have beensent a review copy. John Lehmann is not with the Hogarth Press any moreand I think that Leonard Wolf [sic] is doing very little there but if you writeto the Hogarth Press, particularly to Miss Birch with whom I have beenmuch in contact over my book, they will certainly give you any informationthey can.

I don’t know whether you saw the review in the ‘New Statesman’ of5th February [Gorer, 1949]? Although some people think that it was not toobad and others even think it was very good, I have expressed mydisagreement in a letter to the Statesman which I hope will be published.Gorer [1948] has recently written a good book, ‘The Americans’ andtherefore is quite a well-known man. I was particularly annoyed with therather arrogant tone of the review – as if he knew all about it.

I am afraid that I do not know anyone in America who could dosomething about reviews. It seems that I am not good at advertising myselfbut in spite of this, between 1,400 and 1,500 copies of the book havealready been sold which seems a great success. So far, apart fromthe Statesman, only the 19th Century have reviewed the book and althoughthis was a very short review [M.G., 1948], it was very respectful andappreciative.

I am keeping well and busy. I intend to spend my summer holidays inSwitzerland, from August 14th–19th in Zurich at a Psycho-AnalyticalCongress and then from 19th August to 16th September at Casa SanGiorgio, Brissago which I think is not very far from where you live. Shouldyou be at home at this time, we might perhaps meet which I should enjoy.

With kind regardsYours sincerely

Melanie Klein

P.S. The address of ‘Nature’ is(Macmillans,)St. Martins Street,London, W.C.2.

Klein duly visited Stokes, Ann, and their son, Philip (born on 18 February1948), in Ascona from where Stokes briefly visited Italy while also working onhis next book, Smooth and Rough, to which Klein refers in the next letters.

JANET SAYERS 115

Klein to Stokes, 20 October 1949 (Tate)

42 Clifton HillSt John’s Wood

N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

Thank you for your letter. I was glad to hear about the fruitful time youhad in Italy and very interested in your plans for the book. The idea ofinserting the chapter on architecture as you conceive of it, to precede theone on the Machine Age, seems to me promising.

I have fully recovered from the trouble I had in Brissago – so there isno more need for the Zwieback and olive oil [for a stomach upset]. I havefound out in the meantime that these articles can also be bought inLondon. Thank you very much all the same for so kindly sending the tin ofolive oil. At present I also get enough butter. You may be sure that if Ineed anything I will not hesitate to write and ask you.

I find myself as busy as ever and therefore am not getting on as quicklyas I would wish with the last chapter [for Klein et al., 1952].

I mentioned to Mrs Riviere your query about Susan Isaacs’s [1948] paperand she made a note of it.

I was very glad to get to know your wife [Ann] and little boy [Philip], andenjoyed the time we spent together.

YoursMelanie Klein

P.S. Would you kindly let me know again the address etc. of your bank. Itwas written on a hotel bill and dis-carded. –

Of course things have considerably changed since we went. Canyou let me know what the present position is there? [This might referto the aftermath of the 30% devaluation of the pound on 19 September1949.]

The parcel with butter has just arrived. Thank you very much.



N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I have received both your letters and am very glad to hear thatyou found my suggestions of some use, and that you had in factalready been revising your chapters in that direction even before youhad my letter.


The essential meaning of my criticism, as you put it so clearly, was tosoften the transition and to increase the flow; I would say, to let themeaning grow out of what you are saying and not to put it in artificiallyby means of psycho-analytic terms. This is what I had essentially in mindand not, as you seem to have partly understood it, to guard psycho-analysisagainst misrepresentation. If there were any misrepresentation it wouldcome from not being able sufficiently to enlarge on it, but that in any casewas not your objective. In short, this side should not bother you [‘so much’deleted] as it seems to have done.

As regards the passages you want to insert:-The footnote touching on object relations seems to me quite all right.I also think that the two footnotes quoting from the Anxiety and guilt

paper [Klein, 1948b] are quite satisfactory.About the sentence you inserted in the foreword:- I could follow it

easily up to the second half, [‘namely’ deleted and replaced with ‘but from’]“there may also be in my argument”, [‘which’ deleted] I find unclear.However, I have no objection on any ground except that I think it is notclear.

I have in fact made a beginning with my book on technique, but I amsure it is going to be a very difficult and lengthy job. [Klein might bereferring here to work on her book, published in 1961, in which sherecounted her technique in terms of her war-time treatment in Pitlochry of a10 year-old boy, ‘Richard’.]

With kind regards,Yours sincerely

Melanie Klein

In June 1950 Stokes returned with Ann and their son, Philip, from Asconato England. Klein’s next letter was evidently prompted by his sending her acopy of his newly published book, Smooth and Rough, together with newsof the opening of an exhibition of his paintings at the Leger Galleries in OldBond Street.

Klein to Stokes, 5 March 1951 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I was very pleased to receive your book [Stokes, 1951a] – many thanks!So far I have only looked at the second part and like it very much.

Congratulations!I shall go and look at your paintings on Saturday (10th) sometime

between 12 and 12.15.

JANET SAYERS 117

If by any chance you happen to be in London on that morning I shall bevery pleased to meet you there.

I meant [inserted ‘many times’] to ask you and your wife to come and seeme – but it never seemed to come off. We must arrange a date soon.

YoursMelanie Klein

Since Stokes was away in Canterbury, visiting his son at boarding schoolin nearby Bettshanger, when Klein saw his paintings at the Leger Galleriesshe wrote about them in her next letter.

Klein to Stokes, 25 March 1951 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

It gave me much pleasure to see your paintings. I particularly likedNightfall: Berkshire, Ascona from Lake Maggiore – Via del Castelrotto,Locarno – San Materno and Main Street – Ascona, but there were otherstoo which impressed me as very good indeed. I hope that the exhibitionwas successful – was it to your satisfaction?

I also read your book [Stokes, 1951a] and find it very interesting. Did itget good reviews?

I spoke to my colleague Mrs [‘Marion’ inserted] Milner about it. She hasread some of your earlier books, which she found very interesting, and sheis going to review this one for the Int. P.A. Journal. She has also seen yourexhibition and thinks very highly of your painting. She has recentlypublished a book under the title [opening inverted commas missing] On notbeing able to paint” which might interest you. Her pen name is JoannaField. I would like you to meet her and am planning to arrange this on aSaturday afternoon.

Would Saturday 14th or 21st April suit you? If so could you provisionallykeep both?

With best wishes to your wife and yourselfYours sincerely

Melanie Klein

In the event Stokes’s book, Smooth and Rough, was reviewed inthe International Journal of Psycho-Analysis not by Marion Milner butby a fellow-member of the Imago Group of artists, philosophers, andpsychoanalysts, Anton Ehrenzweig (1952). Milner applauded Stokes’swritings in the 1957 edition of her book, On Not Being Able to Paint.


But she criticized his rejection of Abstract Expressionism in her 1969 book,The Hands of the Living God. Meanwhile, after the birth of Stokes’sand Ann’s daughter, Ariadne, on 10 April 1951, the Stokes family movedthat September to Hurtwood House near Guildford in Surrey. Fromthere Stokes sent Klein a copy of a paper he had written about artand psychoanalysis about which Klein comments in the following lettersin which she also responds to his offer to commission a portrait ofher by William Coldstream in honour of her 70th birthday on 31 March1952.

Klein to Stokes, 19 January 1952 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

Thank you very much for your [portrait] offer, – I very much appreciateit. I have given some thought to it and also discussed it with a few friendswho agree with your arguments in favour of this suggestion. AlthoughI am reluctant to accept the financial demand it imposes on you andmy other friends I am inclined to accept because I hope that the moneymight be collected from subscriptions. My friend Mrs. Riviere is veryinterested in this plan and would like to discuss it with you. She is going toget in touch with you directly – probably in a week or two. In themeantime again many thanks for your offer and the very kind thoughtswhich it implies.

I have read your paper [Stokes, 1951b] and think that it contains someinteresting and fruitful ideas – the link between form in art and in thedream-screen, between achieving of beauty and the movement withoutanxiety; the link between form, wholeness and depressive position a. s. o.[and so on] – But I find it very difficult to follow because it is not enoughclearly expressed. Before we could judge where it could be published itwould need, I think a good deal of rewriting.

I shall return it to you in a day or two.Again thanks


P.S. The connection between depressive position and art is dealt [‘with’inserted] extensively in a paper by Dr Segal [1952] which will be publishedin the next number of the Journal (which is to come out end of March). Ifyou are interested to see it she might be able to [‘lend’ deleted] let yousee. – But seem to remember that you have already [‘habe’ deleted] readthis.

JANET SAYERS 119



N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I have recently been – and still am – pressed very hard for time and thisis the reason why I have delayed answering your letter. (Dr Garma and hiswife, leading analysts in Buenos Ayres are for a few weeks in London andsince they came here mainly to have discussions with me I am giving themas much time as I can – even a little more. Also my [‘yearly’ inserted]lectures on Child Analysis – once a week – and other additional claims onmy time seem to have recently accumulated).

Your second letter expresses what I meant to say about your paper[Stokes, 1951b]. I cannot mark special passages as obscure I spoke of mygeneral impression. I think that in working through your M.S. you will seefor yourself where improvement is possible – in fact I gather from yourrecent letter that you are already doing so [Stokes, 1952]. – May I add – andplease don’t take this criticism too much to heart; for it is not meant likethat, – that while in your writings some parts are of great beauty othersare not clearly enough expressed. I have heard this criticism expressed bypeople who much appreciated your books and seemed to me to belong tothe class of “good” readers.

I am not yet sure what Mrs. Riviere’s views about Coldstream’s paintingsare. I think she appreciates his qualities as an artist but is uncertain asregards his attitude towards “likeness”. I myself think that both areessential – as you also pointed out – for a portrait of this kind. HoweverI know she will discuss her views with you directly. In the meantime let methank you again for your interest in this matter. I know you have it at heartand I much appreciate this and I hope something will come of it.

How is the family? With kind regards to you & your wife.Yours sincerely

Melanie Klein

Klein’s sittings for the portrait went ahead. On 8 August 1952, however,Joan Riviere wrote to Stokes with reservations about the portrait aboutwhich he soon after wrote to Coldstream in the following letter, transcribedby Ian Angus and indicating with ellipses words lost due to a corner of theletter having been torn off.

Stokes to Coldstream, c. August 1952 (Ann)

Dear BillI write to you in considerable haste as I must catch the post so that you

get this before you see Mrs Klein on Tuesday, to acquaint you, as she wants


me to do, with her general attitude about the portrait. I fear both she & themajority of her friends are considerably exercised. At her request I havebeen up to see her about it. She admits that she now puts far more store onthe existence of a portrait of her than she did originally. Everyone sees inthe portrait a strong & formidable work of art in the making. It is thisdefiniteness which causes them to be all the more concerned, I feel. I don’tbelieve there would be much difficulty in getting Mrs Klein to sitconsiderably longer did she feel any assurance that what she & her friendsfind to be utterly out of character, would lessen. She is far from feeling thisassurance & thinks, now the plan is set, that it would intensify. I cannotattempt to reassure her on this point because, for all I know, she may beright.

The burden of the complaint is as follows (1) The portrait makes herlook 20 years too old and the repose is the lethargy of extreme old age.This in itself (which in age I must admit I find undeniable) does not matterso much, it is thought, as (2) she looks hard & unfeminine, not to say,masculine. There is considerable resentment, so to speak, about thisbecause the essence of Mrs Klein, as her friends see her, is her quicksympathy, warm-bloodedness & warm heart & a certain gaiety. I think youfeel this too but I know that it does not necessarily follow that this aspectcan appear in the painting. One complication here is that she is accused, Ibelieve, by her enemies, quite unjustly, of being melancholic. The portraitit is . . . fair record of her essential personality. The mouth & upper lip arevery hard. The . . . hardly painted but will if, when finished, express a verydifferent aspect of her person . . . And if not, though an admirable work ofart, from the Kleinian point of view it is . . . fair exhibit to hand toposterity. That is the burden of what is said & felt, with two dissentientswho think some softness & vivacity will evolve. You will realize howextremely disagreeable it is for me to write to you about these extraneousmatters in connection with a work in progress which I so greatly admire:but not only do I have to do it but I have to admit their validity, from thepoint of view from which they are uttered. If you feel able to givereassurance to Mrs Klein on these matters I vehemently ask you to do so. Ifyou don’t feel able, I think it would be better, sad as it is, for all concernedthat the work be abandoned now.

As you know, I think the portrait a very fine & powerful piece of work,& you must not hold this letter against me. It is hell to have to write it.What you are up against is not just feminine vanity. I think, in thecircumstances, there is more to it than that. On the subject of the pose &the clothes – as I told Mrs Klein (there was no question at all of the posechanging (!) – I did not lend a willing ear at all. She of course knows thattoo: moreover these last objections, by themselves, are not deep-rooted.

With profound apologies for this wretched letterYrs Adrian

JANET SAYERS 121

I would stress again that the power of the work seems to be widely felt. MrsKlein herself knows that the portrait she has, is absolutely nothing besideyours. It makes no statement, therefore, of any kind.

Klein in turn wrote more about the portrait in the following letters.

Klein to Stokes, 4 September 1952 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I have returned after a very good holiday and feel much better for it.I am now at work on my contribution to the book [Klein et al., 1955]and enjoy writing it.

I assume that you know what happened about the portrait before I left. Idecided that in any case I could not go on with so many sittings, all themore as I felt that even 20 additional sittings might not be sufficient. Thedecisive word, however, came from my doctor who very strongly objectedto my rest over 20 weekends being disturbed by the sitting [‘s’ added]. I stillthink I might have gone on had I really had the conviction that the portraitwould turn out what one would hope for. I rang Professor Coldstream thatTuesday morning. He had received your letter and was quite prepared formy cancelling the sitting. He was extremely nice over the phone and saidhe would fetch the portrait. He has not yet done so, however, and I wonderwhether this is only because he has been away, or whether he finds it toodifficult to come to my house. I am sorry to bother you about this but I feelthat it is only you who can discuss with him what is to happen to theportrait.

I feel very sorry about this, for your sake, Coldstream’s and my own.It was a lovely idea – for which I am most grateful to you – to havemy portrait done and I have no doubt that you chose a good man to doit. It is just unlucky that it did not turn out as one had hoped. I havealready told you that I believe there may be great value in theportrait, although my friends do not feel that they want me to beperpetuated in that way. Over the phone Coldstream told me what onewould expect an artist to say – that he could not guarantee the outcome.Believe me, I am very grateful to you for the whole plan and the thoughtsbehind it, and I am so very sorry that it has become a disappointmentfor you.


Melanie Klein


Klein to Stokes, 7 October 1952 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I should be very pleased if you and Ann could come and have teawith me on Saturday, 18th October, at 4.15. You will also meetColdstream.


Klein to Stokes, 11 December 1952 (Tate)


N.W.8.Dear Stokes,

I was pleased to hear that you were well impressed by Developments inPsycho-Analysis [Klein et al., 1952]. I hope that there will be a few morereaders who will think like you. I have not yet finished my contribution forthe book [Klein et al., 1955] but hope to do so by the New Year. In any casea few other people have still to finish their papers. I am very much lookingforward to this book which I think should be very good and interesting.

I must now raise a rather difficult matter. You will remember that whenwe spoke about the unfinished portrait you suggested that if I wished it tobe destroyed you would consent to this being done. I feel badly about[‘it’ inserted, ‘this’ deleted] because I know it is a work of art and I hate thethought of having it destroyed. But I feel very strongly that I do not wish itto be kept as a record of me and, as we both know, [‘and’ deleted] that iswhat it in the end might turn out to be.

My family and friends do not wish me to be perpetuated by this portrait.Moreover I am aware that people who have never seen me have a veryphantastic conception of me as a person in connection with my work, and Icertainly would not wish to add to this by leaving behind a painting whichconfirms it.

I hope you and your family are well. I am now looking forward to myChristmas holidays and a good rest.

[‘Yours’ deleted and replaced as follows]With all good wishes for Christmas and New Year to you and Ann

YoursMelanie Klein

Despite Klein’s request for the destruction of her portrait by Cold-stream it remained intact at the Stokes family home, Hurtwood House,

JANET SAYERS 123

where she evidently saw it on a family visit prior to writing thefollowing letter in which she began with thanks to Stokes for a paintingseemingly by him and now in the possession of Klein’s grand-daughter,Hazel Bentall.

Klein to Stokes, 19 July 1954 (Ann)

20 Bracknell GardensHampstead

N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

I wish to tell you how much I value your gift. It hangs opposite myanalytic chair and I very much enjoy looking at it. It is an excellent paintingand particularly appeals to me. I am sure I shall get increasingly fond of it.Thank you again for giving it to me.

I also want to thank Anne [sic] and you for your kind hospitality. We allenjoyed the day very much and the drive back, when the sun came out, wasvery pleasant. I did not feel tired afterwards.

You told me when showing me the portrait that you have notany more the strong feeling about doing away with it which you hadformerly. If this is so I shall reply to your question whether I still want it tobe destroyed with “yes”. I still feel about it as I did when I saw it first,that whatever its artistic value – it is a bad record of me and that Iwould not wish to be perpetuated like that. I hope that you actuallywill not regret to do away with it – I would not wish to hurt yourfeelings. I am still sorry that your generous offer did not come off asit deserved. But I remain grateful for the thought which prompted thisoffer.

I was glad to see you live contentedly with your charming wife in yourbeautiful house and also to get to know your children.

I hope to see you after my return. In the meantime best wishes to Anne[sic] and you

Yours Melanie Klein

Loath to destroy the portrait himself, Stokes ordered Ann to set light to itwhich she did. For some months they had been worried about their infantdaughter, Ariadne, whom Klein later diagnosed as schizophrenic. SeeingAriadne on one of her visits to the Stokes family at Hurtwood House, Kleininsisted that Ariadne must be psychoanalysed as soon as she could talk, andin the summer of 1954 Klein arranged for the then 3 year-old Ariadne tobegin treatment in London that September with the psychoanalyst, EstherBick. Ariadne had therefore been in treatment for 10 months prior to Klein’snext letter to Stokes.


Klein to Stokes, 7 July 1955 (Tate)


N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

Thank you for your letter.We all, including the children, enjoyed ourselves very much [at

Hurtwood] and I was particularly pleased to find little Ariadne so muchimproved.

I was also very interested in our talk, and altogether it was a day verypleasantly spent.

Yours sincerely,With kind regards

Melanie Klein

As well as taking Ariadne for four-times-a-week psychoanalytic treatmentwith Esther Bick, Ariadne’s 7 year-old brother, Philip, began once-weeklypsychoanalytic psychotherapy with Dina Rosenbluth in Hampstead. ButStokes was dissatisfied with this treatment as can be seen from the followingletters which however begin with Klein’s response to Stokes’s then recentlypublished book, Michelangelo.

Klein to Stokes, 12 November 1955 (Ann)


Dear Stokes,I meant to write to you as soon as I received your book [Stokes, 1955a]

and to thank you for the gift of it. But then I decided to wait until I shallhave read it. [‘But’ deleted] For a number of reasons I was prevented fromreading it, – the same applies to Jones 2nd [1955] volume of the [Freud]biography – and this explains the long delay in writing and thanking you.Now I have read it and enjoyed it very much indeed. It is a wonderfulsubject and you have made the best of it. It is also beautifully turnedout and I hope it will have as great a success as can be expected from thiskind of book which always only finds a restricted public – like thepsychoanalytic book [Stokes, 1951a]. – I myself plan again a book – only asmall one. My Congress paper [Klein, 1955] greatly enlarged and my last2 Congress papers should make a small volume. But I prefer to have thislast Congress paper, which I believe to be clinically important not to bepublished in the Journal but in a book. This was and still is one of thethings in which since my return from Switzerland I was so deeply engrossedin that every thing else suffered. I hope to have it ready in 2–3 months

JANET SAYERS 125

together with a preface which should link my previous Congress paper“The Origin of Transference” [Klein, 1952] with the present one.Unfortunately my strength is not quite equal to my thoughts – if I haveworked hard in day time I am usually too tired in the evening to doanything except listening to music. – I heard that you are interested infinding an analyst for Philip. I can highly recommend Dr Holmes [?] whoalthough I have only been supervising his child case for some weeks showsgreat gifts as a child-analyst – he is an experienced Adult analyst – andwith some more experience with this child should do very well withanother.

The Congress [in Geneva], as you probably heard was very successful asfar as my work is concerned and I also much enjoyed the holiday in Teritel-Montreuse afterwards.

With my best wishes to Ann and youYours sincerely

Melanie Klein



N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

Thank you for your letter. I am writing to say that I shall not be able tosupervise Dr Jaques analysis of Philip. He has already arranged for thesupervision of his second case with Dr Munro, a very capable analyst.I myself, now that my working hours are much reduced, have to be verycareful in order to spread them in a fair & useful way. Dr Jaques will havelearned a lot in the supervision of his first case and that must at presentsuffice as far as his instruction is concerned. I have a waiting list forsupervision hours which does not make it possible for me to give him nextautumn a second supervision. I am telling you this because your hope thatI might supervise Philip’s analysis might have influenced your decision totake Philip away from Miss Rosenbluth and to transfer him to Dr Jaques.[Last page missing.]



Dear Stokes,I am sorry but I am unable to help you to reach a decision about the

choice of analyst for Philip. I don’t believe that your anxiety that a Child-Therapist is necessarily not as good as a Child-analyst is justified since


I happen to know of analyses which are very satisfactorily carried out byChild therapists. But I am not in touch with the child-therapists and inparticular, which is your main point – I have no judgement whatever aboutMiss Rosenbluth’s work. When I told you that as far as Dr Jaques isconcerned he has only started work under my supervision about – now –7 weeks ago but shows ability and will during one year have acquired someexperience in this case, I certainly did not mean to say that by then he willbe an experienced child-analyst. But then I remembered that you haddecided to give up Miss Rosenbluth and wished to know my opinion aboutJaques. Now you seem very uncertain whether you should change over andon this point I cannot advice [sic] you since I do not know, as I said,anything about her work. I really think you should discuss your problemwith Mrs. Bick, whose judgement can certainly be trusted.

I shall be glad to see you but wish to postpone this for a while becauseI am so caught up with expanding my paper [Klein, 1955] and have quite afew commitments apart from this that I should prefer to see you later.I shall write again later.

In the meantime best wishes to Ann and you.Yours sincerely

Melanie Klein

Klein to Stokes, c. 23 November 1955 (Ann)


N.W.3.[Unlike Klein’s other letters to Stokes, this note begins without anypreliminary ‘Dear Stokes’.]I was interested in what you said about your book [Stokes, 1955a] and itsprospective public and am glad to think it will make its way.

With kind regards to Ann and youYours sincerely

Melanie Klein

Klein to Stokes, 23 March 1956 (Ann)


N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

I was very pleased to see the good review of your book [Stokes, 1955a] inthe “New Statesman” [Gowing, 1956], and I congratulate you on that.I have also been told that there was a review of your book on the radio[Read, 1955]; (unfortunately I missed that) so I hope your book will turnout to be a great success.

JANET SAYERS 127

I hear that you are moving to Hampstead and then I hope we shall seemore of you and Ann.

I have been meaning to write to you for some time to tell you thatI liked your paper [Stokes, 1955b] in the “New Directions.” Thiswinter did not agree with me though I was not actually ill, and thatis why I have been unsociable and you did not hear from me earlier.I am going away at Easter for a fortnight, and hope to see you after Ireturn.


Klein to Stokes, 20 April 1956 (Ann)


N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

Thank you for your letter. My holiday was fairly good; of coursethe weather was not very favourable but nevertheless it has done megood. Now I am deeply engrossed in finishing my book on “Envy &Gratitude” [Klein, 1957]; I only wish I could get on with it more quicklythan I do.

I would very much like, and so would my family, to come and see youone Sunday. We enjoyed our last visit [to Hurtwood House] and shalllook forward to repeating it. Could we provisionally keep Sunday, the[‘17th June, or’ deleted] 24th June? In July I shall be very much engaged andJune would therefore be more suitable for me.

I hope that you are all well and am looking forward to seeing you again.Yours sincerely,

Melanie Klein

Klein to Stokes, 10 June 1956 (Tate)


N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

I am so sorry that we won’t be able to visit you on Sunday 24th June[at Hurtwood House]. Diana has chicken pox and we understand that evenon the last day when it is over with her Hazel or Michael might get it. Weregret this very much but of course we can’t expose your children nor couldwe, if one of our children gets it leave them alone. It is possible if thatwould suit you and Ann that we might still find a Sunday in July but this is


too early to arrange at the moment. It is a pity – we have all been lookingforward very much to going to see you.


Melanie KleinP.S.It is possible that the Quarantine for Diana might be over & neitherMichael nor [‘Diana’ deleted] Hazel would get it. But to our reckoning –that would have to be confirmed by the doctor – this we could only knowone or two days before the 24th. Would that still do for you at such shortnotice?

After selling Hurtwood House in the summer of 1956 Stokes moved withAnn, Philip, and Ariadne to Church Row, Hampstead, where Klein visitedthat autumn as can be seen from her next letter.

Klein to Stokes, 1 November 1956 (Tate)


N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

I am very interested in the aspect of contemplative art you explained inyour letter. Personally, I believe it may well be one aspect and I have nodoubt that it would be worth while for you to expand on it.

I very much enjoyed the evening with you and I was also glad to see yournew home, which I think is beautiful.

I am very much absorbed in the book [Klein, 1957] I am nowrevising and I hope to finish it in time to write my paper [Klein, 1958]for the next Congress. I even [‘already’ deleted] have some ideas about afollowing Congress paper and there is looming all the time a book onTechnique [Klein, 1961], which is so big an undertaking that I am a bitafraid of even planning it at the moment. This was what I meant when Itold you I did not know what to write about when I finish my book [Klein,1957]: it is much more that I have too much in mind [‘than no subject’inserted].

Your idea about the Epstein bust is in itself very attractive, but I wouldnot in any circumstances permit people, even if they cared to do so, tospend such a lot of money for that purpose.

I hope to see you and Ann some time soon and shall get in touch withyou about that later on.

Yours with kind regardsMelanie Klein

JANET SAYERS 129



N.W.3.Dear Stokes,

Thank you very much for your kind offer to help me to get the papersfrom Hartmann. In the meantime, it turned out that I did not need anymore, and, in any case, the meeting has already taken place.

I was glad to hear that you found my Congress paper of value [Klein,1958]. For various reasons, I have the impression that it is going to appearjust at the right moment.

I was very interested in the other content of your letter referring to yourwriting. I have so far not yet been able to read your paper [Stokes, 1957],but that will come.

Yours sincerely,Melanie Klein

P.S. Thank you for getting for me the copy of Ps. An. Study[Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, the journal founded in 1945 by AnnaFreud, Heinz Hartmann and Ernst Kris which published a very differentversion of psychoanalysis from that of Klein.]

In July 1958 Stokes went on a painting holiday in Italy with LawrenceGowing and his wife, Julia Strachey, during which time Klein addressed thefollowing letter to Ann about an invitation to the ballet involving MargotFonteyn whom Stokes had known as a friend since becoming a well-knownballet expert in the 1930s.

Klein to Ann, 16 July 1958 (Ann)


N.W.3.Dear Ann,

How very kind of you to invite me to such a rare occasion. I shall be back atthe end of July and am quite free to go with you to Covent Garden. I love theSleeping Beauty and I have only rarely seen Margot Fonteyn, so I shall begreatly looking forward to this evening on the 12th Sept.

Please give Adrian my best wishes. I hope he will bring back somebeautiful paintings and I am glad to hear that he is happy.

Again many thanks and kind regardsYours

Melanie Klein

In early 1959 Stokes suffered a heart attack which prompted Klein’s nextletter.




N.W.3.Dear Adrian,

Thank you very much for your note. My friends tell me that such a slightattack as yours was does not in any way prejudice the length of life normean that it might be repeated. It must be boring for you to be in bed solong – but it is necessary. Anyway there must be plenty of things to occupyyour mind and I am sure you are well cared for.

I read your paper on smell [Stokes, 1961] and found it interesting andworth while. I shall return it to you. – I am keeping well.

With my best wishes to you and Anne [sic].Yours ever

Melanie Klein

P.S. It is only because of the steps which are a difficulty for me that I amnot visiting you at present.

[c/o Tate]

The following summer, 1960, Klein became ill on holiday at a hotel inVillars-sur-Ollon near Lake Geneva in Switzerland. Esther Bick broughther home to London where she died on 22 September. Eight years beforeStokes had written to Coldstream saying ‘the essence of Mrs Klein, as herfriends see her, is her quick sympathy, warm-bloodedness & warm heart & acertain gaiety’. Now, in an obituary note to The Times, Stokes reiterated thissentiment. ‘Melanie Klein was pre-eminent in her enjoyment of people, inher looks, in responsiveness’ (Stokes, 1960, p. 24).

References

Ehrenzweig, A. (1952) Review: Inside Out and Smooth and Rough by A. Stokes.International Journal of Psychoanalysis 33: 501–2.

Glover, E. (1945) Psychology and the public. Horizon 11(63, March): 205–11.Glover, E. (1948) Freud or Jung. Horizon 18(106, October): 225–58.Glover, E. (1949) Freud or Jung (Part II). Horizon 18(107, November): 303–18.Gorer, G. (1948) The American People. New York, NY: Norton.Gorer, G. (1949) Review: Contributions to Psycho-Analysis by M. Klein. New

Statesman, 5 February, pp. 132–3.Gowing, L. (1956) Review: Michelangelo by A. Stokes. New Statesman, 2 March,

pp. 248, 250.Grosskurth, P. (1986) Melanie Klein. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Isaacs, S. (1948) On the nature and function of phantasy. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 29: 73–97.Jones, E. (1955) Sigmund Freud: Life and Work, Vol. 2. London: Hogarth.Klein, M. (1946) Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 27: 99–110.

JANET SAYERS 131

Klein, M. (1948a) Contributions to Psycho-Analysis 1921–1945. London: Hogarth.Klein, M. (1948b) A contribution to the theory of anxiety and guilt. International

Journal of Psychoanalysis 27: 99–110.Klein, M. (1952) The origins of transference. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 33: 433–8.Klein, M. (1955) A study of envy and gratitude. In: Mitchell, J. (ed.), The Selected

Melanie Klein, pp. 211–29. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1986.Klein, M. (1957) Envy and Gratitude. London: Tavistock.Klein, M. (1958) On the development of mental functioning. International Journal

of Psychoanalysis 39: 84–90.Klein, M. (1961) Narrative of a Child Analysis. London: Hogarth.Klein, M., Heimann, P. & Isaacs, S. (eds) (1952) Developments in Psycho-Analysis.

London: Hogarth.Klein, M., Heimann, P. & Money-Kyrle, R. (1955) New Directions in Psycho-

Analysis. London: Tavistock.M.G. (1948) Review: Contributions to Psycho-Analysis 1921–1945 by M. Klein.

Nineteenth Century and After, 144 (862, December): 358.Read, H. (1955) Michelangelo and Bernini. The Listener, 24 November, pp. 886–8.Sayers, J. (2000) Kleinians. Cambridge: Polity.Sayers, J. (2011) Adrian Stokes’ psychoanalytic aesthetics and the First World War.

American Imago 68(3): 561–7.Segal, H. (1952) A psycho-analytic approach to aesthetics. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 33: 196–207.Stokes, A. (1945a) Concerning art and metapsychology. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 26(3–4): 177–9.Stokes, A. (1945b) Venice. London: Faber and Faber.Stokes, A. (1946) Inside out. Polemic 2(January): 51–60.Stokes, A. (1947) Inside Out. London: Faber and Faber.Stokes, A. (1951a) Smooth and Rough. London: Faber and Faber.Stokes, A. (1951b) Art and a formal aspect of dreams. December, Tate Gallery

Archive, TGA8816.193A.Stokes, A. (1952) Art, object-relationship and a formal aspect of dreams. March,

Tate Gallery Archive, TGA8816.192.Stokes, A. (1955a) Michelangelo. London: Tavistock.Stokes, A. (1955b) Form in art. In: Klein, M., Heimann, P. and Isaacs, S. (eds),

Developments in Psycho-Analysis, pp. 406–20. London: Hogarth.Stokes, A. (1957) Listening to cliches and individual words. International Journal of

Psychoanalysis 38: 412–8.Stokes, A. (1960) Obituary: Melanie Klein. The Times, 26 September, p. 24.Stokes, A. (1961) Strong smells and polite society. Encounter 17(3 September):

50–6.

ABSTRACT

The article consists of letters from Melanie Klein (1882–1960) to the writer andpainter, Adrian Stokes (1902–72). Spanning nearly 20 years (from 1940 to 1959)these letters concern family and psychoanalytic matters together with Klein’srepeated request for the destruction of a portrait of her by William Coldstream,commissioned by Stokes in honour of her 70th birthday on 31 March 1952.

Key words: art, psychoanalysis, Melanie Klein, Adrian Stokes, William Coldstream,Joan Riviere, Esther Bick, Elliott Jaques, Hanna Segal, Marion Milner


Letters Klein

Documents

Transcript of Letters Klein