[En-tête III Berlin], the 17 February 
Sending you the transcript of my remarks during our discussion on the mysteries of Berlin with the resurrection Zurich1, I want to leave you to decide whether it would be justified to add to criticism of Ferenczi, Abraham, Rank and Sachs my own contribution (for example, in Zeitschrift)2.
With one exception undecided about3, our local group is totally unanimous refuse Jung.
With warmest wishes for your totally dedicated
1. The 11 February, Abraham wrote to Freud (F/A, p. 160) : "There is a few weeks", that is to say the 17 January, "We had a meeting of our group, with four presentations on case Jung " (see Corr.). Eitingon participated with a contribution to "On the unconscious in Jung and his turn to ethics" (1914a). A point of criticism was the attempts by the Zurich group to transform the "Oedipus complex pagan Christian symbolism of the resurrection" (p. 103).
2. The first issue of the 2and year (1914) Release of the Zeitschrift was a number anti-Zurich, with critical texts by Ferenczi, Abraham, Jones, etc. (p. 62- 87 ; see also Ferenczi 1913). Contribution Eitingon (1914a) was also ac-cepted. When Ferenczi read the text on the events, he wrote to Freud (F/Fer 1/2, p. 290) : "The surprisingly strong polemic against the sabotage of the concept of the unconscious was a surprise to me. "Rank and Sachs also wanted to publish an article in the Jahrbuch debate entitled" What psychoanalysis? "Which was then removed. Voir Schröter (1995a, including p. 526 and notes 22).
3. Wolf Stockmayer (cf. eg. Apr. à Freud, 11 February; Rundbr. II, p. 93-94).