From Philosophy Lecturer to Advanced Student 195corresponded for months, and they had last met in March 1933. Given
this background, the mere fact of a letter postmarked New York was
significant. Horkheimer came straight to the point: he wished to give
vent to his growing resentment towards Adorno. He reproached him
with having failed to communicate for months and for having left him in
the dark about his, Adorno’s, concrete plans. He then rapidly switched
from complaint to praise. ‘If there is such a thing as productive relation-
ships between people working in the realm of theory, then the regular
collaboration between yourself and the institute must be included among
them. It was simply your duty to remain in contact with us. We could
not possibly have advised you to leave Germany and come and join us
since this was a decision you had to take yourself. We should soon have
worked out a modus vivendi.’^33
Not entirely without a tinge of jealousy, Horkheimer then rebuked
Adorno for behaviour he could only have heard about by rumour –
presumably from Tillich – and that by no means corresponded to the
facts. The accusation was that Adorno had sought advice about his
future from Cassirer instead of the institute. In view of this new alliance,
Horkheimer refused to publish in the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung a
review Adorno had submitted of an introductory text on gestalt psycho-
logy by Walter Ehrenstein, least of all under the pseudonym of Charles
de Kloës. Horkheimer’s letter ended with an appeal. ‘There can be no
doubt that the absence of communication causes damage to the insti-
tute since you necessarily belong among us. And separation will also
have a damaging effect on you. I am very sad about both these things.’^34
These reproaches came to Adorno in a difficult phase of his life when
he was attempting to find his feet again. How did he respond? On the
model of someone shouting ‘Catch the thief!’ he had been accused of
something he had not done. Moreover, Horkheimer blithely ignored
the fact that objectively Adorno was in the weaker position. After all,
it was Horkheimer who had remained silent about his plans for the
institute. Dependent on his father’s support and having no one to turn
to in other respects, Adorno had to make his own arrangements for
leaving Germany and settling in Britain.
Having left Germany, Horkheimer had engaged in lengthy consulta-
tions with Pollock and other institute members in Geneva about the
best place to base the work of the institute. Thanks to his political
foresight, he had transferred the assets abroad in good time and had
also made preparations to establish branches in Geneva, London and
Paris. This secured the survival of the institute during the emigration,
which was to last close on two decades. Thanks to these new branches
and the contacts with European universities they brought with them,
Horkheimer was in the fortunate position of having a number of options
for the future. Fritz Pollock’s colleague Julian Gumperz, an American,
was able to establish personal contact with Columbia University, where
he encountered great interest, in particular from its president, Nicholas