You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
DEAR FRIENDS OF JACK SCHIMEL, what I have to say will not conform, either in format or in content to the traditional model of a memorial address. Earl suggested a focus on personal memories. As this is in line with my own preference I am not standing here to bury Jack metaphorically, as did Marc Antony in Julius Caesar. Nor did I weigh whether in speaking about our friend I was going
to praise him properly. I judged that there was no need for me to do so, that our presence here is in praise of him, as it proves our profound respect for him.
I wish that I could be more casual about some of what I am going to say. I don't feel casual about Jack. I keep him alive for me, so to speak, by nurturing my memories of him, including what to me is part of his legacy, namely that "the death of a cherished one makes life itself more important." I created for myself an insolvable dilemma; trying to sort out which of the many dimensions of Jack would best reflect my views of him.
Would it be his work as an analyst, concerned with the well-being of his patients; would it be his thereto closely related contributions as a teacher, furthering the intellectual growth of his students; would it be his forthrightness in relations with others, one of his ways of letting you know of his respect for you; would it be his compassion when it mattered, and emotional warmth, attesting his sensitivity to emotions, and his ability to tune in on them; would it be his measured sense of life's values, between what is essential and what superfluous; would it be his steady dedication to our Institute, exemplifying the meaning of loyalty?
Or, would his other, more common human attributes, paint a clearer portrait of him? Such would be his striving for prominence, and his sense of accomplishment when achievi