18 May 1914  69 Portland Court  London W

Dear Professor Freud,

The first two batches of proofs have arrived,«FN1.××Freud (1914d).

» and we have had a very joyful time reading them.  When one knows all the innuendoes and references it is as interesting as it is delightful to mark your delicate rapier thrusts.  I am sure the effect will be an excellent one, bracing and invigorating to our side,and what Shaw calls "dismantling" to the other side.

As you may imagine, I have no criticisms to make, but since you asked me to make any remarks that occur to me, I will call attention to a few unimportant details.

The first is a personal one: S. 46 (Fahnen) you write "Alle drei (Brill, Ferenczi and myself) hatten die |×/ in Zürich kennen gelernt".«FN1.××The line "All three (Brill, Ferenczi and Jones) had studied psychoanalysis in Zurich" was dropped, see Freud (1914d, p. 31), «MDUL»G.W.«MDNM» 10:70.

»  For myself I am afraid I must decline this honour, the facts being as follows: I got your book in 19O6 and practised |×/ imperfectly, to be sure) for a year before the Amsterdam Congress Sept. 19O7,«FN1.××In 1910 Jones stated that he got aquainted with Freud's work in 1907, and regretfully acknowledged his lack of experience in psychoanalysis.  See note 8 to letter 26.

» where I first met Jung and Otto Gross.  In that autumn I was in Munich and learnt there more from Gross than I ever learnt from Jung.  On the way home, in December, I spent 5 ‑ 6 days in Zurich, seeing Jung each day, and thus I got invited to the Salzburg Congress in the following April.  Jung presented me to you there, which perhaps gave you the impression that I was his pupil.  Since then I have been in Zurich only for two days.  I thus constitute a minimal exception to your statement (S. 43) "an allen Orten (ausserhalb Wien und Zürich) ergab diese Zuwendung von Interesse zunächst nichts anderes als eine meist leidenschaftlich akzentuierte Ablehnung."«FN1.××Freud modified "an allen Orten (ausserhalb Wien und Zürich) to "an allen anderen Orten."  The final passage thus reads: "in all other places this accession of interest at first produced nothing but a very emphatic repudiation, mostly a quite passionate one...", see Freud (1914d, p. 27), «MDUL»G.W.«MDNM» 10:65‑66.

»

S. 45.  The sense is reversed by omission of the word "not": "Freud's |×/ is now championed and carried out «MDUL»not«MDNM» only in Austria, etc.".«FN1.××Refers to Freud's use of a passage in English from Havelock Ellis.  In the published version he inserts the word "not," see Freud (1914d, p. 30), «MDUL»G.W.«MDNM» 10:69.

»

S. 55.  E. Jelliffe should be "White and Jelliffe".  White is a much better man than Jelliffe and should not be neglected.«FN1.××Freud made the change: "White and Jelliffe in New York started a new periodical («MDUL»The Psychoanalytic Review«MDNM»)...," see Freud (1914d, p. 48), «MDUL»G.W.«MDNM» 10:91.

»

S. 44. "jenes Charakterzuges von Jung...seiner Neigung zum rücksichtslosen Beiseitedrängen eines unbequemen Anderen".«FN1.××This passage was dropped. It reads vindictively: "that one character trait of Jung ... his tendency towards inconsiderately shoving aside others who are troublesome."

»  This is of course absolutely true, and in principle I am in favour of no mercy being shewn in such an important war, but none the less I find this rather strong personally and fear it would weaken, by its personal note, the general effect of the essay rather than strengthen it.  One does not want to put weapons in the hands of the enemy.  Sachs asks me to add that he is quite of my opinion.

We await the third batch with the keenest interest.

Yours alawys  Jones.