29 December 1912  Pension Rose  12 Via Gregoriana  Roma

«IP0,0»Dear Professor Freud,

«IP4,0»Thank you very much for your full report about my wife.  The favourable news was very gratifying to hear.  The letter‑writing question is very curious.  She must certainly have mis‑addressed the lost letter, for I made every inquiry for it here.  That must mean a strong affect to produce such an error, for she is usually «MDUL»pedantically«MDNM» exact over addresses.  Her subsequent reaction was also striking, showing a combination of displaced remorse and indifference that contrasts with the way she would usually react to such an occasion.  On hearing it was lost she unnecessarily telegraphed "Deeply distressed.  Am writing again".  She took three more days to write, registered the letter this time carefully, and in it expressed first her distress and remorse that I should have suffered ("What did you think of me?", etc.) and her indifference because the lost letter was very short and contained only dry news (two respects in which it differs from her usual letters).  Now I have not heard again, although there was every reason why I should have in the past week.  Can it be «MDUL»only«MDNM» the over‑compensation for the long complaining letter she sent?  Having your reassuring letters has of course prevented me from being anxious, but it would be a great convenience if she could overcome this inhibition.  I think the resistance is partly against the treatment, because she said twice that this inhibition is the chief thing she would like to see cured: "it would be the best test of the treatment".  You will have found no doubt that she attaches the highest value to the letters she writes; they are the most precious objects, to be parted with only with the greatest difficulty.

«IP4,0»I feel that the next month is an unfavourable occasion to test the anaesthesia matter, partly because it is unlikely to be overcome in such a short stay (don't you find that it often takes much time and practice?) and partly because it would not be wise to expose her to the risks of pregnancy when she has so much in front of her (house‑settling in London), while she finds all kinds of precautionary measures very distasteful.  On these grounds I do not think I will make any overtures myself, but will be guided entirely by her feelings; I anticipate she will desire intercourse.  If you have any further suggestions to add to this attitude I should be glad to have them (otherwise I will not give you the trouble of answering this letter, as I shall be seeing you next week).

I can well believe that she is able to make some self‑analysis also, for she is very quick and intelligent and likes to know the truth ‑‑ if it is not too unpleasant.  In some ways she has a very keen feeling for reality, and is no lover of the ordinary illusions.

As for Jung, I am fast losing the respect I once had for him.  You may be sure I will write him no more conciliatory letters while he treats my best efforts with indifference.  I have not heard from him, but I got yesterday a most annoying letter from Seif whose absurd attitude is evidently dominated by his own private emotions together with influence on Jung's part.  I will say nothing more of it till I see you, which I am very eager to do for all reasons.  I don't at all see how we are to retain private relations with a man like Jung, who has been behaving most dishonestly in the things he says about you, as well no doubt as in other ways.

I have had another good letter from Brill.  He seems to be showing up well in the circumstances, and I shall be glad to see him when I reach New York.  Putnam will also probably come there to meet me, so we can all have a good talk and present a united front.  Putnam is annoyed over the philosophy question and cannot understand our "blindness" but I don't think his reply to Ferenczi will enlighten our darkness very much.

I found Sperber's essay in «MDUL»Imago«MDNM» very interesting,«FN1.××Hans Sperber, "Über den Einfluss sexueller Momente auf Entstehung und Entwicklung der Sprache," «MDUL»Imago«MDNM», 1(1912):405‑454.

» but I fear that expert philologists could find many weak points in the logic of his arguments.  He must be a man rather like Pfister.

Your little paper in the Proceedings of the Psychical Research Society was very clearly but, and literally translated. «FN1.××Freud (1912g) was first written in English, but seemingly revised in England.

»  I "forgot" to thank you for it the last time I wrote, just as I forgot your reprint in Vienna and nearly did the one in Munich.  It gave me some trouble to analyse this, but it is now all clear.  I need not repeat it to you because it only concerns a reproach that I have no right whatever to make, and which could emanate only from a very inflated unconscious.  What a good thing it is that a Zensur exists, otherwise the conceit of some of us would make us intolerable to our neighbours.

I will attend to Mr. Moses, but I am afraid it will mean only a drawing.  This week I hope to finish my paper on God‑men, in which there is the opportunity of saying some sweet things, quite indirectly, about Jung; it is very enjoyable.«FN1.××Jones (1913g).

»  Although I have only another week in this wonderful city I shall not be sorry to get back to life and work once more; too much holiday is demoralising to such a lazy person as myself, and there is much to do in the coming year.

Yours always  Jones.