14 October 1929  81 Harley Street  London W1

Dear Professor,

«IP4,0»I hope that your visit to Berlin proved as successful as possible and that you return to Vienna with both that benefit and the recuperation of the holiday.

I am engaged on the arrangements for carrying out your kind offer that your latest book«FN1.××Freud (1930a).» should appear in the official International Psycho‑Analytical Library.  (How proud I should be if all your works were in it!)  I learn from Mr. Woolf that there is danger of a hitch with the Verlag in regard to the rights and I am writing to remind you that appearance in our Library series includes both the American and the British rights.  I need not go over again the reasons I gave you some time ago why this has to be so.  You will remember that it was your not realising the necessity for the two rights being combined that lead to the Anglo‑Saxon world being condemned to a bad American translation of "«MDUL»Hemmung, Symptom und Angst«MDNM»",«FN1.××Freud (1926d), trans. supervised L. Pierce Clark, pref. S. Ferenczi (Stamford, Conn.: Psychoanalytic Institute, 1927).

» for we were thus prevented from making an English translation.  I am writing by this post to Storfer to make sure that there is no misunderstanding.

I got your note attached to Simmel's circular letter about Schloss‑Tegel and was glad to see that there was some chance of saving it.  I have already written to Simmel giving him two suggestions for making his appeal more effective in non‑German countries and you may be sure I will do anything I can to help the matter.

As I wrote to Anna some time ago, I am probably accepting an invitation to go to New York to give an address on the occasion of the opening of the new Psychiatric Institute there.«FN1.××Jones spent merely three days in New York and delivered a paper (Jones, 1929d).»  I think the occasion is important enough to warrant the great sacrifice this involves and I shall, of course, take the opportunity to help Brill in his campaign with the New York group.  You will be glad, by the way, to know that I had this week a favourable letter from him.

We are busy here revolutionising the relation between the Society, Institute and Clinic.  Everything goes smoothly except for Rickman who, being in the middle of his analysis with Ferenczi, is naturally in a very difficult and ambivalent mood.  We have at all events succeeded in passing rules admitting all lay members to work at the Clinic, whether on the permanent staff (in the case of full members of the Society) or as assistants (candidates, etc.).  There is no doubt that this signifies an important step in the consolidation of the new profession of psycho‑analysis.

With my kindest regards,  Yours always,  Ernest Jones