18th Feb. 1924

Dear Friends,

The delay in this letter has the advantage that I can at the same  
time acknowledge Professor’s Rundbrief which arrived today. It was a happy  
idea of his to send it, and I feel sure that the profoundly wise words it  
contains will make their due impression on us all. He can, I believe, count  
on all of us to give an eager and sympathetic hearing to the new ideas, even  
though it may take time to assimilate them enough to be in a position to form  
our own opinions. This has been my own reaction on reading the two books.  
But there were two other reflections, only one of which is mentioned by  
Professor. That one, of course, is the question of the ulterior tendencies  
of the work, particularly in the hands of either ambitious or reactionary  
readers. Time alone can reveal this. My other reflection concerned the matter  
of form. I found that many ideas which could have been better put forward as  
tentative suggestions were expressed in too dogmatic and even dictatorial a  
manner, with sweeping condemnations of every other possibility. There were  
many phrases so unwisely worded as to make an unfortunate effect on the audience.  
Such passages could easily have been softened, if they had been seen before-  
hand by any other member of the Committee. But this general question of  
co-operation is one that cannot well be discussed in a letter.  

I agree with Róheim that there is a vast support for Rank’s theory  
to be obtained from anthropological data. Reik’s work, for instance, on
 

“Puberty Rites” shows inner connection between incest and birth. The theory  
accepted by the modern British School of Ethnology (Rivers, Elliot Smith, etc.),  
is almost entirely based on the re-birth phantasy. They have managed to  
formulate this very skilfully so as to avoid all reference to direct incest.  
My paper tomorrow at the Royal Anthropological Institute largely consists of a  
criticism of their theory from this point of view.  

This month is the tenth anniversary of the British Society which  
now consists of 53 members; I have the record of not having missed one meeting. 
Although there are only two or three members who are productive on the literary  
side, the general standard of knowledge and criticism is quite respectable.  
Progress has, at all events, been quite steadily upwards. We are now, of course,  
much stricter in admitting members than at the beginning; at the last meeting,  
for instance, we passed only one out of four recommendations.  

At the last meeting, Eder read a paper on “Onanism”, which was  
distinctly mediocre and muddled. There was, however, an excellent discussion.  

A translation in English is appearing of Wittels’ book.  

In regard to my “Essays”, I note that Professor and Rank have copies,  
but Abraham not. Will the other three members please tell me if they have  
received any?  

VIENNA. The rights, (L. Otto), of our lectures entitled “Social Aspects of Psycho-  
Analysis” belong entirely to messrs. Williams & Norgate, Henrietta Street, Covent  
Garden, W.C.2 (the same firm with whom we are now negotiating to take over our Library  
Series.) I will send you a copy of my contribution to the Morton Prince  
Festschrift, but should hardly think it suitable for “Imago”, because it was  
written for a different audience and is extremely elementary. However, I leave  
judgement to you. My anthropological paper would come more into consideration.  
By the way, I have heard nothing at all from Malinowski. Have you news of him?  

With cordial greetings to all, Yours sincerely,  

Ernest Jones.