16th March 1925  

Dear Friends,  

After seeing the correspondence with the Swiss, there is nothing to say  
except to compliment Abraham on the admirable combination of tact and firmness he  
showed in the affair. I presume that the matter should come before the business  
meeting of the Congress, either in the form of an interpolation from the Swiss or  
independently to secure a ruling about the Congress arrangements and the extent to  
which local societies have a voice therein. The matter must be regulated in some  
such constitutional way so as to give the Swiss no ground for further behaviour of  
this sort. We shall be glad to know the exact date of the Congress as soon as it is  
arranged. It was an enormous pleasure to hear that Professor is seriously thinking of  
attending the Congress.  

Part 1. of the Journal has unfortunately been greatly delayed as the result of  
severe neurotic inhibitions on Rado’s part. Ever since the Congress, there has been  
a perpetual struggle between him and me, with constant promises on his part and delays,  
and I was only able to get a part of his paper from him when he recently fell ill  
physically. Part 2. of the Journal, however, should appear before the end of April.  
In another fortnight I expect to finish a task which has occupied my spare time for  
the last two or three years, namely the revising of the five Sammlung volumes. I 
expect that Mrs. Riviere and I will feel inclined to turn for awhile to some other work  
or recreation before undertaking the next step in translation.  

I cannot share Ferenczi’s optimism about telepathy being used as objective  
proof of the contentions of psycho-analysis. On the contrary, in England at least, a  
great part of the opposition to psycho-analysis (see my review of McBride’s book in  
Part I.) Vol. VI. of the “Journal”) is based on the imaginary idea that psycho-analysis  
operates with agents (the psyche) which are supposed to be independent of the body.  
The prejudice against telepathy is also so strong that any mixture of the two subjects  
could have only one effect, that of delaying the assimilation of psycho-analysis. As  
the latter aim is the one nearest to Professor’s heart, I find it comprehensible that  
he should personally prefer to sacrifice any interest he may have in telepathy and I  
can only welcome his decision. At the same time, this is a sacrifice which we cannot  
expect from all other psycho-analysts, but we can reasonably hope that anyone wishing to write  
on telepathy will make it clear that he does so independently of psycho-analysis and  
does not wish to infer that the truth of one stands or falls by the truth of the  
other. This would only be a simple act of justice to those psycho-analysts who, like  
myself, are far from convinced of the truth of telepathy, and who therefore cannot  
welcome the possibility of their convictions about psycho-analysis becoming involved  
in something else with which they do not agree. I should take up the same standpoint  
against any entanglement with any variety of philosophy, politics, etc.
 

The first psycho-analytic paper to be read before the Royal Society of  
Medicine was one last week by Dr. Mitchell before the Section of Psychiatry on 
“Psycho-analytic Theory of Suggestion”. It had a reasonably good reception and  
will appear in the Proceedings.  

There is no other special local news. I am spending Easter week in  
Paris and shall meet Laforgue and probably other people there.  

                                           Yours always,  
                                            Ernest Jones  

[Handschriftlicher Nachtrag:]  

Dear Professor,  
Could you tell me where in your writing the  
remark occurs that the as- sumption of the father’s  
place in the family signified „der bedeutsamste  
Fortschritt in der Kulturentwicklung“? I want  
to quote it & cannot recall where it occurs.  
                                    E.J.