20th April 1925

Dear Friends,

The Berlin and Vienna letters have just arrived, but not the Budapest one.  
My own letter is late in going off because I have just returned from spending  
a week in Paris. I saw a good deal of Laforgue and Sokolnicka, both of whom  
made a very good impression. Laforgue is certainly a very intelligent and able  
man with quite exceptional powers of work. He makes a good and skilful fighter.  
His personal ambition tends him to undue striving for originality but I should  
think he is too normal ever to diverge from us along the lines of any neurotic  
theory. I gave the local group there a short address (in French) which was  
followed by a lively discussion. Wexberg, Adler’s supporter, who was present,  
made himself so obnoxious that he will not be invited again. The group is a  
very mixed one, so that I felt like saying „Jemand ist selten ein Franzose“.  
Unfortunately a couple of the best men, including Codet, were still away on their  
holidays.

The most startling event here in the past month has been the arrest and  
prosecution of an American charlatan named Homer Lane who had been practising  
„Psa“ among Society circles in England for some years. He was ostensibly  
arrested for some technical offence, about foreigners reporting to the police,  
but the prosecution indicated that the underlying reasons were his exploitation  
of psycho-analysis sexually and financially (acting as procurer, etc.). The  
magistrate condemned him to a month’s imprisonment to be followed by deportation,  
but he has appealed to a higher court which meets only in May. The main interest  
of the event was the way in which most of the Press seized on the occasion  
to vent their animus against psycho-analysis. All of them, including the „Times“  
used the news heading – „Psycho-analyst sent to prison“ – and a wild tirade  
appeared that this was the only proper way of dealing with all psycho-analysts.  
A short letter of protest which the Society sent to the „Times“ was not inserted.

Things are looking promising in regard to establishing a clinic here this  
year and we have inspected several houses. A further meeting on the matter takes  
place this evening.

The news about Rank, confirmed also by what I heard about him in Paris, is  
very regrettable, though not surprising. He has not answered any of my letters  
during the past year, including one I wrote to him condoling with him on the  
death of his brother whom I had known rather well. I entirely agree with every  
word of the Berlin letter this month. It is evident that we cannot treat him,  
either personally or scientifically, as responsible, so that our attitude can
 

only remain friendly but pessimistic.

BERLIN. It will be easy, my dear Max, to fulfil your wish about the Indian  
and I will deal with the situation as soon as he presents himself.  
Professor calls my attention, my dear Karl, to a mistake I made in  
saying that Miss Newton cannot remain a member of the Vienna Society without  
your express consent. The rule I had in mind was, on the contrary, an  
addition made to Rule 4 at the Hague Congress of 1920, to the effect that a  
non-resident may not be elected to a foreign Society without the President’s  
express consent. Miss Newton’s election to the Vienna Society was therefore  
illegal and so invalid.  

I was surprised to hear that Groddeck regarded me as a persecutor  
and can only look upon it as an indication of his morbid state. The only  
talk I have ever had with him, about mutual English friends, was a very  
pleasant one.  

It is a pleasure to hear of the excellent progress being made in  
Berlin and also of the remarkable activity of the Institut.  

VIENNA. Many thanks, dear Professor, for your letters. Could I see the  
Gilbert Murray report, or is it obtainable in England? The money we received  
from Woolf for transferring the rights of your Collected Papers we decided  
(after subtracting the amount owing to the Verlag, to yourself, to a couple  
of professional translators and to the typists) to apportion as follows:  
five-eighths to Mrs. Rivière and three-eighths to Strachey. We did this  
because practically all the other translators except Strachey renounced any  
wish for payment and because, again with the exception of Strachey, Mrs.  
Rivière and I have so entirely re-written the work of the so-called trans-  
lators that nothing remains of it except their name. I wanted to ask you  
what were your wishes about your own money, because there was a slight  
confusion in your instructions; at one time it was to be divided among Mrs.  
Rivière and Strachey, at another time between Mrs. Rivière, Strachey and  
other translators. Perhaps you would be good enough to send exact instructions  
to either Mrs. Rivière or myself. Possibly you will proceed on similar lines  
to those we ourselves followed.  

I am personally not enthusiastic about the Charcot celebrations. We know that  
Professor’s loyalty to his teacher tends to make him over-estimate the part played  
by Charcot in regard to psycho-analysis. I cannot speak about Germany, but I know  
that Charcot’s influence in England simply had the effect of setting back the  

 

study of psycho-pathology for twenty years. English neurologists, who were never  
deceived by Charcot’s theatrical performances and metallo-therapy, drew the  
conclusion that if such a great man as Charcot could so obviously lose his head  
in the midst of hysterical phenomena it was safer to avoid the subject altogether!  

With best greetings, Yours always,  
Ernest Jones.