19th November 1925.  

Dear Friends,  

I am sorry that pressure of work has made this letter late, but  
fortunately there is very little news. I was happy to hear from Karl  
recently that his recrudescences are becoming milder and less frequent.  
The best news that we could have would be to hear that they had ceased  
altogether.  

The controversy in the „Nation“ between Tansley and his opponents  
was brought to an end with a brilliant letter from Tansley. After this,  
the Editor invited Glover to write two articles. His first, though good 
in substance, was rather heavy, but the second which I enclose for circul-  
ation was more „effective“.  

Leo Kaplan wrote to me from Zurich for a testimonial to support his  
candidature for the Chair of Psycho-Analysis at the University of Jerusalem. 
I asked Karl as President whether Kaplan is a man to be supported, but he  
knows little about him. I knew him somewhat in Vienna years ago and have  
read two of his books, but I am not informed about his later developments.  
I should be especially glad of Professor’s opinion in the matter. On inquiry  
from Eder I learnt that it was Kaplan’s own suggestion that the Senate should  
found a Chair of Psycho-Analysis. Eder had informed the Senate that if  
such a Chair were founded he would offer himself as candidate, and in my  
opinion he would make a good one. He advised the Senate, however, that it  
would be more desirable to found first of all a Chair of General Anthropology,  
which Roheim could occupy and one of Pedagogy, which Bernfeld would occupy.  
He does not think that a Chair of Psycho-Analysis itself is likely to be  
founded within a couple of years.  

We are arranging courses of lectures for Spring and Summer by  
Glover, Flügel and myself. Flügel will deal with the Theory of the Uncon-  
scious, Glover with the Pathology of Anxiety States and I with the Theory of  
Sexuality. James Glover has just been elected Chairman of the Medical  
Section of the British Psychological Society and Edward Glover a mem-  
ber of the Committee.  

Some remarks in the Vienna and Budapest letters of last month deal  
with two subjects which, though they sometimes overlap, might well be distin-  
guished. I refer to those of lay analysis and of short training respective-  
ly.
 

and should like to represent shortly my present attitude on this matter.  
In regard to lay analysts, no one except Professor has supported them more  
consistently than I have. From the beginning no discrimination has been made  
in our Society between lay and medical analysts and at present nearly 40 % of  
our members are laymen. Among these are several of the most competent such  
as Flügel, Tansley, the Stracheys and Mrs. Rivière. Nevertheless, the result  
of years of experience has made me less unequivocally a whole-hearted supporter  
of them than I was previously. The lack of professional traditions, the  
frequent absence of any previous mental discipline among them and the undeniable  
advantage of medical knowledge are all features which in my opinion need to be  
counter-balanced by special qualities on the part of the lay candidate before  
one can regard him as having similar advantages to a medical one. The two  
consequences I draw from this are: that I would always advise an intending  
candidate to study medicine as well as psycho-analysis (a point of view from  
which I believe Professor dissents) and secondly, that in the admission of  
members great weight should be attached to the individual qualities of the  
candidate as well as to his actual training.  

On the second point I find myself in complete agreement  
with Eitingon, the representative of the idea of thorough training, for I am  
emphatically not in favour of encouraging people to practise psycho-analysis  
if they are willing to make only a superficial study of the subject. I am  
sure that Sándor cannot appreciate the actual harm done in the countries –  
particularly England and America – where the results of this attitude can be  
followed out in detail. His objection that any other attitude than this would  
drive such people into the arms of charlatans I fully accept and would remark  
that I am much more comfortable when they are in such arms than when they are  
hanging on the skirts of psycho-analysis. For the most part, people of the  
type I have in mind would land in any case with Stekel. It is better that  
people who are destined to join Stekel should not be hindered in their destiny.  
Just consider how much easier it is to repudiate such people and deny that they  
are psycho-analysts than to have to defend their harmful deeds because they  
call themselves Freudians and have spent a few weeks in Vienna. I find my  
thesis in this respect excellently illustrated by the example quoted by Professor  
in his Rundbrief which arrived today, in the reference to Dr. Stirling-Gilchrist. 
Unfortunately many analysts, from motives not always laudable, have not Professor’s  
conscientiousness and would have encouraged such a man, for whose defects we in  
England would then have to pay the penalty. Many cases of the kind have come  
to my personal notice.  

With cordial greetings,  
Yours always,  
Ernest Jones