28th February 1927.  

Dear Friends:  

I am sending an additional Rundbrief because of the current problems.  
Eitingon did not quite catch the point of my “Hamlet” reference.  
What I meant was this. In my opinion all the European Societies (I can  
answer for the British one) will vote with an enormous majority in favour  
of our continuing to admit and recognise lay analysts. The Americans, as  
we know, are almost unanimously against this. The meeting to achieve agree-  
ment when the only dissentient would be absent would be like play-  
ing “Hamlet” without the Prince of Denmark, i.e. with the essential factor missing.  

I agree of course with his proposal that we meet a couple of days  
earlier at the Congress, so as to make final arrangements, but I am sure he  
does not mean that everything should be left till then. The main problem  
we have in preparing for the Congress is to formulate fully, unambiguously,  
and exactly the nature of whatever points may be at issue, and I do not think  
this is at all difficult. I sent him last week a copy of a similar  
questionnaire which was being used in our Society and will report the results  
in my next Rundbrief. No doubt this particular form can be improved on,  
though we drew it up with special care. It seems to me that a number of  
the points involved in the question are mainly matters of academic opin-  
ion. The only two really practical issues I perceive, i.e. the only two that have  
practical bearings and may give rise to friction, are (1) the extent to
 

which Training Committees should urge, if at all, lay candidates to ac-  
quire a medical qualification when this is possible for them, and (2) to what  
extent local societies are to be allowed to preserve their own auton-  
omy in the matter. The second point raises the delicate question of the  
relations between the various Training Committees. I feel sure myself that  
it should be possible, by means of correspondence, to draw up such a pro-  
gramme as I have indicated. Then, when this is fixed, it would be possible  
for the various Societies to discuss it finally before attending the Congress.  
We are presumably all agreed that the less discussion takes place at the  
Congress itself the better.  

I suppose the probability about the Tagebuch is that it is essen-  
tially genuine, though it may have been touched up in unimportant respects  
in later years. The fact that the neurotic reactions of the author, and of  
Frau Hug’s death, put obstacles in the way of now establishing its authenticity  
would not seem to make it necessary to publish a disavowal the meaning of which  
could only be exaggerated. It would of course be different if there were any  
reason on our part to doubt either the authenticity of any integral part of  
the contents.  

Berlin. Anna’s book arrived to-day, L. Max, and I am reading it at once. It  
would help me if you could send me a list of names of those contributors to the  
symposium which you have already, without waiting for the complete list. 
Thank you for your decision, with which I quite agree, about the American  
resolution.  

With all friendly greetings,  
Yours,  
Ernest Jones