1 June 1911  4O7 Brunswick Avenue  Toronto

Dear Professor Freud,

«IP4,0»I am very grateful to you for your kind letter that came this week.  There was no possibility of my "resenting" your excellent advice, but I felt distressed that the circumstances were so complicated that I could not do them justice in a letter.  You may rely on me to do the best I can in the business.  Things are slowly developing, and I hope soon to be able to write more definitely.

There are some points in your letter to answer.  In regard to infantile theories I am extremely interested, and am busy collecting them.  I often feel embarrassed however when I think that probably a given one is banal to all you people in Europe, and therefore not worth mentioning.  Still when I have put together something I can submit it to you for your opinion, if you will be so kind.  You must have noticed the interesting fact that the explanations given by adults (finding under cabbages, etc.) are only disguised versions of true infantile theories; they are worth working out in detail, I should think.

I am sorry about Adler, and cannot understand such strong fixation.  In a recent letter to me he made a curious remark, about Hamlet.  "Und Ihnen brauche ich es ja nicht zu sagen; Hamlet, das ist eine Herzenssache".«FN1.××"And indeed I don't have to tell you; Hamlet, that is a matter of the heart."

»  He was explaining why he didn't care to review my book himself.  All I know about the Oedipus‑complex is that it is exceedingly difficult to overcome.  I have found that so in my own person, although I am quite familiar with the sources of it.

I am glad you liked Sutherland.  His younger friend is Berkeley‑Hill, a pupil and patient of mine.  Why did you come to call him Dr. «MDUL»Hunt«MDNM»?

With regard to the snake.  I did not know Stekel had said that, for I have not had time yet to read his book in detail.«FN1.××Later, in his paper on symbolism (Jones, 1916a) Jones gives up on the idea of a snake as a female symbol.  After discussing the snake as a phallic symbolism and mentioning the works of Sekel (1908, 1911) on symbolism in general, Jones writes that the serpent is "one of the most constant symbols of the phallus," and that "very occasionally it can symbolise the intestines or their contents, but, so far as I know, nothing else." (Jones, «MDUL»Papers«MDNM», 2nd ed. 1918, pp. 143, 144 n. 1, 170 n. 1)»  My reason was as follows: The patient, who had very strong homosexual trends, had committed many acts of bestiality (sheep, dog, bird etc.), and had tried to have coitus with a dead snake (per anum).  What attracted him was its sheath‑like appearance.  He always pictured the vagina as a sheath, and used to masturbate with a condome on so as to get the illusion he was in a vagina.  In a dream a snake appeared in one part as a father‑symbol (penis), and in another he was putting high boots on to a lion's foot.  He was the lion, the foot was of course the penis, and the books gave the associations ‑‑ condome ‑‑ snake.  I see that it is not a pure case of female symbolism, and it could not have arisen had not the male symbolism been also there.

If I may say so, I am sure you did not make a mistake about the footnote on Putnam;«FN1.××See note 2 to letter 58.» he was extremely pleased with it.

I have finished my long «MDUL»Alltags«MDNM» paper, and am beginning the one for the «MDUL»Jahrbuch«MDNM», which I hope will not be too late.«FN1.××Jones (1911g) and (1912‑13).

»  I have been exceedingly active lately, perhaps due to my buoyancy at receiving so many marks of esteem in America; I am too susceptible to such things.

If you think of publishing the name‑forgetting anaylsis I sent you last week would you add the enclosed account of a little continuation, which happened only a few days ago.«FN1.××Jones (1912e).

»  I also enclose an interesting passage from Darwin, which might be worth putting in the Varia.«FN1.××See Jones's short note, "Darwin über das Vergessen," «MDUL»Zentralblatt«MDNM», 1(1913):614.

»

I have been reading again the «MDUL»Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens«MDNM», as usual with fresh profit, and should like to make the following little remarks.  You speak of unconscious suicidal attempts.«FN1.××See Freud (1901b, 178‑183).

»  I had one such case in London.  A young lady was passionately devoted to a sister who died.  Her mind was full of phantasies about rejoining her in heaven.  She had a horror of funerals, churches and anything to do with death, so much so that she couldn't even hear the sound of birds' singing, as it reminded her of church bells etc.  One day when cycling in London she turned a corner and saw a funeral emerging from a side street.  She at once fell under a dray‑waggon, and sustained a fracture of the skull.  After this she had a long hysterical delirium, with of course complete antero‑retrograde amnesia.  The bystanders attributed her fall from the bicycle to a sudden gust of wind, but the analysis clearly showed it was otherwise determined.

You remark (S. 13O) on the feeling of conviction of free will being much more marked with unimportant action.«FN1.××Freud (1901b, pp. 253‑254).

»  Cannot this be correlated with the way in which the unconscious seizes on unassociated indifferent material in dream making, etc.?

I have been greatly impressed with the striking frequency with which one word is replaced by its exact opposite in speech, writing, print, etc.  You give an example, S. 66. Nr. d..«FN1.××See eg. No. 5 in Freud (1901b, pp. 120‑121).

»  Maeder accidentally makes the same mistake, where the motive is evident («MDUL»Coenobium«MDNM». p. 112. line 3 of the second foot‑note, "impartiellement" for "partiellement". «FN1.××Alphonse Maeder, "Une voie nouvelle en psychologie; Freud et son école," «MDUL»Coenobium«MDNM», Gennaio, 1909, Anno. III, p. 112.

»  I think there are two similar slips in the «MDUL»Psycho­path«MDNM»., though I am not sure of the first one (1) S. 1O1. line 8 of the footnote, 'ungerecht' instead of 'gerecht'.  (2) S. 1O5. line 3. "unbeabsichtigter" instead of "beabsichtig­ter". «FN1.××Freud (1901b, pp. 181 n. 1, 191), «MDUL»G.W.«MDNM» 4:201 n. 1, 212.

»  Don't you think it would be worth while in the next edition to correlate this tendency with your remarks on "Gegen­sinn"? «FN1«MDNM».××The process whereby words are replaced by their opposites is partially discussed in Freud (1901b, pp. 59‑60).

»  Please forgive my presumption in making the suggestion to you.

It would be an interesting thing to collect, and analyse so far as possible, the misprints in the «MDUL»Zentral­blatt«MDNM».  An amusing perseveration occurs on S. 276, where they correct a mistake on S. 181 of "le subconscious" instead of "le subconscient".  The correction reads "soll es heissen le subconscious".«FN1.××The attempt at correction failed.  The editors made the same mistake by writing the English "subconscious" instead of the French "subconscient."  See «MDUL»Zentrlblatt«MDNM», 1:181, 276.

»

On S. 197, footnote, two mistakes occur, with a fairly obvious motivation.  They write "Das Freud'sche Ideogenitäts­«MDUL»monu­ment«MDNM» und seine Bedeutung im mani«MDUL»sch«MDNM»-depr. Irresein Kr«MDUL»u«MDNM»pelins";«FN1.××The letters "monument," "sch" of manisch‑ and the "u" of Krupelins are doubly underlined.  The error is made in «MDUL»Zentralblatt«MDNM», 1(1911):197, in reference to «MDUL»Das Freudsche Ideogenitätsmoment und seine Bedeutung im manisch‑depressiven Irresein Kraepelins«MDNM» (Leipzig: Vogel, 1907) by Otto Gross.

» it is not hard to guess which the author considers the greater man.  In my paper I have some charming examples of disparagement by means of name distortion.«FN1.××Jones (1911g).

»

With Kindest Regards  Yours always affectionately

«IP0,0»  Ernest Jones.