BRITISH PSYCHO‑ANALYTICAL SOCIETY

                              17 February 1925  London W1

Dear Professor,

Thank you very much for your kind letter.  Your explanation about the "«MDUL»Alptraum«MDNM»" was very interesting and it awakened a chord in my memory.  I recollect that the criticism you passed on the book to me at the time was that it was the sort of work which did not greatly interest you because it was too much a question of simply making translations from the unconscious. «FN1.××See paragraph 3 of letter 70.»  I remembering [«MDUL»sic«MDNM»] thinking at the time that, though the criticism was doubtless justified, it would have been more apposite if it had been confined to the first couple of chapters.  These, for certain reasons, had to be purely interpretative, but the main point of the book which came out later had, I hoped, contained work of a somewhat different kind.  My theme was to show that the Hexenepidemie [witch craze] which raged for two centuries achieved its intensity through the temporary fusion into one delusion of half a dozen different constituents which existed independently of one another before that time and after.  Analysis showed that each of these constituents was a presentation of the Oedipus conflict and I thus tried to deal, doubtless inadequately, with the historical reasons why they had fused in this extraordinary fashion for a given period.

I will obey your kind command to insert a couple of additional notes, but I find it most difficult to guess just what you yourself would like to say.  The only thing I can suggest is something as follows and I will ask you to be good enough to send me any criticisms.

Beginning of chapter, footnote: The author expressly desires two additions to be made to the English translation, which appear within square brackets.

«MDUL»Ges. Schr«MDNM». X. S. 423, fn. 2. [citing Ernest Jones: «MDUL»Der Alptraum in seiner Beziehung zu gewissen Formen des mittelalterlichen Aberglaubens«MDNM», 1912] (Reik does so on p. 139 of his book. E. J.)«FN1.××T. Reik, «MDUL»Der eigene und der fremde Gott; zur Psycho‑Analyse der religiösen Entwicklung«MDNM» (Vienna, Leipzig, and Zurich: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag, 1923).»

S. 425, addition at end of footnote: [as was done by Ernest Jones in the Chapter on «MDUL»Die Hexenepidemie«MDNM» in his "«MDUL»Der Alptraum in seiner Beziehung zu gewis~sen Formen des mittelalterlichen Aberglaubens«MDNM», 1912] «FN1.××The published versions of these recommended changes are similar, see Freud (1923d, p. 72, n. 1; p. 86, n. 1; p. 87, n. 1).

»

I was delighted to receive this morning your Selbstdarstellung and have already read with the highest interest the biographical introduction.  It will be of great value in regard to points which are often raised, and I was pleased to read the reference to Janet.«FN1.××See Freud (1925d, pp. 13, 19, 30‑31), where he explicitly dissociates himself from Janet.

»  I am glad you realise that, particularly after the publication of the Wittels book,«FN1.××Wittels (1924).

» that your mental development cannot be isolated from psycho‑analysis as a whole and that you have been willing to repeat the sacrifice of your own privacy already undertaken in the Traumdeutung.

Is there any hope of your attending the forthcoming Congress?

I am glad to say that our health here has been fully restored and I trust that the same satisfactory condition rules in your house.

                     Yours always,  [Ernest Jones]«FN1.××Not Jones's signature, but signed "Ernest Jones" and initialed by secretary.»