15 December 1914  69 Portland Court  London W

Dear Professor:

«IP4,0»I was glad to hear from Van Emden that my letter to you got through, and am patiently hoping for an answer if it is possible.  Since then there is not much fresh news.  I have had a long and characteristic letter from Putnam, who seems to be as active as ever in lecturing, writing, etc.  He is of course particularly horrified about the war, and his sympathies are strongly on the side of the Allies (i.e. Entente).«FN1.××Probably Putnam to Jones, 1 November 1914, see Hale (1971a, pp. 283‑286).»  Brill, on the contrary, favours the land of his birth, which I suppose is natural.  Loe and Herbert were here to tea yesterday.  She is very well, and they expect to be in their new home (about ten minutes away from here) at the end of January.  My operation is at the end of this week.  Work is going forwards with writing, society meetings, etc.; last week I read the report of a case of ereutophobia«FN1.××In Jones (1911c) a distinction is noted between ereutophobia, the fear of blushing, and erythrophobia, a phobia of red, see Jones, «MDUL»Papers«MDNM», 2nd ed., p. 226.» at a private Psychiatric Club.  In January my analysis hours go up from eight to ten or eleven daily, which will be an interesting experience for me.  By choice I should never like to do more than seven, but in these uncertain times, when fees are also lower, one must take what comes.  I intend to have a good holiday in April after a hard winter's work.

There seems to be a little confusion about the matter of the translation of your Geschichte essay.  This is the state of affairs.  When it appeared I was writing to Jelliffe and told him that you had written an article which would, I hope, neutralise the effects of Jung's articles in his (Jelliffe's) «MDUL»Review«MDNM», and I suggested to him that he ask Brill if the translation could not appear in the same journal as Jung's, so as to reach the same audience.  I also wrote to Brill with the same suggestion.  Brill says that Jelliffe told him I had offered to translate the essay, which of course is not true.  Then Jelliffe asked Payne to translate it, he being on the staff of the «MDUL»Review«MDNM» and having done much work for Jelliffe, with whom he is friendly.  Payne wrote to you, and apparently got the answer that he was to communicate with Brill and that the essay was to appear in Prince's Journal, not in Jelliffe's.  When I wrote to you on the point I suggested that you allow Brill to decide whether the «MDUL»Review«MDNM» or the Journal«MDUL»«MDNM» was best‑suited, as he would know the local situation best.  I have never heard from Jelliffe on the matter at all.  In Payne's last better [letter] he quotes a remark of your's, that you had heard that I had offered the translation to Jelliffe, which you rightly called an unbelievable rumour; I wonder where you heard it from.  Brill's jealousy seems to resent my having mentioned the subject to anyone, and perhaps it would have been more cautious of me if I had said nothing, but I was only prompted by the feeling of satisfction to think that your essay would soon be available in English to influence the lukewarm Americans.  There was of course not the slightest idea of interfering with Brill's prerogatives.  I have done my best to put the matter right with him, but he is what we call "touchy".«FN1.××Concerning Freud (1914d) and Brill (1916b), see also Jones (1955a, pp. 175‑176; 1955b, p. 197).

»

Since writing this I have heard from Martin that your brother in Manchester had suddenly died.«FN1.××Freud's half‑brother Emanuel Freud (1883‑1914), son of Jakob Freud and his first wife Sally Kanner. »  Please accept my deep condolence.  I hope it will not be a too severe shock to you, although I know that you had intimate feelings connected with him.

I cordially hope you will have as pleasant a Christmastime as is possible under all these sad circumstances, and that the New Year may bring brighter days.  I had thought last Christmas that I should surely be with you again in Vienna this year, but the capacity of human prediction as to human affairs has at present very definite limitations.  It is a consolation, however, to think that in time our work must reduce these limitations, perhaps very greatly.  If there is ever to be any salvation of the world from these nightmares it will surely be psycho‑analysis that will point the way. That is why I feel that if the future of psycho‑analysis had to be weighed with the future of my own country I should side with the former.

With warmest greetings and good wishes to your family,  our friends,  and most of all to yourself  from yours always affectionately  Ernest Jones.