18 July 1927  81 Harley Street  London W1

Dear Professor,

I appreciate very highly your kindness in writing about difficult topics at the most precious part of your holiday ‑‑ the start.  The content of what you had to say was also most welcome.

About the Kinderanalyse I was relieved to see that the differences you had mentioned are of degree only, and not of principle, so that ‑‑ as you say ‑‑ we may safely leave them to experience.

Our difference about the Lay Analysis does not arise from one of aim, for we both want the best medical and lay material for our analysts, but of method in reaching this.  You find lay analysts need defending, while I think they are safe except in America (and there only temporarily).  On the other hand I believe that the plan of telling candidates they need not study medicine could only end in Ψα being lay, and separated from medicine altogether ‑‑ to the disadvantage of both.  My reasons for this are given in my essay in the Journal,^[1] which I should like to think you have read.

I spent yesterday in The Hague with Eitingon.  We were shocked to find van Emden in Hospital with a pyloric trouble that is in all probability carcinoma.  He has dismissed the possibility from his mind and refused operation for months.  We did something to influence him in this direction, and I hope he will now consent to it.  His wife knows.

I urged Eitingon to accept the Presidency at the Congress^[2] and hope you approve of this.  He is universally acceptable, whereas ‑‑ especially at present ‑‑ Ferenczi might not bring the harmony we need.  I hope we shall find a place for Anna in the Executive Council ‑‑ certainly if Ferenczi goes to Budapest, for then we must have a Viennese ‑‑, but I suggested that Ophuijsen as secretary and Anna as Treasurer would work better than the reverse.

I wonder if Federn has sent you the latest New York explosion.  I deplore their action just before the Congress discussion, and had sent Brill last week a strong letter urging compromise (that they should admit lay members, but in small numbers).^[3]

My children have just had Keuchhusten [whooping‑cough], which was certainly influenced beneficially by the analysis.  The psychical side of childrens' illnesses seems even more important than that of adults.

I look forward to seeing you the day after the Congress.

With all good wishes for the holiday benefit,  Yours always.  Ernest Jones

^[1]           Jones (1927c).

^[2]           10th Congress of the International Psychoanalytic Association, Innsbruck, 1‑3 September 1927.

^[3]           Earlier in the year the New York Society had drafted a set of resolutions on Lay Analysis, which essentially excluded non‑medical individuals from treating patients, allowing them , however, to seek "psychoanalytic instruction" to further their education.  The Society's official position was published as part of the "Discussion on Lay Analysis," Journal, 8(1927):283.  Their campaign against Lay Analysis was increasingly stepped up due to Brill's annoyance with Rank and Ferenczi, who both vigorously campaigned for the acceptance of Lay Analysis in the United States, and also due to the fact that a "new medical practice act ... in N. Y. is very definite on the subject.  You cannot possibly be associated with people who are not M. D...."  (Brill to Jones, 4 August 1927, Archives of The British Psycho‑Analytical Society, London).