1O October 191O  4O7 Brunswick Avenue  Toronto

Dear Professor Freud,

«IP4,0»I suppose you are by now back in the midst of routine, and hard at work.  I sincerely hope that the benefit of your holiday will be an enduring one; the Mediterranean trip must have been most enjoyable.

I can hardly write about my visit to you without using superlatives that I know would be distateful.  Let me, however, simply but warmly thank you for your friendliness and for the patience with which you answered all my questions.  It was for me an inspiration never to be forgotten.

News here is partly good, and partly bad. We are definitely starting the branch association, and circulars are being sent out to a selected list, signed by Putnam, Hoch, Brill and myself.  Hoch has been very cordial in the matter.

Brill tells me his practice is not good just now, and mine is nil.  I haven't had a single patient for treatment in the six weeks since I got back, so have been forced to have recourse to patients from the Polyclinic. (One of them, a Zwangs­neu­ro­tiker, has just given me the following infantile theory.  Children were made by two large mysterious figures who moulded and shaped them by means of two fleshy limbs without hands; the material out of which the children were made was neither liquid nor solid, like putty; it dropped from the people «MDUL»into«MDNM» something! Till seven he thought women had a penis and imagined his sister's had been cut off.  I suppose he must have been reading your writings, for I had given him no suggestions!!  The orthodox world could have no other explanations.).  The Government has forbidden our Asylum Bulletin to appear any more, as some of the articles were "not fit for publication, even in medical circles" (my own, of course).«FN1.××Many of Jones's articles for this period listed in the bibliography of the present volume also appeared in the «MDUL»Bulletin of the Ontario Hospitals for the Insane«MDNM» (Toronto).  The episode in question was not serious enough to be reported in the «MDUL»Ontario Sessional Papers«MDNM» of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for 1910.  Moreover, there appears to be no significant break in the appearance of the «MDUL»Bulletin«MDNM», which continued its existence well on up to the beginning of World War I.»  That beats Germany, doesn't it?  There is altogether a great deal of prejudice against me in medical circles since especially the paper I read here last June on the neuroses.«FN1.××Jones (1910k).

»

Still most things have their bright side, and one result has been that I have been able to immerse myself in the nightmare work,«FN1.××Jones (1912j).

» which I intend to send to you before Christmas.  I have increased my material to a colossal extent, and can only use part of it.  The subject opens and broadens into such a number of side‑ways that it costs an effort to keep to the main track.  I have learnt a very great deal from the side paths, which are most interesting, and I hope to be able to follow some of them up later.  May I ask you for help in the way of suggestions on the following two points (1) the significance of the «MDUL»Hexensalbe«MDNM» [witch's ointment] which was said to be used as preparation for the «MDUL»Hexenfahrt«MDNM» [witch's journey].  I have read that it was a narcotic plant, but suspect it has a more symbolic meaning. (2) the myth that the Sun‑god (e.g. Heracles) became a «MDUL»wife«MDNM» woman after the turn of the year in June.  This could be read in Adler's sense that the decaying God must contemptuously be a woman,«FN1.××This theme is taken up again in Jones (1931b, pp. 284‑286).  Heracles (Hercules) is not generally known as a sun‑god, but is sometimes referred to as one of the lesser sun heroes.  Jung, for example, discusses Hercules this way in a lengthy footnote (Jung, 1911‑12; trans. Hinckle, 1916, pp. 315‑316, n. 36).  What is important, however, is the contrast between the strong man of ancient myth and Jones's representation of Her[acles's] transformation into a woman, reflecting his own preoccupation with this same phenomenon in his self‑analysis.» but there is certainly more behind it.  Children have no idea of impotence in the aged, have they?

I hope you will give me the opportunity to work up the Macbeth play sometime, though I am afraid I must postpone it for a couple of years in view of other plans.  I wonder if it is merely a coincidence that Beth was the name of the three German Norns who presided over childbirth, and whom Laistner traces to the jealous, childless woman?«FN1.××The three norns in Teutonic myth and folklore were demigoddesses, representing the past, present, and future, who presided over and determined the fate of man and of gods, see Ludwig Laistner, «MDUL»Das Rätsel der Sphinx«MDNM» (Berlin: W. Hertz, 1889).  Jones did not undertake the Macbeth project.

»  Perhaps Rank could look up the etymology.

I was extremely interested to read your article in the «MDUL»Jahrbuch«MDNM».  Abel could have strengthened one example if he had known English better.  Namely "to cleave" ‑‑ both spalten and kleben. "to cleave a rock (cleft = «MDUL»Kluft«MDNM»), and "Thou shalt cleave to thy wife".«FN1.××See Freud (1910e), where he deals with Karl Abel's «MDUL»Über den Gegensinn der Urworte«MDNM» (Leipzig, 1884).

»  I have noted already a number of other examples.  Would it be acceptable if I sent them to the «MDUL»Zentralblatt«MDNM»?  They would all be English, but we are beginning to find it difficult to keep to one language in |×A work on literary and mythological subjects, even to German.  I see that Ferdinand («MDUL»Sexual‑Mystik der Vergangenheit«MDNM», S. 1O3) deals with Abel's discovery, and, as you might expect, brings it into relation with the male and female principles. «FN1.××Maximillian Ferdinand [Sebaldt], «MDUL»Sexual‑Mystik der Vergangenheit«MDNM» (Leipzig: W. Friedrich, [undated], p. 103).

»

The Hamburg neurologists had a stormy "Ausleben seiner Komplexen [Komplexe]"«FN1.××"Outburst of his [their] complexes."» on the subject of |×A recently (See «MDUL»Neurol. Centralbl«MDNM». June, 191O).«FN1.××See «MDUL»Neurologisches Centralblatt«MDNM» (1910), pp. 659‑662.

»  More interesting in two respects was an article by Schauer in the «MDUL»Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie«MDNM» Heft 3 & 4. S. 411.  First because the subject, your views on «MDUL»Der Witz«MDNM», is one rarely dealt with, and secondly because he reached the very heights or depths of futility in his criticism.  What do you think of the following?  "Ein obszöner Witz, der in Herrengesellschaft belacht wird, verdankt seine Lustwirkung ganz sicher nicht der sexuellen Erregung.  Es würde eine geradezu krankhafte Steigerung der geschlechtlichen Erregbarkeit dazu gehören, wenn jede Anspielung auf sexuelle Dinge sogleich eine Erregung der Libido zur Folge hätte."  As to your remark that when a man tells a girl a «MDUL»Zote«MDNM» [dirty joke] the "Zuhörer durch die mühelose Befriedigung seiner eigenen Libido bestochen wird", we have the following unanswerable objection! "Das ist sicher falsch.  Dieser Dritte lacht nicht wegen der mühelose Erregung seiner Libido ‑‑ die Erregung der Libido [sexualis] hat überhaupt niemals lachen zur Folge ‑‑, sondern er lacht, weil er einer Neckerei beizuwohnen meint".  His love of accuracy is shown in the fact that he refers to you throughout as "Freund".«FN1.××O. Schauer, "Über das Wesen der Komik," «MDUL»Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie«MDNM», 18(1910):411‑427.  Quoted passages are from p. 422.  In English translation the three passages read: (1) "An obscene joke which arouses laughter among a group of men does certainly not owe its pleasurable effect to sexual stimulation.  It would amount to an almost pathological increase of sexual excitability if any hint at sexual matters would immediately lead to a stimulation of Libido." (2) "the listener is being seduced by the effortless gratification of his own Libido," (3) "That is certainly false.  This third person is not laughing because of the effortless stimulation of his own Libido ‑‑ stimulation of Libido never leads to laughter ‑‑ but he is laughing because he thinks he is witnessing some banter."

»Your interview with our friend Friedländer does not seem to have curbed his passion for notoriety.  In a violent diatribe against the |×A «MDUL»Jahrbuch«MDNM» (in the «MDUL»Zeit. f. Psychol«MDNM». Ht. 1 & 2) he complains bitterly of the way he is neglected, especially by you: "Ich darf wohl darauf rechnen, dass mir im Freudschen Lager geglaubt wird, ich selbst besässe keine Komplexe, nachdem einer der glühendsten Verehrer Freuds mich analysiert und komplexfrei befunden hat. Mein Referat über die Freudsche Lehre war monatelang vorher angekündigt worden, warum bemühte sich Freud, der sogar eine Reise nach Amerika nicht scheut[e], nicht nach Budapest, um mich dort zu widerlegen, warum "fertigt" er seine Gegner in einer Fussnote ab, warum u.s.w."«FN1.××[Anonymous review of «MDUL»Jahrbuch«MDNM», 1 (1909)], «MDUL»Zeitschrift für Psychologie«MDNM», 57 (1910):142‑147.  Quoted passages are from p. 143.  Trans.: "I am sure I can count on being believed in the Freudian camp when I say that I myself have no complexes, after one of Freud's most ardent admirers analyzed me and declared me to be free of complexes.  My «MDUL»Referat«MDNM» on Freud's teachings had been announced months in advance, why did Freud, who did not even shun a trip to America, not make the effort to come to Budapest in order to refute me there, why does he 'deal' with his opponents in a footnote, why etc."

»  He is getting quite pathetic, isn't he, but I hope he will be consistently ignored, and that his ravings unto Heaven will find no answer.  It looks very much as if he was personally attracted to «MDUL»you«MDNM», for in his other writings he praises the value of your work and deplores that it is spoilt by the fanatacism of your supporters, while now he cries you down and praises anyone (e.g. Binswanger) who dares to doubt anything of yours.

Prince tells me that F. has sent him an article which will make me feel hot all over.  I must get Putnam to resist the temptation of answering it.  I believe it is to appear in December, in the same number as my "Janet" article. «FN1.××Friedländer (1911); and Jones (1910‑11).

»

I saw Hart in London.  He is coming on slowly, but has a good deal of resistance re symbolism.  He has done some good work, though very elementary, on a case by means of hypnosis.  In time I think he will be all right.  He published a fairly good account of your Psychology recently (read before the Brit. Psych. Soc.),«FN1.××Hart (1910).

» from which however you will be sad to learn that you are a poet rather than a scientist.

Well, you will want me to bring my chit‑chat to an end, but I greatly enjoy writing to you.

With Kindest Regards  Yours ever sincerely  Ernest Jones.