3 February 1921  London W1

«FL»«IP0,0»Dear Professor:

«IP4,0»Your letters of Jan. 24 and 28th telepathically answered the one of mine that never arrived,«FN1.××Letter missing.» for it began by expressing my regret that the excellent institution of the Rundbrief had the one drawback that it made your letters fewer.  My letter contained three other points, those relating to your Putnam preface, which Rank has settled satisfactorily, and a talk about Young and Mrs. Rickman.  I hope that Young may still return when he gets into further difficulties, and shall be glad to learn when he does.  I am of course very curious to hear which were your chief discoveries about him.  In my analysis I had always suspected some infantile urinary scene, but he steadily denied the possibility of it.  Some time afterwards, after his return from Russia, he resumed for a short while and one day quite calmly referred to an incident "which I think I told you of"; it was for being reprimanded by his mother for urinating on her in bed.  He was one of the most interesting cases, and also personalities, I have ever studied, and I should be grateful to hear something of your views.

«IP4,0»Mrs. Rickman is making progress, but «MDUL»he«MDNM» is evidently in need of more analysis and the marriage is only partly successful.  I find her a very valuable and thoroughly good person, whom one likes the better one knows her, though it is hard to imagine her being sexually attractive.  She is very good material.  Perhaps you know that she is four months pregnant now.

I am glad to hear that the cigars arrived safely and hope that you find them to your taste.  It was a risk, but worth while taking.

I am extremely grateful to you and to Anna for taking so much trouble over the translation of my book«FN1.××Jones (1920b).

» and wish it were better worth your time.  The arrangement of it should be altered in the next edition, and of course I should be very glad to any other suggestions; I remember one you made already, about the basis of the obsessional neurosis ‑‑ perhaps this can be inserted in the German edition.«FN1.××There were no changes made in the German edition of Jones (1920b).

»

I make good note of your remarks about my relation to Rank.  I am afraid it is inevitable that, working as we both do under great tension and pressure, our relative perspective of importance occasionally fails to coincide, but I think I give myself more self‑criticism than I do anything on his side.  In any case I am so sure of my feeling for him personally, and I think also his for me, that I cannot imagine any difficulties ever arising important enough to be referred to you.

Many thanks for the Hamlet references, which I will investigate and report on.  You know, of course, that Hamlet was played through the nineties in S's company, and the difficulty is to know whether he re‑wrote it from Kyd's play gradually or at once.  It is thought probable that he made at least some alterations before his final re‑writing.  I do not find that the passages you quote absolutely prove the date, for they may be written in the "historic present".  Every three months or so (literally) I get an evening to devote to my own work, which at present is the re‑writing of my Hamlet essay.«FN1.××For a revised version of Jones (1910a), see "A Psycho‑Analytic Study of Hamlet," in Jones (1923a, pp. 1‑98).»  The chief thing I have discovered from recent reading is that the changes I had supposed S. had made in the old plot were made before him by Kyd, who, however, did not feel the psychological significance of them.«FN1.××The theme of Thomas Kyd's «MDUL»Hamlet«MDNM», as having been written before Shakespeare's play, is dealt with more fully in Jones (1949, pp. 106‑107).

»  S. had a curiously «MDUL»nachkriechende«MDNM» mind!

I will naturally fall in with your wishes about Lissa & Kann and will remove my money there to another bank as soon as possible.  You will not, I hope, mind if this takes a couple of weeks, for I am in the middle of a transaction with them whereby they are buying shares of an oil company for me with fees paid in by a Dutch patient.  I have a similar interest in Holland as yourself, for one third of all money paid into my London bank is deducted by the Government to help pay for its adventures in Mesopotamia and elsewhere.

I am to see Daly on Saturday.  The Bieber analysis sounds more interesting and will be one reason more to look forward to the September meeting.  You have had your way about the Congress, for it is evident that it will not take place in 1921.  It would have been simpler if we had all agreed with you from the start, instead of taking months to see the wisdom of the idea.

I will bear in mind what you say about patients.  Unfortunately there seems a dearth here at present, whether from the great depression in trade that came on this winter or from the effects of the newspaper campaign I do not know.  But these things are very fluctuating and there may be agreeable surprises in store for us all.

Theodore Schroeder has just sent an article for the «MDUL»Journal«MDNM», but I am refusing it as it is purely sociological and doesn't mention analysis, or an analytical point of view.«FN1.××Theodore Schroeder, "Conservatisms, Liberalisms and Radicalisms," «MDUL»Psychoanalytic Quarterly«MDNM», 7(1920):376‑384.  See especially the explanatory footnote on p. 376, which contains a lengthy quote from Jones's letter of rejection to Schroeder.»

I lead a pretty harassed life, but get great and constant happiness from my wife and daughter, who are both very well and a source of boundless joy to me and to each other.  I have had exceptional fortune in my marriage.

With my kindest respects also to your family  yours always affectionately  Ernest Jones