25 February 1926  81 Harley Street  London

Dear Professor,

It was very delightful, and gave me great pleasure, to gather from your semi‑humoristic Rundbrief that you are in good spirits.  It was like a ray of sunshine, which in these last years has not been too frequent ‑‑ thus all the more welcome.

You are doubtless right, as usual, when you say that I am too much oppressed by the telepathy matter, for in time we shall overcome the resistance it evokes just as we do all others.  But you are lucky to live in a country where "Christian Science", all forms of "psych. research", mingled with hocus‑pocus and palmistry do not prevail as they do here to heighten opposition to all psychology.  Two books were written here trying to discredit ψα on this ground alone.  You also forget sometimes in «MDNM»what a special position you are personally.  When so many things pass under the name of ψα, our great answer to inquirers is "ψα is Freud", so now the statement that ψα leads logically to telepathy etc is more difficult to meet.  In your private political opinions you might be a Bolshevist, but you would not help the spread of ψα to announce it.  So when "Ru[ü]cksichten der äusseren Politik" [considerations of external policy] kept you silent before, I do not know how the situation should have changed in this respect.  Your first communication on the subject in Imago seemed to me to cover the ground adequately,^[1] to defend the Traumtheorie from being altered even if telepathy were proved, so the second one seemed to me only irrelevant and harmful.^[2]  At all events it gave me a new and unexpected experience in life, that of reading a paper of yours without a thrill of pleasure and agreement.^[3]

Incidentally, the consolation you offered me was no news, for it was I who got you made an Honorary Member of the British Psychological Society, and you may be sure it was not done as a reward for your telepathy paper which had not then appeared.  Other members of the Council had offered opposition on two previous occasions, but I kept insisting till they felt ashamed of their attitude.

You may be sure I am writing Abraham's biography^[4] with the greatest care, but before it is published I should be grateful if you would read it through, for it raises in places delicate questions of taste or judgement where your opinion would be decisive.  The bibliography Rado sent me proved of little value, as it was full of inaccuracies and omissions, so I have spent a fortnight getting it into proper form.

I have been indisposed for a fortnight with painful rectal trouble and was four days in bed, but today it shows good signs of mending again.  Yesterday I saw Money‑Kyrle on his way to you and thought the auspices looked favourable for a final result.  What became of Dr. Power, the American lady?

I am greatly looking forward to May.  My wife will also seize the opportunity to visit her family in Vienna, and on account of these arrangements as well as several others it would be a great convenience if you could indicate to me which days and how many you will make use of for the Committee gathering, etc.  Shall you be in Vienna or Semmering at the time?

With kindest regards  Yours always affectionately  Ernest Jones

^[1]    Freud (1922a).

^[2]    "The Occult Significance of Dreams," in Freud (1925i, pp. 135‑138).

^[3]    This episode and Freud's position on telepathy is dealt with more fully in Jones (1957a, pp. 394‑396; 1957b, pp. 422‑424).

^[4]    Jones (1926a).