Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
:
Login
Tip: To quickly return from a journal’s Table of Contents to the Table of Volumes…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

You can return with one click from a journal’s Table of Contents (TOC) to the Table of Volumes simply by clicking on “Volume n” at the top of the TOC (where n is the volume number).

For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Freud, S. (1925). Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, June 18, 1925. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi Volume 3, 1920-1933, 219-220.

Freud, S. (1925). Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, June 18, 1925. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi Volume 3, 1920-1933, 219-220

Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, June 18, 1925 Book Information Previous Up Next

Sigmund Freud

Vienna, June 18, 1925
IX., Berggasse 191

Dear friend!

It is no news to us that there is a strong movement in England against Jones, and we don't deceive ourselves about the fact that his attitude is far from flawless. But for that reason we must refrain from mixing in with his circle and being all too willing to become partisan against him. Jones is making ample use of the general human right to have flaws, but we know his value too well not to be indulgent toward them. I don't know how I should use my influence there. If I tried, it would probably only have the result of clouding our relations for a long time. In the case of Inman, I can't quite see what one can reproach Jones with. If the Association requires from him that he should introduce himself with a lecture, and in the process appeals to what has been practice for the last two years, then that seems to me to be a faultless procedure. For Inman's part, however, the questions about whether one will accept him after the lecture and whether one will reelect him next year are superfluous sensitivities. He must have the security that he has something or other to offer, he should consider himself protected by your recommendation; and, finally, every candidate for acceptance must risk something, he can't demand any eternally valid guarantees in advance. So the right way seems to me to be to get ahold of him, and not Jones.

If there are really so many persons in England who are only being kept away from the International Association through Jones's personality, then the best means of information would be for them to decide to form a second group. Of course, we ought not to advise that. They have to get to that themselves. It would surely be permitted them without difficulty by the Central Office, provided only that they resolved not to be in competition with the other group, but to work together with it, especially in consideration of the Press. But I repeat, the stimulus for that should not come from us.

Incidentally, I fear that if someone made such an offer to the malcontents, it would soon come to the fore that the resistances against Jones are in reality resistances against analysis, and the formation of the Society would cease. I think it is very difficult from a distance to mix into the relations of a country with such peculiar personal conditions as England. Let us leave the rest to natural development.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2019, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.