Brief von Ernest Jones, 18. Februar 1924, London1

Dear Friends,

The delay in this letter has the advantage that I can at the same time acknowledge Professor's Rundbrief which arrived today. It was a happy idea of his to send it, and I feel sure that the profoundly wise words it contains will make their due impression to us all. He can, I believe, count on all of us to give an eager and sympathetic hearing to the new ideas, even though it may take time to assimilate them enough to be in an position to form our own opinions. This has been my own reaction on reading the two books.

But there were two other reflections, only one of which is mentioned by Professor. That one, of course, is the question of the ulterior tendencies of the work, particularly in the hands of either ambitious or reactionary readers. Time alone can reveal this. My other reflection concerned the matter of form. I found that many ideas which could have been better put forward as tentative suggestions were expressed in too dogmatic and even dictorial manner, with sweeping condemnation of every other possibility. There were many phrases so unwisely worded as to make an unfortunate effect on the audience. Such passages could easily have been softened, if they had been seen beforehand by any other member of the Committee. But this general question of co-operation is one that cannot well be discussed in a letter.

I agree with Róheim that there is a vast support for Rank's theory to be obtained from anthropological data. Reik's work, for instance, on »Puberty Rites« shows the inner connection between incest and birth. The theory accepted by the modern British School of Ethnology (Rivers, Elliot Smith, etc.)2, is almost entirely based on the re-birth phantasy. They have managed to formulate this very skilfully so as to avoid all reference to direct incest.

My paper tomorrow at the Royal Anthropological Institute largely consists of a criticism of their theory from this point of view.3