"Il n'y a pas de maladies, il n'y a que des malades," said a French doctor whose name escapes me. But _on broad lines_, what course, from a technical point of view, does analysis take, and what deviations occur most frequently? That I would gladly learn from you. I take for granted that all "augurs' tricks," darkened rooms, masquerading, chloroform, are out of the question. Psychoanalysis--purged so far as is humanly possible from suggestive influence--appears to have an essential difference from Dubois' psychotherapy. With Dubois, from the beginning conversation about the past is forbidden, and "the moral reasons for recovery" placed in the forefront; whilst psychoanalysis uses the subconscious material from the patient's past as well as present, for present self-understanding. Another difference lies in the conception of morality: morals are above all "_relative_." But what essential forms shall they assume at those moments when one can hardly avoid suggestion? You will say, the occasion must decide. Agreed, as regards older people, or adults, who have to live in an unenlightened _milieu_. But if one is dealing with children, the seed of the future, is it not a sacred duty to enlighten them as to the shaky foundations of the so-called "moral" conceptions of the past, which have only a dogmatic basis; is it not a duty to educate them into full freedom by courageously unveiling Truth? I ask this not so much with regard to the analysing doctor as to the teacher. May not the creation of _free schools_ be looked for as one task for the psychoanalyst? VI. _From Dr. Jung._ 11th February, 1913. The idea of the relativity of "Truth" has been current for ages, but whether true or not, it does not stand in the way of anything save the beliefs of dogma and authority.