THE PLAT,  
    ELSTED,  
    VIA PETERSFIELD.  
Nr Midhurst  
    Sussex                                           August 22nd 1922

Dear Friends:

   As we arranged, the circular letters appear irregular  
ly according to needs. The occasion of this one is the re  
ceipt of Congress programmes from Eitingon and Rank. I  
agree to both. In order to save time I left the detailed  
arrangement of the programme to Eitingon and Abraham, al-  
so because the former could get the Berlin list quicker th  
than I can (it has not been sent to Flügel or me yet). The  
only point I have to comment on is that, as I said before,  
I do not think we should leave Abraham out from the list  
of chairmen in any circumstances, and that I think Oberhol  
zer has far more claim than Frink, who has no official po  
sition at all in New York. I would advise that this quest  
ion of chairmen be left till the preliminary meeting on  
Sept. 24., to which Flügel is issuing formal invitations.  

Rank’s hammer has once more fallen, this time on  
London, and, as it seems to me, very unfairly. It is not  
true that Flügel left no representative to do his work. He  
is back in England now, but he left me and I have discharg  
ed his duties. There has been no neglect from his absence.  
Rank says that Eitingon did not receive the Vortragsanmeld-  
ungen from London „ordentlich“, whatever that may mean. We
 

sent in the complete list, I think alphabetically, and I do  
not see how we could send in „Anmeldungen“ we had not our-  
selves received, or invent them. The facts are simple enough.  
Although members had been asked to send in the title of  
their papers before July the 1st, knowing from experience  
how careless individuals are apt to be in such matters, Fl.  
sent a letter to each secretary asking him to be responsible  
for informing the Central of the papers coming from their  
group. Every secretary did this except Berlin and Vienna, so  
that we were able to send to Eit. in July a complete list  
with these two exceptions. Abraham tells me that the Berlin  
list was prepared before he left town, and I surmise that Eit.’s  
letter to London containing it was lost in the post.  
That did not matter, because as the programme is being prin-  
ted in Berlin they of course had their own list. The only  
group about which Eit. and I have had to write round during  
the holidays the correspondence that Rank complains of is  
just his own, the Vienna one. We have not received this from  
either Reik or Rank, and I gather from a private letter of  
Rank’s that it was never even prepared. So I find it parti-  
cularly out of place that he should complain of the organisa-  
tion in London. How did he think I was to obtain the Vienna  
„Anmeldungen“? Or did he think I had received them from Reik  
and not forwarded them to Eitingon?  

Today I receive a typed copy of a paper from one of  
the Indian members „to be read at the Congress“. I had heard  
of it before and had written that it would be too late and  
had written for the programme, also that papers could not be
 

read in absentis, but it seems to have crossed my letter. I  
should like advice, particularly from Abraham, about what to  
do with it. We have papers enough without it, and also good  
excuse for refusing it, but on the other hand it would doubt-  
less be an acceptable compliment to insert it into the pro-  
gramme and read it if we have enough time. Unfortunately it  
is not written in very intelligible English, though this could  
be gone through before the Congress.  

I hear from a Paris friend that the two Parisians who  
wish to come to the Congress are seriously interested in „Psa.“  
from the literary side (for Eitingon).  

I hope that Abraham has greatly benefited from his  
holiday, now over, and that the others will continue to en-  
joy theirs.  

yours always  

Ernest Jones