London 3.

Oct. 19. 1920

Dear Friends:

1. I propose that we [gestrichen: shall] always begin by acknowledging the receipt of letters, which should be numbered: thus, received Berlin 2, Budapest 2, Vienna 2.
2. My chief news is of a business nature. The meeting of our society on last Friday, the 15th, was chiefly devoted to a statement of the position of our Press, with a discussion as to its future, especially from a financial point of view. Next week I will circulate copies of our financial ac- counts. The tone of the meeting was good, with certain exceptions, and the up-shot was that those present promised to subscribe £ 315 in the next few months (apart from myself). The greater part of it has already been paid, £ 9 more has been promised since, and there will be a further sum from those net present at the meeting, perhaps £ 50.2 We have not yet heard from Hirschfeld3, but I hope to sell him our stock of books this week for at least £ 150. We have paid all our debts except to the Verlag, and still have a considerable balance in hand, with also something owing to us. I gave Rank 300 dollars in August from Mrs. Putnam4 (donation), and the 1000 dollars that Brill sent to Munich should arrive some time. These are large sums, so our financial position is very good, now that we have reduced expenses by closing the shop. Our debt to the Verlag is about £ 230, which will now be paid at once. As the English valuta is rapidly falling because of the cessation of coal export due to the strike, I have thought it best not wait till we have a larger sum, and have sent off tonight £ 195, notifying also Kola in Vienna.

This Rank can change at whatever he thinks is the most favourable mo- ment. The duration of our coal strike is very uncertain; the opinion is that it will last either very short (10 days) or three months. In any case our valuta must go down further, though this may perhaps not apply to Aus- tria if the valuta there also sinks.

Two criticisms were made by our members. First, that they had no voice in the conduct of the Press, and secondly that London publishers would be glad to publish both the Journal and our books without our providing any capital (which is true). I laid great stress on the advantages of our having an independent international Verlag, whose objects were scienti- fic rather than commercial. It was therefore a shock to me to get the Vi- enna letter yesterday and hear, for the first time, that there is a proposal for another firm to buy and own our Verlag. If this is carried out I cannot answer for what our members may say; it may place me in an extremely awkward position. From the hint dropped to me by Rank last June I un- derstood that the relation to Kola was only for certain purposes in com- mon (e. g. buying paper, etc.), and had no idea that we were to sell our Verlag and to transfer our Managing Director to be an official of Kola’s. As the other members of the committee seem to be fully informed about the matter, I wrote last night to Rank and begged him to send me some news of the proposal ad its advantages, so that be need not burden his next Rundbrief with a familiar discussion. In principle I should he strongly against our losing our valuable independence, but I assume that there are counter reasons outweighing this. But one must be clear about the fate of the English money, for our members would probably ask for it back if they felt that they had subscribed to it on a false basis. Also how is the future relation of the Press to Kola contemplated? As we were still

»at war« when our Press was founded it had to be legally a purely Bri- tish firm, and its relation to the Verlag is based on private understanding only. Even now, for an Austrian firm to have a branch in London invol- ves very cumbrous restrictions, including their sending every year to our Government a full copy of all their book-keeping accounts (of the main firm, not only of the branch). I apologise for taking up the time of the members with these details, but they seem to me to be of great practical importance.

2. Forsyth5 has not attended any meetings for six months, and informed Hiller that he disapproved of the Press (? also the society) »because it was a one man’s show«.6
3. To Rank: I have officially informed our Treasurer, Stoddart7, that the price of our J. to members will be raised for the second volume from 18.- to 20.-8. Should this be altered on the next number of the J., or only on the second Jahrgang?

4. A. G. Tansley9, Professor of Botany a Cambridge University, who has just written a good book called The New Psychology10, read a paper on Oct. 13th on Freud’s Theory of Sex from a Biological Point of View, before the British Soc. for the Study of Sex Psychology.11 He regretted the Ablehnung of biology in the preface to the Drei Abhandlungen, and asked me the meaning of the passage, which I should be glad to hear 

   from Professor himself. T. was enthusiastically in favour of the theory, which he declared to be throughout essentially sound from a biological point of view and supported by much evidence from that science.

5. Note-paper and envelopes have been sent to all members today.
6. The plan of an international discussion might be useful if we could find a suitable theme, which is not easy. Ferenczi‘s proposal to continue the Congress symposium would not find any interest in London. Our members have asked to have a general discussion on »Battle dreams«, especially in the light of Prof’s paper at the congress on the repetition of traumata.12
7. I quite agree with Ferenczi‘s attitude of reserve against attacks, as it wastes time and affect, and does no good. If anyone should react it should be a junior member, and they usually feel more to do so than se- niors.
8. To Rank. I am very glad to hear that we can have Róheim‘s book13,
   but hope you will remind him of the suggestion I made to him at The Hague, that he should write a full introduction for these not familiar with psa and especially with Totem und Tabu. This is essential in a book that should find many readers outside our circle. I have not omitted the Itali- an literature, but only the polemical part, reducing the whole to about a quarter.
9. To Abraham. So far as I know, Dr. Spielrein‘s statement was quite invented by her, and has no foundation in fact.14 I am, like you all, most sceptical about the diploma question, and it will be only formally dealt with in our proposed circular.

10. To Eitingon. It is an excellent idea that you should try to come to terms with Brill personally. I must write to him this week and will let you know of any answer, as I hope Prof. will if he writes to him. I should like to know whether you intend to visit London first, which would be very agreeable.

    I wish to thank you very warmly, as all the other members, for their kind congratulations, and am glad to say that my wife and baby are progres- sing most excellently.
     

I fully echo Abraham‘s final remark about the value that one already sees in this regular communication, and do not doubt that we shall perfect the technique of it still further. At first I was in favour of a fortnightly letter, but am beginning to be converted on that point also.

With cordial greetings to all.

Ernest Jones

P.S. To Rank: I will do what I can with Eder about propaganda in Pa- lestine.15