Jan. 11, 1921.
Dear Friends:
Let us agree with Abraham’s proposal for the 1st, 11th, and 21st, and let
today’s letter count as Nr 2.

Budapest: Nov. 1919 of the Proceedings of the S.P.R. contains a long contribu-
tion by Hubert Wales on telepathy. If you haven’t this number I can send it
to you. I am much in favour of your reviewing Groddeck’s book; this is very
necessary and you are the one to do it.
Berlin: Best thanks for the clear expression of opinion about Dr Herford,
which will be very valuable. I expect we shall act in your sense. Till now,
however, I have not heard from her.

You seem to have misunderstood my question about the date of the Congress,
when you write »als einladende Gruppe können wir den Aufschub nicht gut zuerst
beschliessen«. My question was not an official one addressed to the group, but
a private expression of opinion of whether there are special considerations
which we others might not have in mind that would make the holding of the Con-
gress this year specially desirable. The counter-grounds we all know.

Wien: My wife will write the review of Kolnai. What do you think of the idea
of selling the translation rights of Kolnai? We cannot publish everything our-
selves, but only selected books, and there is nothing against sending the
others to other publishers, especially when we can gain a little money by it.

The report of the British Society has already been sent to Hiller, so
that you can have it to translate for the Z. I wish that all groups were as
punctual.

One defect in the Z and the recent Verlag books is much commented on here,
namely, the fact that they fall to pieces when they are cut open. Is it im-
possible to arrange for a little stronger binding? You were so successful
with the J.

Would Professor be so good as to write an editorial footnote for Berkeley-
Hill’s article in the sense of his suggestions?
London: I wrote on Jan. 4th to Holland and Switzerland asking for express-
ion of opinion as to the date of the Congress, and would suggest that you
do the same for your three groups, as I shall do at our meeting on the 13th.
Of course I agree with Ferenczi that the final decision lies with our Com-
mittee. Flügel is in favour of 1922.

As to the date of the Committee meeting, that must of course be decided by
Professor, and we will all come where and when he says. He seems to exclude
the beginning of September (as well as the Spring). Does that mean that he
prefers the end of September, or sometime in August? We need a full week.

The campaign in London extends still more and every day the newspapers
have several columns on Psa. This afternoon we reached the record of having
a street placard entitled Psa., for the sale of the Pall Mall Gazette! The
Daily Graphic have appointed a special commission of lawyers and doctors to
investigate the matter and they publish daily reports. The animus is chiefly
directed against the lay analyst; charlatans, quacks, and spiritualists
being the commonest epithets. Occasionally a distinction is drawn between

quacks and "genuine analysts", but more often not. I got Flügel and Barbara
Low to grant interviews, which may do some good, but at our meeting this week
the whole question of reaction will be discussed.

The Brill question is becoming again rather acute. Till the end of Vol. I
of the J. we have enough Sammelreferate, but if before then we must arrange
a staff of regular abstractors for current literature, including of course
America. Without Brill we can hardly do this, nor select the American editors
as arranged at the Congress, nor get news of the movement there. On Nov. 14th
I wrote to him a long diplomatic letter, pointing out that he was our only
avenue of approach to a whole Continent, and begging him to open this. The
letter I sent to Professor, who, I think, approved of it; he had himself
written to Brill some time before in a similar sense. Now, although there has
been ample time, I have had no response (even to urgent questions such as
list of members, subscriptions, etc), and I suppose Vienna has heard nothing
also, else we should have known of it. I hesitate to write to Stern, who has
now returned, for fear of further offending Brill, but the question is what
is to be done? I should welcome comments and suggestions from everyone, esp-
ecially of course from Professor. Would he contemplate sending him an ultimat-
um himself, or dealing with him in some other way?

I had a long and touching letter from Strömme of Christiana, who seems
to have a lonely and difficult fight, with great financial strain. He rightly

says that Bjerre is no Freudian, but thinks that Geijerstam of Goteborg,
Sweden, his best friend, is. He was a pupil of Pfister’s, which will settle
him in Sachs’s eyes! He seems to be an honest fellow, but with vague ideas
z.B. "Ich rechne mich für Freudianer, obschon Freud selbst es kaum tut! Alles
was F. geschrieben hat, schreibe ich unter (sic!), wenn das Wort Sexualität
mit Arbeitslust umgeschrieben wird". This is what Bousfield would call a
slight modification of Freud (see my review of his pretentious book)!

Miss Hubback has made a good translation of the Jenseits, but I have not 
yet had time to correct it. Flügel’s correction of the Bernays version of the
Vorlesungen, on the other hand, is poorly done, but must be done again; so
far, he has sent only the first four chapters. These are being gone through
again by Mrs Rivière and then by myself. The first chapter is nearly ready
for press, which is high time, for Unwin is raging!

With cordial wishes to all

yours

Ernest Jones