Feb. 21st, 1921
L.6/ Be.5 (not numbered), Bu.5 (Not numbered), W.5 (wrongly numbered). !!

Dear Friends:
What has gone wrong with the numbering, or are we to omit them now
that we have regular dates? I think it would be an advantage to retain it,
if only for simplicity’s sake.

The chief news here since my last letter is the fiasco I regret to have
to announce in the evening arranged at the Lyceum Club. They had definitely 
promised me that no guests should be invited except with my approval, es-
pecially various outsider pseudo-analysts, and that there should be no deb-
ate. Actually they invited a number of objectionable people, who had the
posts of honour to the detriment of many of our members. Barbara Low, Flüg-
el, and I spoke – I believe all well, with a good impression – after
dinner, and then the hostess, who throughout had behaved very discourteously
announced that this was a controversial subject, that we should all move
from the dining-room to another room, where the debate would be opened by
William Brown. There were nine members of our Society there and we all left
the Club at this point, with the exception of Flügel, who with his usual
cowardice could not bring himself to behave „impolitely“. I sent in a for-
mal protest to the Club Committee afterwards, and the matter is still in
discussion.

W. Brown is a youngish man, Professor of Psychology at one of the two

main divisions of the London University, is also a doctor who treated war
cases in France and maintains that he has practised Ps-A for eight years.
My review of his recent book on Psychology and Psychotherapy has been sent
to press for the J. He stands exactly in the Breuer position. Recently he
proposed to me that I should analyse him, saying it would not take long as
he had no resistances at all! (He denies the sexual aetiology). I discussed
the matter, but of course refused when he said he could only come ten times!
Incidentally he made a pretty betrayal. He told me he had consulted Prof.
McDougall about the advisability of coming to me, and the latter had express-
ed the opinion that I would not take him. I asked why, whereupon he said „I
suppose he thought you would be afraid that I was only coming as a spy“,
there being no external reason whatever to impute this idea to McDougall!

I am being asked so often for a photograph of Professor, both for private
and for public purposes, that I would beg Professor to sacrifice his priv-
acy still further, to regard himself as a public man, and to allow the Press
to put his photographs on sale.

I enclose two harmless cuttings from Punch, which I should like to have
back after they have been circulated.

Berlin. Shand has been sent to Sachs. I wrote a private letter to Sachs on
the subject of his lecturing in England and asked him to discuss the matter 
with Abraham. Best thanks for the translation of the Mordell review. We are
hoping to see Eitingon this week in London.

Budapest. We should be curious to hear more of Steinach’s patient. In what
way is tying a Samenstrang (? vas deferens) supposed to benefit impotence?
I must confess my ignorance of the theory.

Wien. I have not received the separate letter from Rank about Winterstein 
of which he speaks in his Rundbrief. Flügel did not send the Reik Rund-
brief to Vienna, as he thought they were already informed of the news,
but I have now asked him to do so.

Unwin sent me three copies of the Tagebuch, two of which I sent to Vie-
nna. I have asked Hiller whether more were agreed to, as he has all docum-
ents.

Is it known who Harris is? Five thousand dollars in Philadelphia today
would keep a single man moderately well, but not too well. I do not know
any suitable person for the position, but will ask our Society next time.

I wondered very much who the mysterious Volckmar is, of whom Abraham 
wrote, and gather from Rank’s Rundbrief that he is a publisher. This sort
of affair brings me to the idea that it would be more convenient to coll-
ect the Association subscriptions of the three Central countries, con-
vert them into Marks, and ask Sachs to store them until the time of the
Congress. It is nonsense sending them to England. What are the opinions on
this suggestion?

If Brill answers I assume that I shall get immediate news of it, as it
is a matter with wide bearings.

I also am not so pessimistic about Munich. Marcinowski is the weak-
est of the three, but the other two have some positive value. The pity is
that there is not one man who could lead matters safely. The rest then
would follow.

I congratulate the Verlag on securing Storfer, whom I know personally.
We must all agree with the wise words from Vienna à propos Hesnard. Exper-
ientia docet!

Ernest Jones