Feb. 21. 1922.
Dear Friends:

At our last meeting a clergyman from Ipswich as guest related an attempt to invent
by free association meaningless words that could be used as technical terms for such
concepts as unconscious, preconscious, etc, in the psa sense. He gave a very clever
and full analysis of his procedure, and I shall examine his MS with a view to publish-
ing it in the J. Otherwise nothing new of special interest. All letters received.

Abraham’s success with his lecture on the Abfallsbewegungen before the Americans
does not at all surprise me and hints at the solution of a problem that has been on
my conscience for some time. Please realise that, partly because of the war, no crit-
icism of Jung and Adler have ever appeared in English, i.e. no detailed and concrete
criticism of point by point such as has appeared on several occasions in the Z, etc.
The result is that the matter is largely looked upon as being an affair of prejudice
of a more or less personal kind. Hardly anyone here or in America is in a position
to remedy this and yet it must be remedied. The few better men are new and would not
think it worthwhile to go through the old writings and orient themselves thoroughly
in the history. For me it is out of the question, partly because of time and partly
from Unlust. Now could Abraham make the sacrifice of writing up his lecture fully
and publish it in the Journal? No one could do it better and there are few things
that would be more useful to the movement over here. As the matter has already waited
so long no doubt it can wait a little longer, but I beg Abraham to give it his serious
consideration.

To save time I wrote to Professor, Abraham and Ferenczi about the question of
 

accepting (till the next Congress, of course) the newly constituted Indian group,
with the constitution of which I am fully satisfied.

As to the Congress. You were not right, my dear Abraham, in saying that the date
was chosen in London or that it was inserted in the J. without previous agreement.
The matter was fully discussed in the Harz and I was instructed to get Flügel to
send an official notice of the date, etc., to every Society secretary, which he did
in the middle of October already. We were both very surprised to hear from Vienna that
the date had been altered to the 27th, and it is doubtful if Flügel could attend so
late, for he has to receive the students at the opening of the University at the
end of October. If a later date than the 22nd is to be chosen, then we would cert-
ainly vote for Abraham’s proposal of the 25th rather than the 27th. In that event
naturally fresh announcements must be made by Flügel as soon as possible to all the
groups. As we hope to have people from America, India and Peru we must of course
decide at once.

On the other points. I quite agree with having no discussion theme, and need not
give reasons since this seems to be generally agreed. I think the decision about
a stenographic report should be left to Rank, whom it mostly concerns. It would be
costly and of course inaccurate, but might have the psychological effect of bringing
in the articles sooner, for a man will correct a paper in front of him when he will
not make the effort of starting to write afresh. At this point I telephoned to Flü-
gel (to ask about finance) and he is not in favour of a stenographer.

F. will let me have an exact balance sheet as soon as possible, but he is sure
that the Zentralkasse could supply at least ten pounds. We think it would be reason-
able to charge Eintrittsgeld provided that this would be voluntary, but that it
would be impossible to do it this year until the Congress had altered its rules.
It would be unconstitutional to refuse admission to a member who did not pay, for he
has the right to attend the Congress for the subscription he has already paid the
Association; this stands in the Statutes.
 

I am not enthusiastic about further lectures in public after the strain of the Con-
gress, but of course will join in if the others wish it. It seems to me that the time
would be more profitably spent by the Committee spending a couple of days, say in
Potsdam (better after than before the Congress, for one meeting before the Congress
ought to suffice).

Budapest. I have written to Badger as requested.

Vienna. As I have written also privately, there seems to have been a misunderstand-
ing about the Library list Hiller took to Vienna, certainly due to my not sending a
sufficient explanation. The list, namely, was not intended as a volitional programme
but as a prediction of what would probably happen so far as we could see after con-
sidering all the data at our disposal. Six books have already appeared or are in the
printers, and Professor’s book was placed eleventh simply because we thought it
likely that we could print four other books (among our three printers), which are
half or nearly ready, before his book would be ready. I gladly agree with Rank’s
suggestion to place it “viel weiter nach vorn” if that would make it appear more
quickly, but the date of appearance will depend on the work, not on the number given
it. Further, the old law (about which I recently heard from Unwin and immediately
reported in the Rundbrief) that in no country does the copyright for translation
extend more than ten years unless it is used within that time does not affect the
Kleine Schriften, for the last two fall within this period and the most wanted
articles of the first two have already been translated by Brill in the later editions
of the Selected Papers.

Trotter’s book has been sent off to Vienna and should soon arrive; there was a 
delay at the publishers. I have communicated to Unwin Professor’s opinion on the
McCann affair. I have written to Watkins, my dear Otto, for the two books and they
will be forwarded to you on arrival. Thank you for the address of Baudouin’s publishe[r].

With cordial greetings to all

Ernest Jones