May 15, 1922.  
Dear Friends:  

Dr James Glover read a paper on suicide at our last meeting, in my opinion the best 
contribution that has been made at our Society and I wish to congratulate Abraham warmly  
on his pupil. It contained many original ideas, which I may relate when I have more time,  
and deserves to be published in the Journal. He has proved throughout a valuable member,  
and has only the weakness of being too much concerned with external propaganda in a not 
very dignified and professional way. Re your question, my dear Abraham, about the Berlin  
pupils I am glad to say that they have all been a success, especially Ed. Glover. Even  
Mrs Herford has behaved excellently since we admitted her to the Society.  

Dr Mitchell, one of our members, is the first medical President of the Society for  
Psychical Research; we heard his inaugural address this week, which was very successful.  

Professor’s memory seems to have been at fault when he said that the first time  
the word Psa was used was in the article in Loewenfeld’s book. In a paper dated 1896  
(Erste Folge, S.143,145,146) I find the word Psycho-analyse (not psychanalyse!) in  
French and shall look for other examples as I go through the Sammlungen translations.  

Our Glossary will be in final form next week, after much work; it should be of great  
use to translators.  

I am not greatly taken with the form of Ferenczi’s proposal to institute local sub-  
committees, the members of which are not to know about the existence of the Committee  
of which they are a branch. But I find the idea behind the proposal very important,  
which could profitably be discussed—namely, the question of arranging for the present  
 

leaders to be succeeded when their time comes to disappear. Even the security of tenure  
of the present leaders is a matter of some importance, as was shewn by the history in New Yo  
York. I mean lest they be displaced on reactionary grounds. This is probably different in  
the different groups, and I can only speak of the British one. Here one might fear some tend-  
ency to divorce feelings into a positive set destined for Professor and a negative one re-  
served for myself (e.g. Forsyth, Mrs Riviere, etc). If one has to be displaced on any ground  
one would naturally be concerned that one's successor be a loyalist.  

I should like to consult the Committee on the following delicate matter. The Americans  
are all extremely desirous that some indication be given in the Journal of whether the var-  
ious authors are medical or not, and also something of their position, a request which  
seems to me not unreasonable, for it adds to one's interest if one has some idea of the  
writer's status. As to precedent: in America and England it is customary to print only the  
author's name in a scientific journal, at most with the laboratory where the research was car-  
ried out; in medical journals, Lancet, etc, the writer's full degrees and the appointments  
he holds are always set forth in full. It is a question I naturally thought of at the begi-  
nning, and decided to put only the author's name, and the town of residence. There are  
two practical difficulties in the way of fulfilling the Americans' request. (1) While I  
know the status of the English writers (e.g. Flugel, Lecturer on Psychology, University  
of London), I often don't with American and Continental writers, so that much delay would  
be entailed in finding this information. (2) Even in the more modest question of indicating  
the degrees, medical or not, there is a technical difficulty, which deterred me before.  
The title Dr does not of course make a distinction between philosophy, philology, medicine  
etc. The letters M.D. could not serve, for the simple reason that in England only ten or  
twenty per cent (also of our members) of physicians have such letters. The majority poss-  
ess no university degree at all, but only qualifications granted by one of the 18 bodies  
authorised to grant one. So the Americans would be as much mystified as ever if they  
saw L.R.K.Q.C. (Licentiate of the Royal King's and Queen's College) and would be as  
little or as much impressed as if they saw F.G.S., Fellow of the Geographical Society.  
 

Even in England it is a considerable art sich auszukennen in such intricacies.  
Berlin. I enclose a copy of the missing letter of March 2. Its absence explains many ref-
erences in the Berlin letter which were otherwise unintelligible to me. It would be better 
to signal the failure of an expected letter. The posts to Berlin seem to be especially  
untrustworthy just now, for I see that you again ask for some circular from the Zentrale  
concerning the Congress. Flugel repeated to every Society on April 6 his letter of Novem-  
ber giving all information about the local arrangements, date of announcing papers, and notify-  
ing the alteration in date of the Congress. A couple of weeks later Eitingon wrote to me  
asking when this letter was going to be sent, so I got Flugel to repeat it once more to  
Eitingon specially, which he did, and yet the question is again asked in the Rundbrief of  
May 1. I checked Eitingon’s address with Flugel and found it correct. If nothing has yet  
been heard at Berlin I will beg Eitingon not to wait for the next Rundbrief, but to write  
direct.  

Many thanks, my dear Abraham, for the announcement of your interesting theme. The only  
other one I have yet received is from Varendonck.  

With regard to announcing the Congress in the Correspondenzblatt, the omission is a sig  
sign for the need of altered arrangements which have now been made. Till lately I edited  
the Reports in the J and Rank in the Z, and as the former were printed in Vienna I ass-  
umed they were available to him. The full announcement of the Congress details was not  
only sent to every Society Secretary separately last November, but also published in the  
Journal in the number that appeared before Christmas last year. In future, as you know,  
the editing of the Correspondenzblatt in both organs has been taken over by Flugel, with  
 

I hope more unitary results.  

Budapest. I was glad to hear that a number of your members will read papers at the Congress.  
None of them have yet been announced, however.  

Let me know if Vienna was not able to lend you the missing London letter, when I will  
send you another copy.  

I enclose two exceedingly interesting notes from Abraham, which please send on to Rank.  
Vienna. I will follow your suggestion and make a small selection of articles to abstract  
from Eros and Psyche, but it will be a small one, in order to spare my emotional life.  

I note, though with some regret, that Professor does not wish to reprint the  
Hypnose article. Traum und Telepathie has been well translated, and I have nearly finished  
the revision of it. You say in regard to the Reihenfolge der Artikeln der ersten Folge  
der Sammlungen, "so ist sie dieselbe wie im deutschen, nämlich chronologisch". Forgive  
me for contradicting you, but the list you sent me, the order of which I have faithfully  
followed, is not the same as in the German publication, nor is it chronological, nor third-  
ly is the German list chronological. Actually the order you sent is 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11,  
12, 13, 14, 3, 6, 9, 1 of the articles as published in the German edition. What I want to  
know is whether I am to adhere to this order, or to put them in the order of the German  
edition, or to put them chronologically, or to arrange them according to subject.  

So far I have received 12 translations out of the total 71, and have sent three, fully  
revised, to press. There are many others done, including Strachey’s, which I have not yet  
received, so that you will see a good start has been made.  

With kindest greetings to all,  

Ernest Jones