Dear Sir:

A propos of the review of the Spanish translation of FABRIZIO LUPO by one Carlo Coccioli. It is not very reassuring about Mr. Coccioli's general educational and cultural level to find him concluding that a book whose original title is "Fabrizio Lupo" was originally written in French!! Good God, didn't any of you people on the route from his typewriter to your printing press catch such an absurd mistake?

MR. G.

New York City

EDITOR'S NOTE:

Good God indeed!!

Mr. Coccioli is the AUTHOR, not the translator of the book in question. Translation was by Aurelio Garzon del Camino, and all circumstances were stated plainly in our review.

In the preface to the Spanish Edition, which is the only one available right now, Mr. Coccioli himself says that the original and first printing of FABRIZIO LUPO was in French, Our reviewer made no mention of the language in which the manuscript was written; but the name, Fabrizio Lupo, could be written the same in practically any Western language atleast in those under discussion.

Dear Editors of ONE:

D. S.

Regarding your Dec. 1956 issue: I don't know about Mr. "H" of Los Angeles, but I do not wish to be known as a capital "H" homosexual or a capital "L" lesbian. While I am not ashamed of being either of these sometimes-epithets a small "h" or "1" will do, thank you.

I do not consider my sexual activity or preference to be the most important single aspect of by being. I should think being a PERSON and a RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN would come first on any man's list of idealistic objectives.

In closing would suggest that I am suspicious of any who consider themselves capital-anythings except for the personal pronoun "I" or their personal names. All else is adjectival to that.

one

MISS S.

Los Angeles, Calif.

Dear Madame:

Recently the June, 1954 copy of your publication came into my hands, and I noted with interest that your magazine was tackling an issue, long overdue.

I suppose it goes without saying that the general public, still heavily weighted with ignorance and prejudice, is not yet prepared to enter into any really objective consideration of the so-called "problem" of homosexuality. I find, however, for my own sake as well as for those in my parish who require sympathetic and enlightened guidance, that I must face this issue squarely and honestly, recognizing a situation or condition that does exist and which cannot be happily ignored any longer.

From casual yet careful examination I find that there is a tendency for the "Gay" world to seek for an existence of its own. This, no doubt, has been the natural result of the development of a sense of persecution and must be sympathetically understood. But something tells me that this cannot be allowed to become an end in itself. I am hoping to find some basis upon which the homosexual can live a full and respected existence; indeed life, and the articles in your publication, lead me to believe that my hopes are by no means in isolation, but on the contrary are dreams shared by many others.

Dear Friends:

REV. A. Ontario, Canada

The name of Prince Eulenburg was spelled wrong in your last two issues (for 1956). Hirschfeld quotes an author on homosexual themes "EulenbErg", but the friend of the Kaiser is "Eulenburg."

MR. H. Washington, D. C.

EDITOR'S NOTE:

The reader is entirely correct.

Lyn Pedersen

22