She was quite positive in her assurance that she did not perceive the symptom before, that it was not caused by the scenes previously related. Was there anything else to be assumed except that the scene experienced yesterday had in the first place awakened the recollection of a former similar content and that then the formation of a memory symbol for the whole group of recollections took place? The conversion was on the one hand furnished with newly experienced affects, on the other with recollected affects. When we consider this state of affairs we must admit that in the origin of hysterical symptoms such a process is the rule rather than the exception. Whenever I seek for the determinants of such states I frequently find not a single but a group of similar traumatic motives. In some cases it could be ascertained that this particular symptom had already existed for a short time after the first trauma and then subsided, but reappeared after the next trauma and become fixed. Yet no real distinction can be made between the temporary appearance and the latency after the first motives. In a large majority of cases it was also found that the first traumas had left no symptoms, while a later trauma of the same kind produced a symptom for the origin of which the cooperation of the former motives could not be dispensed with and for the solution of which it really required a consideration of all the motives. Translating this into the language of the conversion theory we will say that this undeniable fact of the summation of the traumas and the erstwhile latency of the symptoms simply means that the conversion can be brought about from a fresh as well as from a remembered affect, and this assumption fully explains the contradiction which seems to exist in the history and analysis of Miss Elisabeth v. R. There is no question that normal persons carry in their consciousness in considerable numbers the continuation of ideas with unadjusted affects. The theory which I just asserted merely approximates the behavior of hysteria to the normal. It is apparently reduced to a quantitative moment; it is simply a question of how many such affective strains an organization can endure. Even a hysterical person will be able to retain a certain amount in an unadjusted state, but if through a summation of similar motives it increases beyond the individual’s endurance, the impetus for conversion is formed. It is therefore no singular theory but almost a postulate to say that the formation of hysterical symptoms may also be brought about at the cost of recollected affects.