You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
During a Fortnight in January, 1907, Eitington “passed three or four evenings with Freud and they were spent on personal analytic work during long walks in the city. Such was the first training analysis!”1 In 1912 Freud recommended that “anyone who wishes to practice analysis of others should first submit to be analyzed himself by a competent person.”2 Nunberg's private remark, made at the Budapest Congress in 1919, “that no one should henceforth be allowed to analyze who himself has not been analyzed previously,”3 in time was formalized.
In 1923, Hanns Sachs became the first training analyst and Franz Alexander the first student at the Berlin Institute, founded in 1920. The International Training Commission recommended training analysis in 1925. Dr. Adolph Stern, in 1919, was the first American to go to Vienna for a didactic analysis. In New York, three years later, the first didactic analysis was begun. In 1929 “didactic analysis, over a regulated period by an officially recognized senior”3 became a prerequisite for admission to the New York Psychoanalytic Society. In 1938, the American Psychoanalytic Association formulated “Minimal Standards for the Training of Physicians in Psychoanalysis,” a second and third edition of which appeared in 1950 and 1956. The American, in its last ruling (), merely “indicates that at least 300 hours of analysis, and usually more, are required”4 in training analysis.
In Psychoanalytic Education in the United States (), Lewin and Ross reported the difficulties in arriving at a figure regarding the length of training analysis because of “1) hours of therapeutic analysis before admission; 2) hours of training analysis while a student; and 3) hours in analysis and after the official training analysis.” They concluded: “We could use 700 hours as the probable average … The intuitive impression that training analyses were becoming longer appeared to be justified.”4
Developments in ego psychology, difficulties encountered in the newer “charact