A Letter from Leo Stone

Leo Stone responded to my invitation to write his recollections of “the split” as follows:

There were indeed a few people older than I, who were members at the time of the “Horney Episode,” and may thus have more exact knowledge of what took place in an official sense. In truth, I cannot remember whether it occurred just before or just after my graduation.

The “episode” was, of course, momentous in my own situation at the time (also that of several contemporaries). My own contact was indirect but important. I had not studied with Dr. Horney (although I had met her in Chicago, when she was Associate Director of the Chicago Institute) (Alexander was Director). 1 had also read some of her important writings and had heard her in some talks and discussions. While I found her views interesting, and—in some references—valuable, my own conviction remained (then, as now) on the “classical” side. For many, the situation aroused conflicts of personal loyalties (transferences, if you wish). These included candidates involved with older analysts who resigned in sympathy with Horney.

As suggested before, I was not privy to administrative decisions at the time. Thus, like many others, my recollections (perhaps also diluted by time) are largely based on the hearsay of the time, and my own opinions, plus certain definite historical events. My statements must be judged accordingly. If I respond at all, it is because the subject does have historical—archival—importance, and because I believe that the other respondents whom you mention are largely of a different general orientation from my own. (If you would solicit the archival attention of the New York Institute, some factual data might conceivably become available.)

Be that as it may (exact date uncertain) it was said that Horney would no longer be privileged to teach at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute (presumably because of her deviant ideas). With this, came her resignation, and in sympathy, that of certain older analysts, and s