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.
Many of today's readers of Ferenczi respond to him with the same quick affection as Freud did back in 1908, when the two of them first got to
know each other. There is something about Ferenczi's character—his spontaneity, the immediacy of his style, his openness—that wins people over. He was Freud's “Grand Vizier,” his right-hand man for many years, in personal matters and in the organizational affairs of the psychoanalytic movement. In Hungary, Ferenczi was not only the prime force for introducing psychoanalysis to the public—with his writings, translations, public lectures, and analyses—but he also remained a vital participant in the life of the intellectual and artistic community of Budapest during the early decades of the twentieth century. At the same time, Ferenczi carried the moniker l'enfant terrible of psychoanalysis, as well as being its “wise child.” Given that he was often the analyst for the most difficult cases, Ferenczi was confronted with challenging technical matters and their theoretical ramifications. He was considered especially intuitive and insightful, but occasionally given to extremes. Specifically, Ferenczi's therapeutic zeal, his furor sanandi, which had brought him both admirers among his patients and the criticism of colleagues who mistrusted its dangers, considering such zeal unrealistic.
As happens with many creative individuals, Ferenczi continues to be seen by some as a childish, unrealistic dreamer who ultimately became a madman (Jones's famous allegation): he was original but not to be taken seriously, especially in his work after 1930. Those holding this view think Ferenczi, with his radical experimentation—his “relaxation technique” and “mutual analysis”—may have caused more harm than good to the psychoanalytic movement. In light of this assessment, Ferenczi may have been shunned by the psychoanalytic establishment in a gesture of self-protection.
Yet a reevaluation has been under way, to which Judit Mészáros has made notable con