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.
To the Editor:
WHEN YOU WERE KIND ENOUGH to send me the manuscript of a forthcoming article by Professor Roazen (Vol. 13, I, of your journal) that I might comment for publication, I glanced through the article and found no reason to fill your pages with refutations, as I had done elsewhere on two occasions.
However, on reading Professor Roazen's article in print, I saw that I must apologize for certain errors, aside from two or three inconsequential mistakes.
1I claimed that Professor Roazen had made use of unpublished parts of the Minutes of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society. Professor Roazen's article makes it clear that this was an erroneous conclusion.
2Professor Roazen rightly says that I should have stated the basis for my claim that Franz Alexander had not read my paper of 1950. Dr. Alexander told me this on May 16, 1953, in the first of four interviews he granted me.
3When Professor Roazen did not answer my letter mentioned by him regarding the selection of a panel, I drew the conclusion that he "does not have the courage to meet his peers [and therefore] I must question his good faith." But as I understand from the concluding paragraph of Professor Roazen's article, he does not object to the plan I had submitted to him but only to the suggested method of selection, because it struck him as "an expression of embarrassing grandiosity." Looking back, it is clear to me that this part of my proposal was not suitable, to say the least.
In view of Professor Roazen's comment, I withdraw my doubt in his good faith and therefore can drop my previous reservation about discontinuing the discussion. Thus I renew my proposition and will accept any reasonable recommendation by Professor