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.
Each year at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute a distinguished psychoanalyst is appointed Heinz Hartmann Lecturer and invited both to present a formal paper and to conduct a clinical supervisory seminar, commemorating both Heinz Hartmann's well-known theoretical contributions, and his lesser known, but equally important, clinical contributions as supervisor and Director of the Treatment Center. Often the invited lecturers in a parallel manner, are better known for their writings than for their important clinical supervisory work, which usually takes place in closed seminars or one-on-one sessions. Yet the supervisory work immeasurably enriches the curriculum of the lecturer's home institutes, and, in the Hartmann Seminars, the education of our members and candidates at the New York Institute. Wherever possible, The Journal of Clinical Psychoanalysis endeavors to publish these valuable clinical case discussions (cf. Vol. 8, No. 3, the 1994 Seminar). In this way we can share with our readers the incomparable experience of being supervised by an eminent and experienced psychoanalyst.
We are particularly delighted in this issue to present the 1997 Hartmann Seminar conducted by Dr. Albert J. Solnit. Dr. Solnit's stature as contributor to the literature, and as Editor of The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, is well known. We are pleased, through the medium of these pages, to make Dr. Solnit's superb clinical and supervisory skills available to a wider audience. The Seminar consists of a clinical case presentation, a general discussion led by Dr. Solnit, and a clinical follow-up provided by Dr. Kass, a fine analyst whose assistance is very much appreciated by the Journal.
The issue concludes with two interesting papers. The first—continuing the educational theme of the Hartmann Seminar—is a valuable contribution by Drs. Levy and Parnell of Toronto, which suggests a more active engagement with a supervisee's countertransference. Then Dr. Sarah Andrews offers a good case