The author emphasizes the important distinctions between a training and a therapeutic analysis. Though the technique is the same in the two situations, the conditions which determine the relationship are quite different. The candidate has an extensive theoretical knowledge which he employs to strengthen his resistances. His relationship to the analyst is colored by actual acquaintanceship and the expectation of future relationship as a colleague. The candidate is really dependent on the analyst. The relationship has real components which actually affect the candidate's future: the analyst is an integral part of the reality principle. By contrast, in the therapeutic analysis the analyst merely represents the reality principle, and through the analyst the patient relives his dependency by way of an infantile regression. Nacht stresses this as the important point from which stem the basic differences between therapeutic and didactic analysis. Implications for the countertransference, for the selection of candidates, and for possible changes in training procedure are touched upon.