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.
22nd March 1956.
Dear Enid:
I want to let you know in a more formal way than I was able to let you know last night that I think your paper1 is a very good one and that the work on which it is founded is absolutely first-class. I say this even although you feel you took quite a long time getting the feel of the case, as well you might.
I want you to give some thought to the wording of your reference
to me, especially if you are thinking of publishing the paper, which I hope you will do. You say on page 11 that I particularly discuss regression to full oral dependence. Probably you will not find that I have used the term oral dependence, and it would seem to me that I have rather specially avoided mixing up two things, i.e. regression to dependence and regression in terms of instinct stages. Regression to dependence, which I have talked rather a lot about, seems to me not to be specifically linked to the oral phase, and indeed I want to cut it loose from the phases and from the instinctual development and allow it therefore to relate to ego relatedness which precedes instinctual experience that is accepted as such.
I expect you see what I mean and the omission of the words “full oral” would clear up the difficulty. I think that I am referring to almost the same thing that Michael [Balint] calls the primary mother.
To repeat myself, I very much enjoyed last night and I was glad, although the discussion was a poor one. It is ever so boring when people get up and use the material you have given to show you how they could have interpreted better. I am afraid I have done quite a lot of this myself in the Society ten or twenty years ago, but it is maddening and has nothing to do with a scientific discussion of the many interesting points raised in your paper.
Every good wish,
Yours,