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.
[undated, location unknown]1
Dear Professor,
I telephoned you immediately after receiving the Rundbrief, before I had studied closely Eitingon's letter and the appended correspondence. My first impression was that one has to undertake something radical in order to get free rein, e.g., resigning from the Association (under your leadership) and founding a new, small society consisting of reliable adherents (without Ophuijsen, Brill—also without Jones, if it comes to that). Reading through the letters more closely showed me that you consider the matter more coolly than I, perhaps rightly so, and don't by a long shot ascribe the same significance that I do to the secessions, which are accumulating.2 For that reason I will postpone the visit with you that I announced by telephone to a time when a scientific discussion, independent of such unpleasant business matters, will become necessary. Let us hope, very soon!
Eitingon's question regarding the Washington group is easy to answer. The Washingtonians, whose acceptance we proposed, are justifiably upset by the refusal.3 Jones brought this about, evidently because he was not requested to support the acceptance. Could you not write a few friendly lines to William A. White?
Kind regards!
Ferenczi
The original of this letter is missing; it is also not in the Austrian National Library in Vienna. There is only a typewritten transcript in the Balint folder. The page contains the following handwritten statement: “undated, probably first half of 1929 (B[alin]t).” The Freud-Eitingon correspondence shows that this letter was probably written between December 29, 1928, and March 3, 1929 (we are grateful to Gerhard Wittenberger for research on the dating).
This pertains to the conflict over lay analysis, to which no end was in sight, which then was the subject of a discussion in April (see n. 1 of the following letter). Ophuijsen, Brill, and Jones were opposed to lay analysis. The earliest Rundbrief from the yea