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 Max Eitingon]
[Budapest,] January 26, 19321
Dear Max,
Aside from who is in the right in the Reich affair (I, myself, am totally on Professor's side), I consider it absolutely necessary, in view of the sensation that this matter has already caused, that the leadership of the Association (you, I, and Jones) gives some kind of an official explanation in the Korrespondenzblatt, which winds up this affair, finally, and in good form. Without this explanation, refraining from publication would appear to be a retreat out of fear; but such an appearance could leave behind a lasting bad impression. But in order not to stir up unnecessarily those who feel injured, I consider a purely academic explanation, without naming names and the subject, appropriate, something like the following:
“On the occasion of a concrete instance, the leadership of the Association decided to request that the publisher of our official journals see to it that authors who want to publish an article of a distinctly partisan or religious-political cast acknowledge their affiliation with a party of a non-scientific character. Naturally, this does not change anything in the fact that, in the journals, now as before, the most diverse views can be expressed. Signed: Eitingon, president, Ferenczi, Jones, vice-presidents.”
This publication naturally belongs in the appropriate column of the