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.
Budapest, August 29, 1932
Dear Professor,
I can tell you with certainty that the things that I have to communicate are, according to the way I feel, not “earth-shaking”; I feel free of the tendency to found a new school; I will first turn to the colleagues of the “old formation”with my suggestions for discussion and hope to be understood by them—I am naturally figuring on counter-suggestions, which I am resolved to accord the respect they deserve.
I only thought that even that degree of critical spirit to which I am alluding is more appropriate for a simple member than a president—and, in particular, I though that you, especially, don't want to have such a president.
I want to visit you in Vienna on my trip to Wiesbaden— I am sorry that I can't come earlier.1
I thank you very much for your kind letter.
Yours,
Ferenczi
Ferenczi's visit with Freud before the Congress was a dramatic and defining moment in their relationship. Earlier, Eitingon had already learned by way of Radó about Ferenczi's Congress lecture and had asked him “not to give it before he has discussed his new views in detail with us … [I]n any case, Ferenczi is very ill”(letter of August 30, 1932, Sigmund Freud Copyrights). Freud telegraphed Eitingon about the meeting in Vienna: “Ferenczi lecture read aloud[.] Harmless stupid otherwise inaccessible” (September 2, 1932, Sigmund Freud Copyrights). Ferenczi gave his version to Izette de Forest,
who placed it at the disposal of Erich Fromm for his Freud biography: “When I visited the Professor … I told him of my latest technical ideas … The Professor listened to my exposition with increasing impatience and finally warned me that I was treading on dangerous ground and was departing fundamentally from the traditional customs and techniques of psychoanalysis. Such yielding to the patient's longings and desires—no matter how genuine—would increase his dependence on the analyst. Such dependence can only be destroyed by the emotional withd