Help us improve PEP Web. If you would like to suggest new content, click here and fill in the form with your ideas!
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Freud, S. (1915). Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, November 26, 1915. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sandor Ferenczi Volume 2, 1914-1919, 91-92.
Freud, S. (1915). Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, November 26, 1915. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sandor Ferenczi Volume 2, 1914-1919 , 91-92
Letter from Sigmund Freud to Sándor Ferenczi, November 26, 1915
Vienna, November 26, 1915
IX., Berggasse 19
My letter was premature. Your mailing came on the same day, but unfortunately only one; the other, the one you call “better,” is still missing.
I wasn't at all aware that I didn't like your critique of Régis and Hesnard at first, don't rightly believe it, and will have to continue to rely on your authority in that regard. Perhaps your assertion is connected with my habit, in intimate relations, of always beginning with criticism.
But I must make some comment on the critique of Mach. I think it lacks distance, is still too much under the fresh impression of the reading and simply needs the application of your prescription: prematur,1 with appropriate reduction. Beginning and end are very nice and bear witness to your artistic and poetic qualities, as did the functional Oedipus interpretation in its time.2 I have two objections: First, one should never call someone an analyst who doesn't want to be one, the way the friar reclaims Nathan as a Christian.3 He usually doesn't know that one wants to honor him and easily becomes rude as a way of saying thank you. It also gives an impression that one is in need of tender, loving care. I know about Mach that he had me send him the Interpretation of Dreams in order to set it aside, shaking his head. Second, and this is a real weakness of the paper, you are not in the position to demonstrate to him by way of examples which explanations he has failed to give by virtue of his ignorance of ΨA, except one example, that of kneading clay.4 Of course, I, too, don't know any more, but that way your regret will remain without effect on the reader. Organ projection5 would have deserved a more active defense. Didn't you consider the essay by Giese in Imago III, Sexual Models in Simple Inventions?6 This same Imago will thus request some revision. Rank will send the paper back to you.
Not much new here. I am again in better health.
[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]