The Search Tool allows you to restrict your search by Language. PEP Web contains articles written in English, French, Greek, German, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish.
For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.
Ferenczi, S. (1927). Letter from Sándor Ferenczi to Sigmund Freud, July 13, 1927. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi Volume 3, 1920-1933, 317-318.
Ferenczi, S. (1927). Letter from Sándor Ferenczi to Sigmund Freud, July 13, 1927. The Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Sándor Ferenczi Volume 3, 1920-1933, 317-318
Letter from Sándor Ferenczi to Sigmund Freud, July 13, 1927
Baden-Baden, July 13, 1927
Again I have visited a European capital. It is not uninteresting to allow the images and impressions of cities to pass before one in such rapid succession. Only then does one see how much truth lies in the banal general judgments in the hackneyed expressions of homey London, coquettish Paris, and awkward Berlin.—But this time I didn't go in order to get aesthetic impressions. I hurried over there because the recommendation I received from Eitingon about lay analysis1 brought me “out of the house.” I found such a crass difference between our (your and my own) opinion in this question, on the one hand, and Eitingon's suggestions on the other, that I felt incapable of assuming, or even running for the presidency sanctioning such a program (with a majority in the advisory council around my neck that is hostile to lay analysis, on top of that). Friend Eitingon was somewhat surprised by my coming, but I told him that our conference before his meeting with Jones would be unavoidable, indeed, it would have been much, much better if it had taken place before his recommendations were sent to Jones (before asking us!).
Friend Eitingon is an absolute friend of physicians, with a decided guild mentality. As a favor to you, he decided in the end to demand the recognition, in principle, of lay analysis (by the Americans). In compensation, he fed them (the Americans), in the introductory commentaries, with theoretical, and in the second paragraph of the resolution, with extremely important practical concessions. I tried to mitigate his recommendation in the enclosed text,2 which I handed over to Eitingon for his consideration. In the beginning I insisted on this text and said that, in the event that my modifications remain unconsidered, I would prefer to begin the cheerful opposition to Eitingon and the new president. After lengthy discussions, in which Alexander and Radó (along with Simmel and Frau Dr.
[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.]