1912
119F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
2 January 1912
Dear Friend,
Having filled the holidays with the writing of two and a half treatises1 (which I do not like) and all sorts of private discontents, I at last come round to sending my best wishes for the prosperity of your wife and children and yourself that you so well deserve and the fulfilment of which would give me so much pleasure. Shared interests and personal liking have tied us so intimately together that we have no need to doubt the genuineness of our good wishes for each other.
I know how difficult a position you have in Berlin and always admire you for your unruffled spirits and tenacious confidence. The chronicle of our undertaking is perhaps not always pleasant, but that may be true of most chronicles; it will yet make a fine chapter of history. The latest favourable signs, strangely enough, have come from France. We have gained a vigorous helpmate in Morichau-Beauchant in Poitiers (see his article in the Gazette des Hôpitaux, 1911, p. 1,845),2 and today I received a letter from a student of Régis in Bordeaux, written on his behalf, apologizing in the name of French psychiatry for its present neglect of ψα. He announced his willingness to come out with a long paper about it in Encéphale.3
For myself I have no great expectations; gloomy times lie ahead, and recognition will probably come only for the next generation. But we have the incomparable pleasure of the first discoveries. My work on the ψ of religion is going ahead very slowly, so I should prefer to remove it from the agenda altogether. I have to write something in the nature of a preliminary communication for the new journal “Imago”, something from the ψ of savage peoples.4 Reik's work5 is too long for the Sammlung, and I heard only just today from the author (who is a member of ours) that it is to appear as a book.
Farewell, and do not write too seldom
to your faithful
Freud
1. Freud, 1912c, 1912d; also very probably the beginning of work on the “psychology of religion” (Totem and Taboo, Freud, 1912–13), mentioned later in this letter.
2. Morichau-Beauchant, 1911. Pierre Ernest René Morichau-Beauchant [1873–1951], professor of clinical medicine at the École de Médecine in Poitiers, was instrumental in introducing psychoanalysis to France. He had already written Freud a letter at the end of 1910 in which he had referred to himself as Freud's pupil (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: pp. 377–378; cf. also Freud, 1914d: p. 32). In January 1912 he joined the Zurich group.
3. Emmanuel Régis [1855–1918], Professor at the Clinique des Maladies Mentales in Bordeaux, and his assistant, Angelo Louis Marie Hesnard [1886–1969]. They would indeed publish a long article about “The Theory of Freud and His School” in Encéphale (1913).
4. Imago, Zeitschrift für Anwendung der Psychoanalyse auf die Geisteswissenschaften [Imago, Journal for the Application of Psychoanalysis to the Humanities] (named after a novel by the Swiss writer Carl Spitteler), edited by Otto Rank and Hanns Sachs under the general editorship of Freud. The first issue came out in 1912 with Hugo Heller, containing Freud's “The Horror of Incest”, which was to become the first chapter of Totem and Taboo.
5. See letter 118A, 5 December 1911, n. 2.
120A
Berlin
11 January 1912
Dear Professor,
Only a few lines today to thank you very much indeed for your kind wishes and encouraging words! The latter have helped; I have just completed the preparatory work on my paper for the new journal. I know that its theme will interest you: it is about Amenhotep IV and the Aton cult.1 The subject has a particular attraction for me—to analyse all the manifestations of repression and substitutive formation in a person who lived 3,300 years ago. The Oedipus complex, sublimation, reaction formations—all exactly as in a neurotic today. I did the preparatory work partly in the Egyptian department of the Berlin Museum and was reminded more than once of the first instruction of Egyptology that I enjoyed in Vienna in December 1907.
That is all for today. In accordance with your wish, I did not want to keep you waiting too long for news. With cordial greetings also to your family from my wife and myself,
your devoted
Abraham
1. Abraham, 1912[34].
121F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
14 January 1912
Dear Friend,
Well, well! Amenhotep IV in the light of ψα. That surely is already a great advance in “orientation”. Do you know that you are now regarded with Stekel and Sadger as being among the bêtes noires of ψα, against whom I have always been warned? Evidently since your Segantini, and what will it ever be like after Amenhotep? But you will not let it worry you. The reason why I am in such a good mood is that I have just managed to finish a paper for the “Imago” on the horror of incest among savages. What is so splendid is not that I think it good, but that it is finished.
The work to which I referred above is “On the ψ Theories of Freud and Related Views”, by Arthur Kronfeld, of Berlin, published in book form as No. 3 of Vol. II of the Papers on Psychological Paedagogics.1 In its tone it is quite decent, but it proves philosophically and mathematically that all the things over which we take such a great deal of trouble simply do not exist, because it is impossible that they should exist.2 There we are.
Shortly, I am going to have to write an English essay on the unconscious3 in ψα which has been asked for by the Society for Psychical Research,4 or read Bleuler's manuscript on autistic thinking,5 which I received today. But reading is even worse than writing. Cordial greetings to you and your dear wife, from your
Freud
1. Kronfeld, 1911, previously published in a journal. Arthur Kronfeld [1886–1941], psychiatrist in Heidelberg, later in Berlin. A critical review of Kronfeld's work, at Freud's instigation, appeared in the Jahrbuch (Rosenstein, 1912).
2. Weil, so schlieβt er messerscharf, nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf. Often quoted line by the German poet Christian Morgenstern [1871–1914].
3. This word in English in original.
4. Freud, 1912g, written by Freud in English and published in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research (26: 312–318).
5. Bleuler, 1912.
122A
Berlin
25 February 1912
Dear Professor,
I wish to begin my long-postponed letter with the pleasant news that I am up to my neck in psychoanalyses. Since January the practice has been overwhelming, never less than ten hours a day. This has also brought about the desired effect that I am independent of Oppenheim's support, for what I receive from him now is no longer worth mentioning. I do owe him a debt of gratitude, but the present state of affairs, with its full independence of action, is far preferable. Recently I had to refuse a few cases because I really could not take on any more; I passed one on to Eitingon who does every now and again treat a patient. The lack of a colleague is gradually making itself felt, and I do not know where to find one. Certainly, work will not go on at this rate right through the whole year, but it would nevertheless be desirable to have someone else with me. You will be interested to know that the ψα of the young Schönlank (whose father you referred to me in the autumn) has ended and was a great success. The compulsion to doubt, impotence, and everything else neurotic are eliminated. I am also very pleased with the material of patients: almost all of them intelligent people with very individual forms of neurosis, so that the work is never monotonous.
I have very little time for private work. The Egyptian research for Imago progresses only at a snail's pace. I always wonder how you manage to write so much in addition to your practice. Heartfelt thanks for the reprints!
For today, only one theoretical comment: one of my patients who has been in analysis for quite a long time already has recently gone through a hysterical twilight state of several days’ duration, during which the patient developed a persecution mania. I succeeded in understanding it, in part during the twilight state and in part afterwards, when the patient had become clear and reasonable. It is rare to have such an opportunity of observing delusion formations in statu nascendi, and of analysing after full insight has been reached. Here I was able to prove, with really striking transparency, everything that you deduced from the Schreber case.1 I want to publish the whole thing when I find time.
Our small Berlin group is leading a quiet life. The last meeting was pleasant, due to a talk held by Dr Horney about sexual instruction in early childhood.2 The paper showed, for once, a real comprehension of the subject; unfortunately something rather infrequent in the talks in our circle.—Recently our colleague Brecher3 paid us a visit; he struck me as rather neurotic, and was more wavering than ever in his stance to ψα purely because of complexes.—One more request! Would you, dear Professor, write me in a few words sometime what the prognosis is, from your experience, in cases of impotence in neurotics, when there is a strong tendency towards fetishism? These cases seem particularly unfavourable to me.
With cordial greetings from house to house,
your devoted
Abraham
1. Freud, 1911c [1910].
2. Horney, 1912.
3. Guido Brecher [1877–19?], member of the Vienna Society [1907–1919]. Physician at the spas of Bad Gastein and Merano.
123F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
22 April 1912
Dear Friend,
Only business today, too tired for anything else.
Prof. Kalischer of the Technical College will consult you about a ψα for his 28-year-old daughter—typical Berlin intelligence, Jewess, nervous asthma for nine years, only one year of improvement in between, physical side rather dealt with by nasal therapy, psychical trigger excitement before an examination, later resistance on the father's part against a plan to go on the stage. Mother died a year ago.—Mostly continuous restriction of breathing, which is occasionally aggravated to the point of severe attacks.
Father is serious about treatment, made a slip of the tongue, “wife” instead of “daughter”. Have opted in favour of one year.
Wish you great success—if they come.
Cordial greetings,
Yours,
Freud
124A
Berlin
28 April 1912
Dear Professor,
There has not been anything special to report lately, that is why I have not taken up your time with correspondence. Your letter, received some days ago, gives me a reason for writing, above all to thank you for the patient—though she has not arrived yet—and for the offprint from Imago.1 And at the same time to send you my congratulations on this third child! I am delighted with the tasteful presentation; everybody likes it. Your contribution is particularly important to me because of my own gradually maturing interests. My own long-overdue contribution to Imago (Amenhotep) is almost ready. The practice, which remains almost constantly on the same high level, is absorbing me. In addition there are quite a few family matters—first a serious illness of my father, from which he has now reasonably recovered. My wife and I were in Bremen to congratulate him on his 70th birthday, for which he had just got out of bed. After we got home whooping cough set in; both children are suffering from it, and, to make matters worse, they infected my wife and the children's nurse.
I am quite glad that the Congress is not to take place until next year, only spring would suit me far better than autumn. There is not much news from our group; as far as Berlin is concerned, however, public interest in ψα is on the increase. In any case, you will be interested to hear what I was told happened after the meeting of the Kant Society in Halle. There was an unofficial debate on ψα during which many people showed themselves to be well informed and where the general atmosphere was favourable rather than not.—Have you read the “Die Intellectuellen” by Grete Meisel-Hess?2 Stekel recently proved in the Zentralblatt that it was untenable that a woman would commit suicide as a consequence of a ψα. Recently I have seen both the authoress and the heroine who committed suicide—quite cheerfully together, a fact that reassured me enormously!
One of the visitors to the Weimar Congress, Frau Lou Andreas-Salomé,3 has just spent some time in Berlin. I have come to know her very closely and must say that I have never before met with such an understanding of ψα, right down to the last details and subtleties. She will visit Vienna in the winter and would like to attend the meetings there.
My Dreams and Myths has recently appeared in Russian and will shortly appear in English in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases in America.4
I hope you and your family are well, and enclose the most cordial greetings, also from my wife,
your devoted
Abraham
1. See letter 119F, 2 January 1912, n. 4.
2. Meisel-Hess, 1911. Grete Meisel-Hess [1879-?], known for her popular writings on sexuality and partnership (cf. her report on sexual reform in the Zentralblatt, 1911/12).
3. Lou Andreas-Salomé [1861–1937], born in St Petersburg, married to the Orientalist Friedrich Carl Andreas [1846–1930]. She was then a popular writer, champion of women's rights, and, later, psychoanalyst in Göttingen, although today she is best known for her friendships with Friedrich Nietzsche, Rainer Maria Rilke, and Freud. After she had participated in the Weimar Congress in September 1911, she decided to study psychoanalysis in Vienna (cf. Andreas-Salomé, 1958). Her correspondence with Freud was published in an abridged version (Freud & Andreas-Salomé, 1966).
4. In a translation by William A. White, as No. 15 of the Nervous and Mental Diseases Monograph Series, New York: Nervous and Mental Diseases Publishing Company, 1913.
125F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
2 May 1912
Dear Friend,
Many thanks for your good news. I was very pleased to hear about the English and Russian translations. Your domestic news was less pleasing, but fortunately does not go beyond what one is prepared for.
Imago is eagerly awaiting your Amenhotep. Will you not want to include a portrait of the interesting king?—On the strength of your recommendation Frau L. A.-Salomé will be very welcome; she is said to have sent Jung a paper for the Jahrbuch which has been promised me for a reading too.1
Kalischer, I thought, for once, was a serious case, and so I hurried with the letter. Is not one always taken in.
Imago is indeed getting a pleasant reception in general; only in Vienna the interest is slight. There are now some innovations in the Zentralblatt: Open Forum and “Children's Corner” are going to be activated,2 the former for exchanges of ideas and for internal criticism. Your “Bride of Death Ceremonial”3 is priceless and in many respects overwhelming. It is correct to identify the father with death, for the father is a dead man, and death himself—according to Kleinpaul4—is only a dead man. The dead are universally thought of as coming for their own.
At the Society yesterday we had talks on the last two issues of the Zentralblatt, and we are to make our ψα literature the subject of regular discussions. Your paper on melancholia was very sensibly criticized by Federn,5 and then all sorts of things dawned on me which may lead further. We are still only at the beginnings in that respect.
At home things are going well, but I am rather over-worked, i.e. dim-witted, and the work on taboo is going very badly. The “totem”6 will have to wait for a long time.
With cordial greetings and wishes for the recovery of your wife and children,
your faithfully devoted,
Freud
1. Andreas-Salomé, 1913, which she at first submitted to the Jahrbuch but then took back; it was finally published in Imago.
2. Two rubrics in the Zentralblatt for brief communications: Offener Sprechsaal—at the instigation of James J. Putnam—and Psychologisches aus der Kinderstube.
3. A ceremonial that Abraham described and analysed (1912[32]; see letter 116A, 29 October 1911).
4. Kleinpaul, 1898. Rudolf Alexander Kleinpaul [1845–1918], noted German philologist and linguist (cf. Freud, 1912–13: pp. 58–59).
5. Abraham, 1911[26], critically discussed by Federn, half-defended by Freud (Nunberg & Federn, 1975: pp. 99–100).
Paul Federn [1871–1950], general practitioner and a prominent member of the Wednesday Society. He joined the Social Democratic Party in 1918. He was Freud's representative after the latter's operation for cancer [1923] and was vice-president of the Vienna Society from 1924 until its dissolution by the Nazis [1938]. In 1938 Federn emigrated to New York, but it was not until 1946 that he became recognized as a physician and consequently as a member of the Psychoanalytic Society there. After his wife's death and when he became ill with cancer, he took his own life. His contribution is significant because of his version of “ego-psychology” and he played a pioneering role in the investigation of psychoses and in popularizing psychoanalysis and its application to adjacent disciplines.
6. That is, the fourth and last chapter of Totem and Taboo: “The Return of Totemism in Childhood”.
126A
Berlin
28 May 1912
Dear Professor,
Following your suggestion, I shall add two pictures to the Amenhotep—who is now with Rank in the form of a manuscript—the king himself with his consort, and his mother. I hope Heller will have no difficulty in obtaining permission to reproduce the two pictures from Breasted's History of Egypt.1
I am pleased to hear about some innovations in the Zentralblatt. I have a few charming contributions for the “Children's Corner”, which I am sending to Stekel as soon as I can.2 I rested for once a bit around Whitsuntide. In the next seven weeks, until we go on holiday, there is still a great deal of work to be done, as the practice constantly remains at the same high level I described in my last letter. On 19 July we are going to Kurhaus Stoos above Brunnen (Lake Lucerne). I shall then have the opportunity to visit Zurich again after five years.
On the question of melancholia, which you touched on in your letter, I can report that I have for some time past had a particularly instructive case of “cyclothymia” under observation. In this patient everything lies unusually close to consciousness, and she is particularly aware of her own inability to love. Physically as well as psychologically she is thoroughly “intermediate stage”,3 very masculine in physical appearance, manner, voice, movements, etc., as well as in her thinking and feeling. The mixture of male and female in her is such that she is too masculine to love men; but she also fails to achieve full transference onto women. Thus she never reaches a satisfactory attitude either to a man or to a woman. Reaction to this: vivid substitute gratification in phantasy (prostitution phantasies) and masturbation, which are, however, not sufficient. Hence, repeated lapses into depression, alternating with rapid manic exaltation. I am really quite stuck in this case. The patient lacks the type of transference usually met with in neurotics.
The case I described in greater detail in my paper4 is now giving me trouble again. He did quite well for approximately four months, but then he went through a depression lasting some time, which, though not as severe as some of his earlier ones, continued for 6–7 weeks. I myself have the impression that I have not got to the bottom of this case. You hint that a thing or two dawned on you. I should be very grateful for any suggestions, as I would very much like to give the pitiable patient another try.
I have recently analysed in two patients a disorder that is a complete counterpart of Schreber's ability to look into the sun without being blinded.5 The fear of light proved to be directly connected with the father. One of the cases, a dementia praecox, forces one to assume that fear of light has an underlying unconscious delusion of grandeur. If the patient firmly makes both eyes converge, he first has a visual hallucination (under closed lids) of two eyes, which then suddenly merge into one sun. So, he himself is a sun, just as good as the father. I suspect that Schreber's idea also has the connotation that he himself (his eye) is a sun more radiant than the paternal sun. Thus the latter cannot blind him. Naturally, I see this merely as a possible complement to your explanation.
I like to hear about the work of the group in Vienna, but always with the regret that I can obtain so little stimulus through the exchange of experiences. Our sessions have indeed grown, but the right people are missing.
Recently I went through the neurological literature of the past months, as I do about every half-year. It is frightening how unproductive it is. It is interesting that among the journals, the Zeitschrift für die gesamte Neurologie und Psychiatrie does not review us at all any more, and the Neurologisches Centralblatt does almost the same (the only critically active journal is Ziehen's Monatsschrift [für Psychiatrie und Neurologie]). So they are giving up their “refutations”.
I spoke briefly the other day in a discussion in the Berliner Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten [Berlin Society for Psychiatry and Nervous Diseases], not propagandae fidei causa6 but in order to carry some of the speaker's (Kohnstamm's7) psychological amateur work ad absurdum.
With cordial greetings, from house to house,
your devoted
Abraham
1. Breasted, 1905.
2. Abraham did not carry out this intention. After the break between Stekel and Freud, which happened shortly afterwards, Freud and his followers withdrew from the Zentralblatt, which was edited by Stekel.
3. Sexuelle Zwischenstufe [sexual intermediate stage], a term coined by Magnus Hirschfeld for describing people with strong features of the opposite sex, supposedly linked to homosexuality (cf. the Zeitschrift für sexuelle Zwischenstufen, edited by him).
4. Abraham, 1911[26].
5. As analysed by Freud and traced back to the father relation, in the postscript to the Schreber analysis (Freud, 1912a).
6. Latin: “for the sake of propagating belief”.
7. Oskar Felix Kohnstamm [1871–1917], German psychiatrist, known for his work on the psychopathology of memory and the so-called Kohnstamm phenomenon. Author of works on psychopathology, psychotherapy, hypnosis, the unconscious, art, and the soul.
127F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
3 June 1912
Dear Friend,
I have read your Egyptian study with the pleasure that I always derive both from your way of writing and your way of thinking, and should like to make only two objections, or, rather, suggestions for alteration.1 Firstly, you claim that when the mother is particularly important, the conflict with the father takes milder forms. I for my part have no evidence of this and must assume that you have had special experiences in this respect. As the matter is not clear to me, I ask you to revise this passage. Secondly, I have doubts about presenting the king as so distinctly a neurotic, which is in sharp contrast with his exceptional energy and achievements, as we associate neuroticism, a term that has become scientifically inexact, precisely with the idea of being inhibited. After all, we all have these complexes, and we must beware of not being called neurotic. If we have successfully stood up against them, we should be spared the name. Perhaps nothing of value will have been sacrificed if you call your work a character study and leave the neurotic as an object of comparison in the background. I cannot judge from my knowledge of the literature how positive the evidence for real neurotic symptoms in Amenhotep IV is. If you have such evidence, do quote the accounts in full.
In cyclothymic cases you should just go on digging; one can see more the next time. The difficulty lies not in finding the material but in linking up what has been found and grouping it according to its layers. Yet, I have also got the impression from your paper, which I value so highly, that the formula is not assured and the elements not yet convincingly linked. If I knew any more than you, I should not withhold it from you, but you will learn more from the cases themselves.—
I am glad to hear that you continue to be satisfied with the practice. I notice that the beginnings of our holidays coincide. I am going first to Karlsbad with my wife. In the middle of August we want to meet the others, but it is not at all certain where. There is not enough time left for Switzerland.
Over Whitsuntide I was in Constance for two days as Binswanger's guest. Zurich could not be fitted in.2 I am now resting from more serious work. The Taboo3 is to appear in the next issue of Imago. You will just have received the last technical paper in the Zentralblatt.4 The Society has adjourned its sessions. Jones is expected for the middle of June.5 Most cordial greetings, to you and to your dear wife and children,
your
Freud
1. Abraham modified his paper (1912[34]) in accordance with Freud's suggestions (see letter 128A, 9 June 1912).
2. From 25 to 28 May 1912, Freud had visited Ludwig Binswanger, after the latter's cancer operation (cf. Binswanger, 1956: pp. 38–43; Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: pp. 376–377; Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: pp. 508ff). Jung had been of the opinion that Freud had not informed him in a timely fashion about this visit in Kreuzlingen, which is not far from Zurich. He had not been at home, however, when Freud's letter of 23 May arrived (in those days mail between the major cities of Central Europe usually took no more than one day). This “Kreuzlingen gesture”, as Jung termed it, was to play an important part in the alienation between Freud and Jung.
3. “Taboo and Emotional Ambivalence”, later the second chapter of Totem and Taboo.
4. Freud, 1912b.
5. Jones accompanied his morphine-addicted mistress, Loë Kann, from Toronto to Vienna, where she started an analysis with Freud (see Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: pp. 486–387; Freud & Jones, 1993: pp. 134ff).
128A
Berlin
9 June 1912
Dear Professor,
I had already heard from Herr Rank about your two objections to my paper and immediately asked him to return my manuscript. I shall revise it as soon as I get it back. I shall merely compare Ikhnaton with the neurotic, as I did with Segantini. I shall look into the other question further with the help of my clinical material. There is some truth in my statement, but it is untenable in the general form in which I put it forward.
I hope that, after all, something useful will emerge in the end.
Many thanks for the reprint! I enjoyed every word of the essay. This same issue of the Zentralblatt celebrates the inauguration of the “Open Forum” with something by Marcinowski,1 to which I must reply out of politeness. If one knows him, one knows what resistances lie behind it. This particular sort of grandiosity complex is difficult to put up with. He would like to act as the final censor of ψα.
Imago certainly comes at the right moment! Interest in Germany is rapidly increasing, except among doctors.
I am longing for the holidays. Ten hours of analysis are ample in this heat. What a pity that our holiday destinations are so far apart!—I hope to do some preparatory work on a linguistic subject during the holidays.
For today, cordial greetings to you and your family, also from my wife,
your devoted
Abraham
1. Marcinowski, 1912, in which he criticized Abraham's article on depression (1911[26]).
129F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
14 June 1912
Dear Friend,
Many thanks for your willingness to consider my suggestions concerning the Pharaoh. The work will, I hope, be an adornment for Imago, which is, incidentally, going surprisingly well. 230 subscribers on account from the first issue on, mostly from Germany. Vienna has very little part in it.
I too think you have a right to holidays. This year I have been more productive than in earlier years and am visiting Karlsbad again also for this reason. September, as I have perhaps already said, is still quite uncertain; so it is not at all improbable that we shall meet again in that month.
The Open Forum in the Zentralblatt is certainly a good institution. I felt very little sympathy for Marcinowski, but the last time he was here he conquered much ground. That he does not join is a symptom of his neurosis, with which his censorious cravings, which astonish you, are probably also connected. But I learn a bit more tolerance every day, and I am satisfied if someone has only a few good sides, which is certainly the case with M.
Your approval of the last technical article was very valuable to me. You will probably have noticed the critical intentions. At present my intellectual activity would have been limited to correcting the proofs of the 4th edition of Everyday Life,1 if it had not suddenly occurred to me that the opening scene of Lear, the judgement of Paris, and the choice of caskets in the Merchant of Venice are based on the same motif, which I have to track now.2 I have also the most lively interest in your projected escapades. Departure from Vienna: 14 July.
With cordial greetings to you and your whole house,
your devoted
Freud
1. Freud, 1901b, fourth edition 1912.
2. Freud, 1913f.
130F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
3 July 1912
Dear Friend,
It is excellent that you should so soon have reached the utmost in your practice, but now turn the tables and start to defend yourself against the blessing. The first rule, if the flow continues, must be to increase your fees, and you must find time to work and rest. The answer to your question how I manage to write in addition to my practice is, simply, that I have to recuperate from ψα by working, otherwise I do not endure it.
Your superb contributions to the Zentralblatt1 please me very much for the reader's sake, and I look forward with special personal excitement to the recently announced contribution on paranoia.2 It would, after all, be nice if we were right about this topic, and theoretically important. But the Imago, which is a youngest and most favourite child for me, not least because of the editors,3 should not be neglected in any case. I am working with my last, or penultimate, ounce of strength on my article on taboo, which is to continue the horror of incest. In addition, I hope to have thrown analytic light on guilt-feelings and conscience, but this shall make its appearance only later.
I have no special experience of impotent fetishists. Your prognosis is quite probable; yet, each case is different. Masochists have given me poor results.
Kronfeld's work is now really stirring up opinions against us. I can find nothing in it but a laudable decent tone, the “logic” in it is not worth mentioning.
Could not Eitingon take patients off your hands to a greater extent? He has sent me a case on which he had begun incredibly correctly.
With cordial greetings to you and your dear house,
your faithfully devoted
Freud4
1. Abraham, 1911[28], 1911[29], 1912[32].
2. See letter 126A, 28 May 1912.
3. Rank and Sachs.
4. Shortly afterwards, on 15 July 1912, Freud left for Karlsbad.
131A
Kurort Stoos ob Brunnen
24 July 1912
Dear Professor,
Your last letter is already six weeks old and still unanswered. You have now been in Karlsbad for a while—I hope with good results—and I may disturb your holiday peace with a few lines. Above all I am interested to know how you imagine a possible meeting in September. Are you perhaps coming to Berlin? I shall be there again about 21 August. Naturally a rendezvous somewhere else would suit me too, if it is not too far from Berlin. At any rate I am already looking forward to it very much. In view of this possibility of a discussion, I will not go into scientific matters today.
To my great joy, the new editions are succeeding each other at a rapid rate. […]1 at last the “Jokes” is among them too.2 I had been waiting for that for a long time. And first of all the quick success of Imago is a favourable sign. Shortly before I left, Ferenczi and Rank visited me.3 I got the latter to tell me things in more detail. He also brought me the Incest Motive.4 I have taken it with me on holiday. I cannot yet say much about it; only that it gives the impression of a mature work, and that it definitely will be of great service to the whole cause.
Shortly before I left, Ikhnaton went off, in a revised form, to the editorial office of Imago. I am expecting the proofs here.
I am enjoying the peace to the full here. Since the short Christmas holidays I have done my ten hours of analysis a day. The practice has also become more lucrative. Up to now the months of 1912 have already brought me 11,000 M. But I will soon go for my first rise in fees. You see, even in Berlin it is no longer a martyrdom to be your follower.
With cordial greetings to you and your wife from my wife and me.
Your devoted
Abraham
1. One word illegible.
2. Freud, 1905c, second edition 1912.
3. Ferenczi had been in Berlin, approximately between 26 June and 3 July, to conduct experiments with a clairvoyante, Frau Seidler. We have no details about Rank's visit.
4. Rank, 1912.
132F
Karlsbad
29 July 1912
Dear Friend,
It is wonderful that you have such good news. But now it is time for you to put your honorarium up, or you are harming the “cause” doubly if you do not get down to work. My travel plans are very complicated this year as a result of various circumstances. Until 10–12 August here, then from the middle to the end of August in Karersee,1 Latemar Hotel. There we shall be visited by a young man from Hamburg, who has been publicly engaged to my daughter Sophie since yesterday, Max Halberstadt, photographer, Neuer Wall, a very nice, refined man, and now very much in love.2 From 1–8–10 September, S. Cristoforo on Lake Caldonazzo, where Ferenczi is coming as well. Then a journey to England, perhaps with Brill. Jones has promised to show us London in any case; he will be back from the congresses by then. I should be glad to see you at any of these stops, naturally I can promise you least for Karersee. If none of this fits, I can think of coming back through Berlin, so as to see you and make up for the cancellation of this year's congress, although I know that you yourself will then be at work. I am waiting for your further comments.
That you want to leave me in peace as far as scientific matters are concerned is nice, but not sufficient. I am preoccupied with what is going on in Zurich, which seems to prove the truth of an old prediction of yours, which I willingly ignored. I shall certainly contribute nothing to the break, and I hope that the scientific companionship can be sustained.
With cordial greetings to you and your wife, and best wishes for your holidays.
Your faithfully devoted,
Freud
1. Karersee/Lago di Carezza, in the South Tyrol.
2. Sophie [1893–1920], Freud's second daughter, and Max Halberstadt [1882–1940] married in 1913. The couple had two sons, Ernst Wolfgang [b. 1914], now a psychoanalyst in Germany, and Heinz Rudolph (“Heinerle”) [1918–1923]. Sophie died in the influenza epidemic after the First World War when she was pregnant with a third child.
133A
Kurhaus Stoos ob Brunnen
9 August 1912
Dear Professor,
In the time between my last card and today's letter, there fell a rather long bronchial catarrh, which has embellished my holiday. In practice, however, it made little difference, as it has been raining so hard for the past week that it was impossible to go out of doors in any case. I hope you are having a pleasanter time and that you also get the expected results from the cure.
Now for the question of our meeting! We are leaving here tomorrow for Brunnen, from there on the 17th to Zurich for a day, then to Bremen to my parents, and on the 23rd we shall be back in Berlin. There is quite a great deal of work waiting for me at home, and I cannot really interrupt it again straight away in order to meet you in the Tyrol. Other considerations, too, make it impossible for me.
I should like most of all to go to London with you, but for that too I should need a long enough holiday. So I will count on your return journey through Germany. I should be particularly happy to see you in Berlin. But you should not orientate your plans to mine, if it is inconvenient for you. I could, for example, travel in your direction, meet you in some town, etc. In any case, I shall see to it that I have the necessary time free.
I have heard quite a few things about Zurich in the last few weeks. Details had better be left for discussion when we meet. My prognosis is not too unfavourable. Jung's resistances are reminiscent of Adler's in their motivation but, since we are dealing with a person without a paraphrenic tendency, it might well all change again, just as it did four years ago. Unfortunately, he wavers between the rejecting behaviour of recent times and an uncompromising go-aheadedness. I believe the latter has cost us more than the former. I do not only have Bleuler in mind. I am glad that we are not having a congress just now; I think everything will have smoothed itself out by next year.
The scientific points I hinted at recently are very varied in character and are therefore hardly suitable for a holiday letter. I only wish to mention briefly one question that has occupied me for some time. It concerns a case of hay fever1 cured by ψα, and the theoretical conclusions to be drawn from it. I was treating the patient last spring for a neurosis. During the first months of analysis he suffered from severe hay fever and particularly from hay-asthma. I did not discharge him without searching for the psycho-sexual roots of the hay fever too. I have recently heard from him that—in addition to the general improvement—he has also remained free from hay fever this year.
I am now awaiting more news, dear Professor. My address from tomorrow until the 16th: Brunnen (Switzerland) poste restante, then Bremen, Uhlandstr. 20.
With cordial greetings to you and your wife,
your devoted
Abraham
1. Cf. letter 220A, 16 June 1914.
134F
Karlsbad
11 August 1912
Dear Friend,
I am replying immediately in order not to miss you in this migratory period. As you say, our meeting will have to take place in Berlin on the way back, or somewhere on the way. What would be most delightful would be your joining us in London between 10 September and the 18th or thereabouts.
I am glad you accord a good prognosis to the relationship with Jung, I know you are not exactly an optimist in this respect. But still, it is not the same as four years ago. Then the vacillation took place behind my back; when I found out about it, it was surmounted. This time I have felt obliged to react to the changed behaviour towards me and in so doing to lay down the armour of friendship in order to show him that he cannot at his pleasure assume privileges like no one else. How he will take this, I cannot foresee. So far he has expressed a firm determination not to stage an external break.
The last week of our stay is being spoiled by the appalling weather. We hope to be at the Hotel Latemar, Karersee, on the 16th inst., from where you will hear from me.
With cordial greetings to you and your dear wife, and with thanks for your congratulations.
Your faithfully devoted
Freud
135A
Bremen1
19 August 1912
Dear Professor,
Many thanks for your letter; I hope you are now having a pleasant after-cure in the Tyrol.
On the 21st I am back again in Berlin and hope to hear there about your plans for your journey. I have heard more in Zurich about transformations of the libido2 there. I would rather tell you about that when we meet!
I wish you and yours very happy vacation days. The greetings, which I also add in my wife's name, are also especially for the bridal couple.
yours, as ever,
K. Abraham
1. Postcard.
2. Allusion to the title of Jung, 1911–12, a work that was to bring about the scientific break with Freud.
136F
Karersee
24 August 1912
Dear Friend,
If the loss of the letter in which you asked for a honorarium has had any consequences, I am not convinced that it went down with the Titanic. Jelliffe,1 in fact, is one of the worst American businessmen, translate: crooks, Columbus has discovered.
In any case you should demand an honorarium for the independent edition. Whether it is correct to do so without asking the Viennese publisher, I do not know.
It would be best to ask Deuticke himself, who is in such things very decent and—resigned.
I am very well here.
In unchangeable2 libido,
Yours,
Freud
1. Smith Ely Jelliffe [1866–1945], m.d., from New York City, important medical editor, pioneer psychoanalyst, one of the earliest advocates of psychosomatic medicine. He had not yet met Freud but had become acquainted with Abraham in 1908 in Berlin, where he had studied with Ziehen and Oppenheim. In 1907 he had founded, with William A. White, the Nervous and Mental Disease Monograph Series, in which Abraham's Dreams and Myths (1909[14]), originally published by Deuticke in Vienna, appeared in 1913. (Cf. Burnham, 1983.)
2. Play on the German word unwandelbar [unchangeable, unable to be transformed], picking up Abraham's allusion to Jung in the previous letter.
137A
Berlin
13 September 1912
Dear Professor,
I gather from the enclosed card that you were so kind as to give my address to a lady. The card was marked by the Post office as undeliverable, and by mistake was not sent back to you, but delivered to me. I have tried to forward it to the lady; but no such name exists in the directory. There must be some mistake.
I heard from Ferenczi that you are not going to England. I hope soon to hear something about the changed programme!1 With cordial greetings to you and yours!
Yours,
Karl Abraham
1. Freud had originally planned to travel to London with Ferenczi and Rank for a week in the autumn and to Scotland with Ferenczi for an additional week. On 30 August the Freud family travelled to Bolzano, where Ferenczi met them. Afterwards, they all wanted to go to S. Cristoforo, in the vicinity of Trento. But Freud's daughter Mathilde fell ill in Vienna during this time, and so both men went to her. Once Mathilde was better again, they caught up with Freud's family in S. Cristoforo. Instead of going to Great Britain later, Freud and Ferenczi opted to stay in Rome.
138A
Berlin
13 October 1912
Dear Professor,
The last weeks have been a sorrowful time for us. A fortnight ago my father-in-law died from the after-effects of a stroke after being unconscious for nine days. Now that we have got back into somewhat calmer waters again, I can at last reply to your news and greetings from Italy. I hope that you and your family have all come back refreshed from your holiday!
First I must bore you with those translation matters once more. I wrote to Deuticke as you advised; he asked for M. 15.– per printed sheet, M. 80.– in all, and a few copies of the translation. I asked the same for myself, and I do not think I have claimed anything out of the ordinary (20 dollars for Deuticke and myself together). You have rated Jelliffe quite rightly; the enclosed letter1 shows that. Now how should one answer this naughty boy? I should like to ask you at the same time to be so kind as to bring the letter to Deuticke's notice. Would it not be a good thing in any case to have our literature protected in all such cases by reserving the copyright?
Owing to the upsets of the last weeks, I have scarcely found the time to read the new papers in the Jahrbuch, etc., with the exception of your short paper,2 which I have studied with pleasure and admiration.
I, too, should like to publish something on the subject of impotence before long. During this year I have treated two men with potentia coeundi but who, over the course of many years, have never had an emission. Both have been cured by ψα. One, whose marriage had been childless, is now looking forward to becoming a father. I cannot find anything about the mentioned symptom in the literature, but merely mention of delayed emission in contrast to premature ejaculation.3 I assume that you have also come across such cases and would ask you, if it is not too much trouble, to let me have a few words about them sometime.
I very much regret that our meeting never took place. There is so much from the various scientific fields that I should have liked to talk over. I have been wondering whether I could make a short trip to Vienna during the winter. Could you, dear Professor, tell me now when I would disturb you least, perhaps just before Christmas, or between Christmas and the New Year, or after the New Year?
With cordial greetings from my wife and myself to you and your family,
Yours,
Abraham
1. Missing.
2. Freud, 1912d. The Jahrbuch had come out in September.
3. Abraham did not devote a paper to the topic but briefly mentioned these two cases of impotentia ejaculandi in his 1917 paper on ejaculatio præcox (1917[54]: pp. 297–298).
139F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
21 October 1912
Dear Friend,
Your letter has been with Deuticke for a long time; I myself have been prevented from replying for a few days; I also know why. It is hard to know what to do with the American, and what is more, the fellow is impudent. You could refer to your supposed part in the misfortune of the Atlantic (but she has a different name!), in the end you will have to give in.
My condolences on the tragic event in your family; it is to be hoped that your dear wife has recognized as some consolation the advantages of a quick death.
I like your Amenhotep in its revised form very much better, it is an adornment of our Imago, which continues to count on you.
I have heard in quite a number of my cases of an absence of ejaculation as a ψ disturbance, but at the time of the analysis the disturbance was already over and had given way to a common anaesthesia with excellent motor potency. I have not treated cases like yours.
Now to what preys on my mind. I find it embarrassing to think that we should get on so well because we meet so rarely. (With Ferenczi it goes just as well, incidentally, despite our frequently being together.) So I should most willingly accept your offer to come to Vienna, were it not for my daughter's engagement, which is already known to you, to the young man from Hamburg, which would affect just the time you have in mind. We are expecting his visit around Christmas, before the wedding, which has been arranged for February. There is, however, again a consolation, as I shall certainly be going at least once a year to Hamburg to see the child, and that will provide the most excellent opportunity to pay you a visit in Berlin.
I am now in deepest labour with the continuation of the “points of agreement”1 and with technical papers for the Zentralblatt.2 The taboo will soon greet you in the form of an offprint. The political worries are also troubling us much, but I take them coolly. Jones, whose wife I am now treating—he himself is in Italy—has become personally very attached.
I send my cordial greetings to you and your whole house,
your faithfully devoted
Freud
1. I.e. Totem and Taboo, which had originally appeared in four parts in Imago, under the general title Über einige Übereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und der Neurotiker [Some points of agreement between the mental lives of savages and neurotics].
2. Freud, 1912e; the following technical papers by Freud appeared in the Zeitschrift (see letter 126A, 28 May 1912, n. 2, and the following letter).
140F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
3 November 1912
Dear Friend,
Just a brief official note that I am no longer editor of the Zentralblatt and that Stekel is going his own way. (I am so glad about it; you cannot know what I have suffered under the obligation to defend him against the whole world. He is an unbearable person.) The occasion for the split was not a scientific one, but a presumption on his part against another member of the Society whom he wished to exclude from the reviews in “his paper”, which I could not permit.1
I of course have in mind starting a new journal to take the place of the Zentralblatt, and ask you to withdraw your name from the latter and no longer to direct the papers from your group to it. In the next few days a circular letter will ask you to take these steps and to cooperate with the new organ. I was about to offer you the editorship of the latter and let myself be deflected only by the consideration that luckily your practice already keeps you busy to the point of excess. I have therefore turned to Ferenczi, but should much like to hear your views on this proposal.
Be it you or Ferenczi—at a time when ψα is in danger of splintering and discussions with adherents come on top of the battle against those outside, such a journal means a great deal to me, and the expulsion of such a doubtful character as Stekel remains a blessing.
I shall keep you informed of how things develop with the publishers, etc.
In greeting you cordially,
your faithfully devoted,
Freud
1. Victor Tausk [1879–1919] became a lawyer and judge in Croatia after studying law in Vienna; from 1906 to 1908 he was active as a writer and journalist in Berlin. In 1908 he went to Vienna, and, in order to be able to become a psychoanalyst, he studied medicine and became a psychiatrist [1914]. Tausk is considered to be a pioneer in the psychoanalytic investigation of the psychoses. (Cf. Tausk, 1919, in Roazen, 1991. For the relations between him, Freud, and Lou Andreas-Salomé and for the motives for his suicide, see Roazen, 1969, 1990 and Eissler, 1971, 1983.)
Tausk was supposed to take over the discussion section of the Zentralblatt, but Stekel declared that “he would never concede to having Dr Tausk write in his journal” (Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: p. 418; see also Jones, 1955: p. 136). According to a version of the story presented by Freud and Federn in 1929 (Nunberg & Federn, 1975, only in German edition: pp. 108–109), Stekel provoked this incident in order to force Freud out of the Zentralblatt and to be able to take it over himself.
The break between Stekel and Freud is described from the latter's point of view by, among others, Jones (1955: pp. 136–137), Clark (1980: p. 357), and Gay (1988: p. 232). Stekel's version can be found in his autobiography (1950: pp. 142–145). His resignation from the Society was announced on 6 November. Freud founded the Internationale Zeitschrift für ärztliche Psychoanalyse (Vienna: Hugo Heller) as the new official organ of the IPA; he was the director, and Ferenczi, Rank, and Jones were the editors. It was published six times a year, beginning in January 1913. The Zentralblatt continued to exist under Stekel's sole leadership until September 1914, when it folded.
141A
Berlin
5 November 1912
Dear Professor,
It is very painful for me that once again you have to suffer from ruthlessness from one of those who owe you everything.
I had the following idea after receiving your letter today. If Ferenczi takes on the editing, I might be able to help in some other way. If he declines, then I am at your disposal. Should the proposal be put to me definitely, then what would be most congenial to me would be to collaborate with Ferenczi—if that is technically feasible.
My other work should not be a reason for declining the offer in this case. I have, incidentally, already talked to Eitingon, who says that he is ready to help in any way possible.—At the moment I am not clear what is to happen to the Zentralblatt, and whether the new journal will be the official organ. I shall probably learn that from the circular letter.
It is so difficult to discuss all this by letter. If you, dear Professor, should wish for verbal negotiations, I could manage it on a Sunday (for instance, on 24 November). The journey to Vienna does, of course, take a great deal of time, and I cannot easily leave my practice for a period of several days. Perhaps, though, we could meet halfway (Prague or Breslau). We could travel on Saturday afternoon, have the whole of Sunday, and travel home during Sunday night.
That is all for today. I am in a hurry and shall therefore not go into your letter of 21 October, for which many thanks.
With cordial greetings,
Yours,
Abraham
142F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
21 November 1912
Dear Friend,
So I can expect to see you sooner than intended, on the 24th inst. in Munich.1 Meanwhile a bitter cup has passed you by. Ferenczi and Rank have undertaken the editorship of the new journal. For your kind willingness I owe you an explanation of the choice. I had begun negotiations with a Berlin publisher,2 which seemed promising. If they had come to anything I should have asked you to undertake it, with Eitingon's help. But the Berlin publisher let me down and, as I had to decide on Heller, the publisher of Imago, I could only choose the editor in the neighbourhood of the publisher. I know that you will not take this amiss.
I have had a great deal of worry and anger over the affair. All our internal and external colleagues have come with us, only Jung (!) and Juliusburger, who does not seem to be informed at all and therefore does not wish to sever the connection with the Zentralblatt, have declined.3 In addition, one Viennese has also expressed certain reservations.4 But the bliss of being rid of Stekel is worth some sacrifice.
I hope there will be an hour for an intimate exchange of thoughts in Munich, and send my cordial greetings to you and your whole house,
cordially yours,
Freud
1. At the meeting of heads of the local psychoanalytic societies, at which it was agreed to leave the Zentralblatt to Stekel and to found the Zeitschrift as the official organ of the IPA. Present were, apart from Freud and Abraham, Jones, Jung, Ophuijsen (representing Maeder), Riklin, and Seif. (Cf. Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: pp. 433–435; Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: pp. 521–522.)
Alphonse Maeder [1882–1971], Swiss psychotherapist, chairman of the Zurich Society. He followed Jung after the latter's separation from Freud.
Johan H. W. Ophuijsen [1882–1950], Dutch psychiatrist, at the Burghölzli 1903–1913. Co-founder [1917] of the Dutch Society. In 1934 he emigrated to New York.
Franz Riklin [1878–1938], Swiss psychiatrist, collaborator on Jung's association studies. After the Nuremberg Congress [1910] he became secretary of the IPA and, with Jung, editor of the Korrespondenzblatt, which was founded there. Like Maeder, he supported Jung after the break.
Leonhard Seif [1866–1949], neurologist in Munich, founder [1911] and head of the Psychoanalytic Society there. In 1913 he separated from Freud and joined Adler.
2. Erich Reiss [1887–1951], publisher of the journals Zukunft and Schaubühne. He was interned in 1937; after his release, he emigrated to Sweden, then to England, and eventually to New York.
3. At the Munich meeting, however, Jung went along with Freud unreservedly.
4. Herbert Silberer [1882–1923], sports journalist, balloonist, and private scholar, member of the Wednesday Society from October 1910 on. He was interested in the investigation of dreams and symbols, alchemy, and occultism. (Cf. Freud to Ferenczi, 14 November 1912, Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: p. 431.)
143A
Berlin
1 December 1912
Dear Professor,
Now that a week has passed since the conference in Munich, I hope that you too will have come to the conclusion that the end result was a favourable one. Being liberated from Stekel has brought with it the advantage of narrowing the rift between Vienna and Zurich. If, as I hope, I come to see you in a few weeks, perhaps we can talk more of this than the short time in M.[unich] allowed.
Today, reluctant as I am to take up your time, I have to make two requests. On Thursday we have a session in which I have to give a report on the Zentralblatt business. As Stekel has in the meantime made further attempts to turn matters in his direction, I should like some really accurate information in order to be able to deal smoothly with all questions. There are two points that came up in M.[unich], which I do not now remember exactly: (1.) in what way did Bergmann1 break the contract? (2.) how far did Stekel take advantage of the wishes for a falling-off of the Zurichers? I should be glad of some more information on this. If the two questions cannot be answered quite briefly, perhaps you will ask Dr Rank to write to me what is necessary.
Now the second request. As long as Ziehen held the Chair here, I could not carry out my long-standing plan of writing my Habilitation.2 The present Professor, Bonhoeffer,3 is a much pleasanter person. To him I have a very good recommendation from Professor Liepmann. I know from your report that Kraus is becoming increasingly sympathetic to our cause. If both Bonhoeffer and Kraus were to support me, the chances would not be entirely bad. (The anti-Semitism of the Faculty does, naturally, remain an obstacle.) My request is this: would you send a few words of recommendation to Kraus about me, so that if Bonhoeffer approaches him he will know what it is all about?
Although I had already buried these plans regarding the Habilitation, two considerations induced me to take them up once again: apart from the usefulness to my practice to be expected from it, above all there is the hope that I might be able to awaken interest in our cause among the students—something I could not do so far among the doctors.
I thank you, dear Professor, in anticipation of your kindness. I am saving up everything else to tell you personally.
With the most cordial greetings to you and yours, also from my wife,
your devoted
Abraham
1. The publisher of the Zentralblatt in Wiesbaden (see also letter of 3 December). Finally, for 652 marks in damages, the title of official organ of the IPA was removed from the Zentralblatt (Freud to Ferenczi, 9 December 1912, Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: p. 440; see also the note to this effect in the first issue of the Zeitschrift, 1913, 1: 111). A year earlier, Bergmann had already been approached by Freud with the injunction that he would have to choose between Adler, then still co-editor of the Zentralblatt, and Freud himself, whereupon Adler had announced his resignation.
2. A prerequisite to being eligible for tenure.
3. Karl Bonhoeffer [1868–1948], noted German psychiatrist, professor in Breslau and Berlin, where the psychiatric clinic is named after him. Father of the theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was murdered by the SS in 1945.
144F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
3 December 1912
Dear Friend,
Gladly, gladly will I give you the warmest recommendation to Kraus, as soon as you wish. I only fear that nothing will come of it, because that would be too good. I do not know Kraus personally, and, until the acceptance of the two chapters for his book,1 I have had no relations with him whatsoever. But we will try it, particularly if you promise that in the event of success you will greatly increase your fees.
To complete your information: (1.) B[ergmann]'s breach of contract, if you want to call it that, consists in the fact that he replied to my question, as to whether I could dismiss St.[ekel] or rather sent word, that everything should remain as it was this year; next year he would in any case not keep the paper any longer. (2.) Stekel showed Riklin's Congress Report2 around in Vienna and commended it as a proof of the impending falling-off of the Z.[urichers]. I believe that is why he chose just that point in time for his trial of strength.
I shall be very delighted to see you here already before Christmas. You must, of course, include a Sunday.
With cordial greetings,
Yours,
Freud
P.S.: I received a very kind letter from Jung3 shortly after returning from Munich, but have not yet had any news about the outcome of his trip to Wiesbaden.
1. Friedrich Kraus had invited Freud to contribute to a new encyclopaedia of internal medicine. For various reasons (cf. Jones, 1955: pp. 248–249), this project did not come to fruition, and the work (Kraus & Brugsch, 1919–1927) was published after the war without psychoanalytic contributions.
2. Presumably the report of the Third Psychoanalytic Congress in Weimar [21–22 September 1911] in the Zentralblatt (1912, 2: 231–237).
3. Letter of 26 November 1912 (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: pp. 522–523).
145F
Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
12 December 1912
Dear Friend,
The letter to Kraus has long since reached its destination; but whether also its purpose?
Come to us when you can. I shall in any case benefit from you only on Sunday, but then in plenty. Let me know for when I can book a room for you at the Hotel Regina.1
Tell your dear wife that we do not want you to get indigestion anywhere but with us.
Otherwise all at last is quiet.
I look forward to seeing you again.
Yours cordially,
Freud
1. Most of Freud's visitors usually stayed in the Hotel Regina—which still exists today, at the present Sigmund Freud park—five minutes’ walk from Freud's apartment.
146A
Berlin1
18 December 1912
Dear Professor,
I intend to arrive in Vienna on Saturday morning. It is very kind of you to offer to book accommodation for me; I accept your offer with gratitude.
Looking forward to seeing you again soon, I send my warmest regards to you and yours, also on behalf of my wife.
Your devoted
Abraham
1. Postcard.
147A
Berlin
27 December 1912
Dear Professor,
It is only today that I find time to send you a sign of life. The indisposition that began in Vienna worsened somewhat over the next few days. Now I am better and do not want to delay any longer in sending you, first of all, my thanks. What for is, however, difficult to enumerate. And it is almost impossible to thank with words for the warm reception in your home, and for all the personal interest you showed in me. If a recent criticism made of you is justified—that you treat your followers like patients1—then I have to reproach you with several grave technical errors. First, you spoil your patients, and it is well known that one should not do so. Second, you have given presents to the patient, which might give him a completely wrong idea of the treatment. And finally, before my departure from treatment, you had secretly been in my hotel to pay the bill. “If you had been a psychoanalyst”, you would not have done such a thing, since, at the end of the cure, the patient should know as much about his case as the physician. You, however, kept a secret from me. And you do know, after all, how easily a feeling of guilt can lead to a hostile attitude! But since I was in general satisfied with the “treatment”, I shall not make a complaint, and can only give you once again my heartfelt thanks for everything. Please give the enclosed lines2 to your wife!
There is not yet much else to say today. I shall, if possible, despatch the grandparents paper3 within the next few days. After that, a short article about a screen-memory4 is to follow very soon.
Yet another request, on my wife's behalf. She would be happy to translate English and French articles that come in for one of the two journals. Up to now, I believe, the editors have mostly done it themselves; perhaps they would be glad of such a lightening of their work load.
With cordial greetings, also from my wife,
your devoted
Abraham
1. As claimed by Jung.
2. Missing.
3. Abraham, 1913[40].
4. Abraham, 1913[38].