1913

 

148F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
1 January 1913

Dear Friend,

Thank you for your friendly lines. The hospitality we are able to provide in Vienna, and what I in particular am able to do in that respect, is so little.

Now accept my cordial good wishes for the New Year, which will certainly not be an easy one for us. The past year achieved something nice on the very last day with a letter from Fr. Kraus, from which I gather that he asked you to call on him and is by no means disinclined to your cause. He still counts on “Bonhoeffer's approval” and confirms that you have a good reputation—even among the opponents. The letter was very decent, exceptional for someone who will soon be a privy councillor. Will you keep me informed about how things develop?

Stekel is to give a talk in Berlin on the 6th of January. Stöcker,1 as I told you, excused herself to me on the basis of ignorance of the state of affairs, which was forgivable at that time and expressed her opinion that nothing can be done now. That may be so, but he should still feel that he has an anachronism to thank for his invitation, and he should feel inhibited to some extent in his productions. Firstly, he will lie shamelessly about the reasons for his resignation. I have already prepared Stöcker for this. Secondly, he will obviously preach Adlerism, as he is now in their employ, and politeness need not go so far as to acclaim everything he says. He should be reminded of the change of conditions. So have another word with Stöcker, and think how anxious he might be made in his godlikeness.

Forgive the nasty affair; politics corrupt the character.

Yours cordially,

Freud

1. Dr Helene Stöcker [1869–1943], German feminist, sexual reformer, and pacifist, had become a member of the Berlin Psychoanalytic Society in June 1912. She had been acquainted with Lou Andreas-Salomé since 1900. Shortly afterwards, on 5 March 1913, she was a guest at the Vienna Society (Andreas-Salomé, 1958: p. 112; Nunberg & Federn, 1975: p. 172). Stöcker was co-founder of the Bund für Mutterschutz [League for Mothers’ Protection] and editor of its journal, Mutterschutz. In 1933 she emigrated to New York.

149A

Berlin
5 January 1913

Dear Professor,

Many thanks for your letter and your good wishes, which I heartily reciprocate.

Kraus asked me just before the New Year to go to see him. In the course of my visit he told me that he has made enquiries about me and that the replies were favourable, and he advised me in any case to submit a Habilitation. He promised to do what he could and asked for a list of my earlier, non-psychoanalytic papers. By this, he has at least shown a friendly interest. His influence within the Faculty is very great, although Bonhoeffer will have the final say in my case. I shall now work on a most innocuous theme. Then I will have to mobilize my old contacts. Bleuler might be able to influence Bonhoeffer favourably; it is also important for me to win over one or two other members of the Faculty. Keibel, my former teacher in Freiburg,¹ could give me an effective recommendation to one of the two anatomists; one of them—Waldeyer²— has a great deal of influence. In prehistoric times I did several years of microscopic work under Keibel. In spite of all this, I am not too optimistic about this matter.

Now for the Stekel affair. I would have followed your suggestion if circumstances had not intervened in the meantime, as you will see by the enclosure.³ Yesterday I spoke to Frau Dr Stöcker by telephone about it. In any case, we can be indifferent about Stekel's lecture to the Bund für Mutterschutz on January 6th. Before the conflict in Vienna, Stöcker had already asked Stekel to reserve an evening for a social gathering. Recently Juliusburger dealt privately with Stekel, agreed with him that the lecture would be on the 5th, and saw to it that Stöcker should put the lecture and the social gathering together in one evening. Who is going to grace this scientific evening is still not clear to me. I myself have naturally refused Stöcker's invitation on the grounds that I felt far too repulsed by Stekel's behaviour. At the same time I expressed to her my displeasure that two members of our group should arrange such an evening, bypassing the existing organization. She then rang me, and I had with her the conversation I mentioned above. She was very embarrassed that she had taken part in the rather peculiar event and approved absolutely of my standpoint.

It is a bad thing that we are completely without useful people here. We must overlook a great many of Juliusburger's faults, i.e. put them down to his neurosis. He is utterly loaded with ethics, and besides has a great need for fathers, for whom he is fired with enthusiasm, only to go off each of them after a while. After his correspondence with you he was full of resistances, indeed he had not been short of them before either. Unfortunately a year ago he brought in Stöcker; it would have been better if she had not joined.—I hope that in a while we shall be over the whole wretched affair.

You will probably see from the account above, dear Herr Professor, that I cannot exert any influence on Stekel's reception in Berlin. The only thing is to stay away; I know that is what Eitingon is doing too.—

Time permitting, I shall send some small contributions to Ferenczi4 in the near future.

With cordial greetings,

your devoted

Abraham

1. Franz Karl Keibel [1861–1929], lecturer and then professor [1892] of embryology and histology in Freiburg and later in Berlin. Having begun his studies in Würzburg [1895], Abraham had finished them in Freiburg [1901], with a thesis on Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Wellensittichs [Contributions to the Developmental History of the Budgerigar] under Keibel, who had also co-authored Abraham's first scientific publication (1900[1]).

2. Heinrich Wilhelm Gottfried von Waldeyer [1836–1921], noted German anatomist, professor at the universities of Breslau [1865] and Strassburg [1872], 1883 head of the anatomical institute at Berlin University.

3. Missing.

4. I.e. for the Zeitschrift, of which Ferenczi was co-editor.

150A

Berlin
29 January 1913

Dear Professor,

Everything should now be running normally again after last Sunday's event,¹ and so I may write to you today about some political and scientific matters.

Following Stekel's non-public talk—and presumably at his suggestion—a committee of people with a talent for resistance was set up in order to establish an Association for Sexual Science.² I was invited to the preparatory meeting. This will certainly not do us any harm, perhaps one might even use it to overthrow one or the other prejudice. I only mention it because I saw an interesting letter from Stekel, which seems to suggest that the Zentralblatt is about to collapse. St. offers his journal to the new Association as its organ and wants to extend it to a “Zentralblatt für analytische Seelenkunde, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sexualpsychologie und Sexualbiologie” [Journal for Analytical Psychology with Special Reference to Sexual Psychology and Sexual Biology], with which the publisher is said to be in agreement. He recommends this new title as “excellent” with the profound reason that “every unravelling of an illness is an analysis”. The offer has, however, been declined with thanks. This attempt to join an association that is as yet unborn proves how little the Zentralblatt is viable. There is a particularly nice postscript with which Stekel tries to entice the sexual researchers: “The gentlemen[‘s names] will all be on the cover”. One would like to say with Adler: a unique opportunity for being on the top.3

It was with great pleasure that I received the first issue of our Zeitschrift today. Contents, editing, and general appearance are excellent. It makes a much better impression than the Zentralblatt. I assure you of my further active collaboration.—

I took down verbatim the following sentences in an analysis of a paranoid patient: “I at first try to come close to everyone, but am prepared for the break of the relationship from the very beginning.” “I am prepared from the very beginning to find in everyone every possible bad intention against me.” I find that these statements fit in extremely well with the views described in your Schreber paper. I have certain reasons not to publish anything from this analysis for the time being.

On the other hand, I would ask you to make use of the following, if you wish. In Vienna you discussed with me the deification of the murdered father. A patient brought the following neat confirmation of this. Over an extended period he had a number of Oedipus dreams concerning the possession of his stepmother and his father's death. A series of these was followed by one in which the patient ascends to heaven, where he finds God on his throne, looking like his father. The ascent to heaven obviously has two meanings: (1.) coitus with the stepmother, (2.) the patient convinces himself that the father is in heaven, that is, dead, and then elevates the dead man to being a god.

Nothing new in the matter of my Habilitation. I shall shortly start on a thesis and will probably undertake association experiments in cases of senile dementia. An innocuous topic in any case.

With cordial greetings from house to house,

your devoted

Abraham

1. The marriage between Freud's daughter Sophie and Max Halberstadt on 25 January (Jones, 1955: p. 98, gives a wrong date).

2. Shortly afterwards, on 21 February 1913, the Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft und Eugenik [Medical Society for Sexology and Eugenics], the first scientific sexological association ever, was founded in Berlin by Iwan Bloch [1872–1922] and Magnus Hirschfeld; Albert Eulenburg (see letter 172A, 10 October 1913, n. 2) was president. Its organ was the Zeitschrift für Sexualwissenschaft [Journal of Sexology] (not to be confounded with the short-lived journal of the same name of 1908), founded in 1914 by Bloch and Eulenburg.

3. In original: Obensein [be on top, be above], homonym of oben sein [here: be on the cover]. According to Adler, in every neurotic symptom one recovers “the feeling of effeminacy, of inferiority, of being ‘down,’ and the masculine protest, the fictitious manly goal, the feeling of being ‘above'” (Adler, 1912: p. 353).

151A

Berlin
6 February 1913

Dear Professor,

Please forgive me for being importunate and writing again. I am sending the enclosed paper direct to you (instead of to Ferenczi) because it is a contribution to the specific question put by you.¹ As noted in the introduction, the case does not fully conform to your demands. I do not know therefore whether you will be able to use it.

This time nothing else, only cordial greetings

from your

Karl Abraham

1. Abraham, 1913[42]. Still in the Zentralblatt, in the rubric Offener Sprechsaal [Open Forum], Freud had called for papers on “patients’ dreams whose interpretation justifies the conclusion that the dreamers had been witnesses of sexual intercourse in their early years” (Freud, 1912h: p. 4). Freud's interest had evidently been stimulated by the famous dream of the “Wolf Man” (Freud, 1918b [1914], chapter 4).

152F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
14 February 1913

Dear Friend,

I have to thank you for two valuable communications, and I do so belatedly because I have to use all my time for drudgery again.

The infantile dream, clinically particularly interesting, is already with the Internationale Zeitschrift. The dream about God will be stored.

Spielrein has told me of a striking partisanship for ψα by Kraus.¹ So there is ground for hope for you.

Yours cordially,

Freud

1. Spielrein (see letter 25A, 4 April 1908, & n. 9) had moved to Berlin in 1912. Her letter to Freud is missing in Carotenuto, 1980, where Freud's answer of 9 February 1913 is printed.

153A

Berlin
3 March 1913

Dear Professor,

First of all, many thanks for your lines and for the reprint!¹ I am amazed at all the new ideas and points of view contained in this series of papers. I have also received the two reprints from the I.[Internationale] Zeitschr.[ift]²; I should like sometime to make a few small additions to the technical paper.

I have to let my psychoanalytic pen rest for the time being, as I am now occupied with preparatory work for my Habilitation. I have therefore provided the Zeitschrift with several small contributions. Imago must wait for the time being.—I am working on associations in normal old age and in mild cases of senile dementia. It will be a good old Prussian piece of work, forcing open doors. If only it would also force the door to the University. In fact, things do not look quite so bad for me as I first thought. Kraus has become very interested. For two days running he discussed ψα in detail in his clinic. But the best is the following. I had asked Professor Liepmann (the aphasia–apraxia researcher) to explore my chances with Bonhoeffer. L.[iepmann] let me know by letter at the time that B.[onhoeffer]'s reaction had been thoroughly negative. In a personal meeting I asked Liepmann to tell me about the matter in more detail, and then it came out that B. had actually said: if I wrote a good paper he would not be opposed to it on principle! This strange contradiction, which is interesting in the matter of “testimonies”, is due to the fact that, in spite of his recognized ability, L. himself did not get the chair he longed for. He has already been suggested four or five times for different universities. He has become very pessimistic and despite his otherwise good intentions towards me has let his complex get mixed up with my affairs.

I am attaching a programme of the psychiatrists’ congress.³ You probably know about this event already. There is perhaps not much point in going there; if you, dear Professor, were in favour, then I would perhaps go to the Congress nevertheless. Please let me know your opinion when you have the opportunity!

Meanwhile, the Sexualwissensch.[aftliche] Gesellsch.[aft] [Association for Sexual Science] has been founded. It will not disturb our circles. Otherwise, there is nothing much happening here.

I heard by chance that Jung is soon going to America again, and for some months at that.⁴ I am afraid that this will once again make for difficulties in preparing the Congress. It would be a good thing if someone were to do whatever is necessary in his place.

Just one small scientific comment today. In the footnote on page 5 of the new paper in Imago, you mention the biblical ban on making images, which refers chiefly to the worship of images.5 I have found a couple of times in the ψα of patients an analogous “ban” referring to the parents. The patient is capable of recalling the features of all his relatives and friends with great visual clarity; it is only his parents’ features that he cannot recall, even when he had just left them. The most pronounced case was that of an obsessional neurotic with very severe compulsive brooding. The repression of scoptophilia had led to the most bizarre obsessional symptoms: for instance, brooding about the appearance of invisible things (what the conscious and the unconscious looked like in the brain, what his neurosis looked like, etc. etc.; he wanted to see everything.*⁶ Might not the biblical prohibition of worshipping God as an image be connected with the repression of scoptophilia? Looking on God is in fact punished with death or blindness.

As soon as I find a little time, I shall send the Zeitschrift a very interesting observation about mouth eroticism in a case of hebephrenia.⁷ A patient who at the age of 14 had to wean himself from sucking milk and who often masturbated—at least this was the conscious reason— only because he could not get any milk to drink at night! This is the same patient about whose “mouth pollutions” (dribbling saliva while dreaming) I already spoke to you in Vienna.

Incidentally, it is a pleasure to see how keenly the editors of the new Zeitschrift are setting about their work! No. 1 is excellent and can easily compete with the “inferior organ”.⁸

Putnam sent me a lady (Miss Stevens) (a former patient), who is studying children's speech defects in Berlin. She would perhaps like to go to Vienna for the winter and said that she would ask you whether you would admit her to your lectures.—She is a nice, intelligent person, and I do not think she would be a burden to you.

I assume that Dreams and Myths⁹ will have reached you!

Naturally, I do not expect a reply to this letter, dear Professor! I know how heavily burdened you are with correspondence and would only ask for a few words about Breslau sometime!

Cordial greetings to you and yours, also from my wife!

Your devoted

Abraham

 

*For example, also his own birth. He envied Pythagoras for having experienced his own birth three times. Severe incestuous fixation of the scoptophilia could, of course, be demonstrated.

1 “Animism, Magic, Omnipotence of Thoughts”, the third part of Totem and Taboo, first published separately in Imago.

2. Freud, 1913c (first part), 1913a.

3. Jahresversammlung des Deutschen Vereines für Psychiatrie [Annual Meeting of the German Psychiatric Association] at Breslau in May, which was to be characterized by a heated polemic against psychoanalysis by Hoche and a critical evaluation of it by Bleuler as discussant. (Cf. Eitingon's report in the Zeitschrift, 1913, 1: 409–414; letter 157F, 13 May 1913.)

4. On 4 March, Jung went to America for five weeks (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: p. 545). On 27 March, he lectured at the Liberal Club in New York (Zeitschrift, 1913, 1: 310).

5. Freud, 1912–13: p. 80.

6. Cf. 15A, 8 January 1908, & n. 3.

7. The paper containing this case, which is today considered a classic and was to win the Freud prize in 1918, appeared only a couple of years later (1916[52]); cf. letter 288A, 13 February 1916.

8. Allusion to the Zentralblatt and to Adler's (its former co-editor's) concept of “organ inferiority” [Organminderwertigkeit].

9. See letter 136F, 24 August 1912, & n. 1.

154A

Weimar¹
25 March 1913

Dear Professor,

After a lovely spring tour through Thuringia I have landed with my wife in Weimar, where I am now reviving memories of autumn 1911.² On the reverse is the castle courtyard, in which you then told me for the first time about the totem.

With kind regards to you and yours from

Your devoted

K. Abraham

 

Best regards!

Hedwig Abraham

1. Picture postcard.

2. Of the Third Psychoanalytic Congress.

155F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
27 March 1913

Dear Friend,

Your beautiful Easter greetings from Weimar reminded me that I have made use too long of the permission you gave me not to reply. Having returned yesterday from Venice, whither I had guided my single1 little daughter,² and being slightly more rested, I hasten to chat with you.

First of all, the satisfaction that things do not stand so badly with regard to your Habilitation. I should really wish for it; Kraus's letter to me has actually made me hopeful.

Next I should like to suggest that you finish your comments on the ban on making images for the Zeitschrift. It would cost you only an hour after all, and would be very valuable to us.

Miss Stevens will be welcome, on the grounds of your and Putnam's recommendation.

Whether or not you should attend the Congress in question, I can really advise you only on secondary grounds. Perhaps yes, so that we could have a report on it in the Zeitschrift with some strong words in it, and that you get two days of rest. You have not mentioned whether you have carried out the plan to increase your fees. I am afraid that that is the only point in which you—wrongly—refuse to follow me!

Jung is in America, but only for five weeks, that is, he will soon be back. In any case, he is doing more for himself than for ψα. I have greatly retreated from him and have no longer any friendly thoughts for him.³ As it is, his bad theories do not compensate me for his disagreeable character. He is following Adler, without being as consistent as this latter pest.

I am pretty overworked, but in the months from now until the holidays still have to finish the totem job of which you remind me. In the end, nothing of oneself will be left.

Ferenczi was ailing, and is now in Corfu.⁴ Rank is extraordinarily good.

I send my cordial greetings to you and your dear wife and want to hear good news about you.

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. That is, unmarried.

2. Anna [1895–1982]. Originally an elementary-school teacher, Anna—analysed by her father—was the only one of Freud's children to become a psychoanalyst. She was a pioneer in child analysis. From 1922 on she was a member of the Vienna Society, and from 1924 on a member of the Committee. When her father fell ill with cancer, she became his nurse, secretary, and adviser and remained so until his death. She was co-editor of the Zeitschrift für psychoanalytische Pädagogik. In 1935 she took over from Helene Deutsch as director of the Training Institute of the Vienna Society. She was head of the Hampstead Nurseries [1940–1945] and the Hampstead Clinic [from 1952 on]. In 1945 she founded the journal Psychoanalytic Study of the Child. In her works she represented—in contrast to Melanie Klein—the pedagogical trend within child-analysis advocating a clear differentiation between the analysis of children and of adults.

Anna had been staying in Merano during the five previous months (thus missing her sister Sophie's wedding). Freud had met her in Bolzano on 21 March, and they both went by way of Verona to Venice, from where they returned to Vienna five days later (Jones, 1955: p. 99; Freud to Anna Freud, 10 March 1913, LOC).

3. In fact, Freud and Jung had already ended their personal relationship in January, on a bitter note (cf. Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: pp. 538ff).

4. Instead of going to Vienna for an analysis with Freud, as Ferenczi had originally planned, he accompanied his friend Miksa Schächter to Corfu for three weeks.

156A

Berlin
5 May 1913

Dear Professor,

If one only considers external events, then the outlook for psychoanalysis is very grim again. Just when I was about to write to you, the enclosed reached me. The last bit of desire to attend the Congress left me when I read Bleuler's contradictory stuff.¹ It is best to stick to our old ways, and to keep ourselves to ourselves. As far as I know, only Wanke,² who has also announced a paper, is going there. He is honest and will certainly stand up for the cause, but he will not make any impression. I shall ask him to write a report of the Congress.

I am now busy with preparation work for my Habilitation thesis; that is to say, I take down associations of patients suffering from senile dementia in the hospital for incurables. Otherwise, every day brings ten hours’ work. I can reassure you, dear Professor, on the question of fees. Last autumn I had started putting up my fees from 10 to 15 M and recently made the jump to 20 for the first time. The income is about to rise correspondingly; i.e. to 18,000 M last year; this year I may count on about 25,000 M. As soon as I have carried through the increase in fees totally, the best time for which is after the holidays, I shall shorten my working day by one hour in order to have more time for scientific work. So much is ready to be written down; and in addition the thesis for the Habilitation is another hindrance at the moment.

You ask me to work on the ban on images; this shall be done too, but, I would prefer not to communicate this as such, but, rather, in a broader context. I should like to speak at the Congress³ on the transformation of scoptophilia.⁴ Surely, you will agree if I leave the triviality unpublished until then. I should very much like to know whether your work on totem will be published before Munich; I would have to refer to it in my paper. I would perhaps like to ask you to let me read the proofs, as you did in an earlier case too.

Unfortunately, I cannot but agree with what you write about Jung; all the same, I do not believe that Adlerism⁵ has come to stay in Zurich.

What are your plans for the summer? We are going somewhere on the North Sea, for the children's sake. After that I should like to go to South Tyrol for a short while with my wife, and from there to Munich.

With cordial greetings to you and yours,

your devoted

Abraham

1. Probably the (pre-circulated?) key statements of Bleuler's paper (Bleuler, 1913a) for the congress in Breslau (see Zeitschrift, 1913, 1: 411–414).

2. Dr Georg Wanke [1866–1928], a psychiatrist who practised psychoanalysis as medical superintendent at a sanatorium in the Harz mountains; one of the earliest supporters of psychoanalysis in Germany.

3. The Fourth International Psychoanalytic Congress in Munich (7–8 September).

4. Abraham, 1914[43].

5. Adlerei—a pejorative form of Adlerismus [Adlerism].

157F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
13 May 1913

Dear Friend,

The totem job is finished,¹ apart from corrections and supplements from the literature. It is to go to the printer's on 13 June,² and I shall then send you the galleys as soon as I have them. It is to appear before the Congress, in the August issue of Imago, and will serve to neatly eliminate anything Aryan–religious. Because that will be the consequence.

I am very much in agreement with your proposed lecture and with your economic reforms. Your Habilitation seems to me particularly important at this moment; now that we must reckon with the breaking away of Zurich and Munich, a school in Berlin would be the only proper compensation.

For all its ambivalence,³ Bleuler's concoction clearly shows the regressive trend. Indeed he accepts far less than he did two years ago. He also used to add the modest flourish that, when he contradicted me, subsequently he so often found that I was right, that etc….

Our summer plans: 14 July to 10 (or 12) August—Marienbad, then, until the Congress, S. Martino di Castrozza in South Tyrol. Was the latter region not on your programme as well?

I have learned with great satisfaction that you are corresponding with Rank about our affairs. Politically I am paralysed and see all salvation for ψα as we understand it in the unity of the four or five men who are closest to me, among whom you seem to count yourself.⁴

Cordial greetings to you and your dear wife,

from your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. The fourth and last part of Totem and Taboo: “The Return of Totemism in Childhood”.

2. Reading uncertain; Freud had probably written 15 and then corrected it to 13.

3. A term coined by Bleuler.

4. The so-called Secret Committee—founded in 1912 against the background of the conflicts with Adler and Stekel but, above all, Jung—then consisting of Abraham, Ferenczi, Jones, Rank, and Sachs. This small select group of “paladins”, as Freud referred to them, were to guard and protect the core of psychoanalysis. (Cf. Falzeder, 1993; Grosskurth, 1991; Wittenberger, 1995.)

158A

Berlin
23 May 1913

Dear Professor,

Of all that is going on in Zurich I only receive murky tidings here, but then I can more or less imagine it. I do not know whether, as you indicate, the break is unavoidable. As far as it lies in my power, Berlin shall offer compensations. Naturally no further developments have taken place concerning my Habilitation, except that I am working on my thesis. I have to collect the material gradually, hope to finish the whole thing in the summer and to submit the paper in the autumn. All the rest lies then in the lap of the Faculty gods. I am as sceptical about this as before. If I fail, something else will have to be attempted. I will not be on my own any more in the winter. First of all Stockmayer is settling here, with whom, I believe, something could get going. Up to now we have always been short of young blood. I do have various ideas of what can be done. If the Habilitation succeeds, the place will be livened up.

I am delighted to be getting the proofs of the totem work. I have a number of very interesting observations for the Congress lecture, which, however, I can only present if I have read your work beforehand.

Breslau was bad. According to Eitingon, who was there, Bleuler behaved most unpleasantly. E.[itingon] will surely tell you about this personally. Only Stegmann was present from our side. It seems he behaved very correctly and nicely. Hoche did get the laugh on his side; however, I have talked to several people who, though not supporters of ψα, felt greatly repelled. It is a good thing that after the neurologists (in 1910)¹ the psychiatrists have now also given vent to their wrath. Things will be getting all the better for our cause after this. I often have occasion to notice with amazement how much interest in ψα has grown in Germany. One thing is certain: no topic in the realm of medicine and psychology is at present so widely discussed in professional circles as ψα, and no doctor's name is mentioned as often as yours—and be it with three crosses.² It is similar in lay circles!

I received an inquiry from Jung, addressed to our group, whether the subject for discussion chosen in Munich (the function of the dream) still stands.3 I see no reason against it. Should any reservations regarding this subject come from the Vienna group, I should like to hear particulars. In that case I would ask you to let me know all that's necessary through Rank.

I am at present reading Hitschmann's Schopenhauer⁴ and am glad that the journals are going so well, while the Zentralblatt sinks to a lower level with each issue.

Our plans for the summer have changed. We have to give the children a longer holiday by the sea, and we shall probably choose Noordwijk, which you know.⁵ My wife is going away with the children at the beginning of July, and I am not going until the end of July; I shall have a few weeks’ rest and then I shall visit the Dutch and Belgian towns with my wife for a fortnight. In the meantime the children will remain in Noordwijk, and we shall be near them. We would not be able to give them so long a holiday by the sea if we were to go south. So it seems that nothing is going to come of that. I intend to go direct to Munich from Holland. Perhaps we could arrange a rendezvous before the Congress; I am very ready to receive suggestions! Perhaps something could be arranged by word of mouth, if you visit Hamburg in the summer and then pass through Berlin.—If it is not too much trouble for you, I should be very grateful for a very short account of how satisfied you were with your hotel in Noordwijk.

Unfortunately, I have to bother you yet again, dear Professor. Frau Dr Stegmann⁶ has asked me to analyse her. She will not, of course, be able to come to Berlin for an indefinite length of time, only for about two months. Do you advise me to take this on? And what do I do in this case about the question of fees? Have you any idea in what sort of circumstances the woman is living since her divorce?

Please do not be annoyed about all these questions. I shall be very satisfied with quite a short answer in telegram style.

With cordial greetings from house to house,

your devoted

Abraham

1. In 1910, prominent German neurologists had on two occasions called for a boycott of clinics where psychoanalysis was practised: at the Meeting of the Medical Society of Hamburg on 29 March 1910, and at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society of German Neurologists in Berlin on 6–8 October 1910.

2. Making the sign of the cross three times for protection against demons. Freud often used the symbol of three crosses before the names of persons towards whom he was ambivalent.

3. At the meeting of organization heads in Munich it was suggested that the theme for discussion at the forthcoming congress be “On the Teleological Function of Dreams”, a concept particularly stressed by the Zurich group. In Jung's invitation circular of June 1913 (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: p. 547) it was subsequently formulated more openly as “The Function of Dreams”.

4. Hitschmann, 1913. Eduard Hitschmann [1871–1958], general practitioner, member of the Wednesday Society from 1905 on. He was head of the psychoanalytic outpatient clinic in Vienna from 1922 until the Society was disbanded by the Nazis. In 1938 he emigrated to London and in 1940 he moved to Boston, where he was active as a training analyst.

5. Freud had spent part of his summer holiday there in 1910 with his family, before going to Sicily with Ferenczi.

6. Margarete Stegmann [1871–between 1935 and 1937], neurologist in Dresden, from 1912 on a member of the Berlin Society; former wife of Arnold Georg Stegmann.

159F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
1 June 1913

Dear Friend,

Excuse my lateness due to the greatest demands in dreadful heat.

The hotel in Noordwijk was actually good, all the small meals ample: butter, cheese, drinks, etc., the longer ones, meat, vegetables, in the coarse Dutch style, basically unpalatable. Food in the big Huisterduin Hotel is said to be not good either. Our house was called Pension Noordzee, proprietor van Beelen.

I do not know much about Frau Dr Stegmann, can imagine that she has nothing. Very unpleasant to get mixed up with the divorce, as it has already been forced upon me!

You will already know by now that we are to meet in Munich on the day before the Congress (Saturday, 6 Sept., in the morning).—Jung is crazy, but I am not working for a separation, should like to let him reach rock bottom first. Perhaps my totem paper will hasten the breach against my will. You will of course receive the galleys as soon as I have them (from the middle of the month onwards). I shall be presenting it to the Society on Wednesday¹; now I have grave doubts about it, the reaction after the enthusiasm.

Jones is off today for two months’ analysis with Ferenczi. I enjoy the thought that your marriage shows that ψα does not necessarily lead to divorce.²

Bleuler has nicely developed backwards. I suspect that the last motives were the ψα papers on the synaesthesias,³ which raised tremendous resistance in him (see the Zeitschrift für Psychologie, last issue).⁴ A proof perhaps that Pfister and Hug are really right in this matter.

With cordial greetings to yourself and your dear wife,

Yours,

Freud

1. On 4 June, at the last meeting of the working year 1912/13. Minutes and attendance list missing in Nunberg & Federn (1975: p. 204).

2. Jones underwent an analysis with Ferenczi during June and July for two hours a day, which overlapped with the analysis of his common-law wife, Loë Kann, with Freud. As Freud had written to Ferenczi, Kann, “as a consequence of the analysis, no longer wants to remain his wife” (4 May 1913, Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: p. 482). She had fallen in love with a man by the name of Herbert Jones, whom she later married.

3. Hug-Hellmuth, 1912; Pfister, 1912. Hermine Hug-Hellmuth (orig. Hug von Hugenstein) [1871–1924], a teacher, was the first child analyst. She was the editor of the Tagebuch eines halbwüchsigen Mädchens (1919), the authenticity of which was later disputed; and she was director of the advisory board of the Vienna Psychoanalytic Outpatient Clinic [1923]. She was murdered by her nephew, the observation of whom had provided material for many of her works. (See Huber, 1980; MacLean & Rappen, 1991.)

4. Probably Bleuler, 1913b.

160A

Berlin
29 June 1913

Dear Professor,

I have now read the totem paper twice, always with increasing enjoyment and continually growing conviction of the correctness of your view. I do not want to go into detail today; I want to express my gratitude through the paper that I announced for the Congress, which will bring some additions—not inconsiderable ones, it seems to me—to the subject. Today I only want to say that I find rich confirmatory material in my psychoanalyses. Only yesterday I discovered something I did not know until now: a perfectly clear tree-totemism in a neurosis, whereas so far I had only encountered animals. It becomes evident in this case, just as in the totems of primitive peoples, that we are not dealing with something as primary and elemental as animal totemism.

Recently I have scarcely been able to write a line. My ten hour-a-day stints are likely to last until the holidays; yet various long-planned papers, which I should like to send to the Zeitschrift, are pressing upon me. The preparatory work on the Habilitation paper is naturally taking up what little free time I have.

Thank you very much for your information on Holland! We found accommodation in Noordwijk. My wife is travelling with the children on 8 July; I myself am not going until the end of July and shall remain there until the end of August. I shall have 1 to 1½ weeks free before the Congress. If it could be fitted in with your programme, I should be very happy to meet you sometime and somewhere, but it goes without saying that you should not upset your plans in any way. The day before the Congress in Munich will be given over to tiresome inside politics; after the Congress you will, like myself, certainly want to get home as soon as possible. So the only opportunity for scientific conversations would be before Munich.

Last week there was, for once, an opportunity to speak in public in Berlin about ψα. In the “Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft” a bad paper by Rohleder1 was followed by a discussion on masturbation, in which first Koerber and then I firmly upheld ψα. The preceding week brought me a few unpleasant days as an expert witness at court in the case against the Anthropophyteia.² Whatever could be said in its favour, I said. But unfortunately I had to realize that some of the authors are scientifically very poorly qualified, and serious objections against Krauss as a person can also be raised.—Bjerre from Stockholm came to see me today on his way to the Tyrol. He is very well informed and a really serious and reliable man; he made a perfectly correct assessment of Jung and Adler all on his own.

With cordial greetings from house to house,

your devoted

Abraham

1. Dr Hermann Rohleder, sexologist from Leipzig, co-editor of the Zeitschrift für Sexualwissenschaft [1908]; author of a book on masturbation (1912).

2. Anthropophyteia, Jahrbuch für folkloristische Erhebungen und Forschungen zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der geschlechtlichen Moral, a periodical founded and edited by the Viennese ethnologist Friedrich Salomon Krauss. It assembled principally anthropological material of a sexual character. (Cf. Freud's letter to Krauss on Anthropophyteia, Freud, 1910f.)

161F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
1 July 1913

Dear Friend,

Your opinion of the totem paper was particularly important to me, as after finishing it I had a period of doubt about its¹ value. But Ferenczi, Jones, Sachs, Rank have expressed opinions similar to yours, with the result that I have gradually recovered my confidence. The way in which you want to show me the value of the work, through contributions, additions, and conclusions, is, of course, the most marvellous. I am prepared for vicious attacks, which will naturally not sway me in any way. The rift with the Swiss is likely to be substantially widened.

I am counting the days until the beginning of the holidays, and lo! there are 12.² But I am not working any more—apart from the 11 hours of practice. On the evening of the 13th we are going to Marienbad, four weeks later from there to S. Martino di Castrozza (behind Trient). Should you like to come there, you will also meet Ferenczi, who is travelling with me to Munich on the 5/6 September.3 It is really the only opportunity for discussion.

Frau von Salomé has, in her own words, “laid a small egg for Imago”.⁴ In any case, it is welcome. Of the papers for the Congress I know of Tausk, on narcissism, van Emden (who is here now): analysis of a pseudo-epilepsy, Jones on the technical behaviour of the analyst on questions of sublimation, Ferenczi on a subject still to be decided. I shall not speak.⁵

It would be a good thing to arrange our meeting in Munich a long time in advance. Shall we stay at the same hotel or somewhere else? I have still not received any information about the venue.

I send you my cordial greetings and wish you and yours the best course of a well-earned holiday.

My address in Marienbad is Villa Turba, but the Vienna address can also be depended on throughout the whole summer.

Yours,

Freud

1. One word heavily crossed out. Freud probably first started to write Ihrem Werte instead of ihrem Werte, i.e. “doubt about your value” instead of “its value”.

2. Allusion to Friedrich von Schiller's “Lied von der Glocke” (which every schoolchild had to learn by heart).

3. Freud, his wife Martha, Minna Bernays, and Anna arrived in San Martino di Castrozza on 11 August, where Ferenczi joined them four days later. Abraham did come to visit for a few days. Freud and Ferenczi then went together to Munich for the Congress.

4. Andreas-Salomé, 1914.

5. Eventually, Tausk spoke about “The Psychological and Pathological Significance of Narcissism”; van Emden on “On the Analysis of a Case of Ostensible Epilepsy in a Child”; Jones about “The Attitude of the Physician Towards Current Conflicts” (Jones, 1914); and Ferenczi on “On the Psychology of Conviction” (Ferenczi, 1913[109]). Freud did give a paper, “The Problem of Choice of Neurosis” (Freud, 1913i).

Jan E. G. van Emden [1868–1950] from the Hague, later president of the Dutch Society. Analysed by Freud, he had become a friend of the Freud family, and he and his wife spent several holidays with them.

162A

Berlin
6 July 1913

Dear Professor,

Today, only very briefly, many thanks for your information, particularly for the invitation to come and see you in San Martino. If nothing intervenes, I shall be there at the end of August, and I am looking forward to meeting you and yours, as well as our colleague Ferenczi, then.

For our pre-meeting in Munich I have already suggested to Rank that we should stay in the hotel in which the meetings are taking place, so as not to give an impression of deliberate separation. For our discussion we should meet somewhere else. I suggest that we should all meet on 6 September in the morning and perhaps go together for an excursion into the Isar1 valley.

With best wishes for a good rest, and greetings to you and your whole house.

Yours,

Abraham

1. The river running through Munich.

163A

Berlin
20 July 1913

Dear Professor,

I do not want to disturb your holiday peace with a long letter. I would like to refer to just one point in your last letter, now that you have enjoyed a week of holiday and therefore will surely have become more receptive to my arguments.

You wrote that you would not be speaking in Munich. I hope you only wrote this while overly tired out with work in the last weeks in Vienna. For, if this were your last word, it would not be a proper congress any longer. I believe I act on behalf of the circle, which will assemble already on 6 September, if I ask you most sincerely to ensure the importance and effectiveness of the Congress by giving a paper. Who knows how much unpleasantness will occur? There is nothing that would be more suitable as a counterweight. You remember the effect your personal appearance had in Munich in November, and there it was only a report on the irksome politics. How much more favourable will the effect of a scientific paper be in the present situation! I do not want to pursue it further. Eitingon, who is visiting you today, will surely succeed in persuading you to change your mind. My best blessings go with him.

That is all for today. I am here until 26 July, then my address will be: Pension “Ozon”, Noordwijk aan Zee. Perhaps you might send me there your address in San Martino.

With cordial greetings to you and yours,

your devoted

Abraham

164A

Noordwijk aan Zee, Pension “Ozon”
29 July 19131

Dear Professor,

After Eitingon had told me your views about a possible paper, I turned to Jung to find out his intentions regarding the discussion. I reminded him that already in Munich we had said that perhaps only the main paper, not each individual one, should be followed by a discussion. I have just received the reply, which I enclose. Unfortunately it does not meet with your wishes.² But I think this need not be decisive. After all, we are having our preliminary meeting on 6 September. It would be so simple if one or two of us were to undertake any necessary replies to unpleasant remarks in discussion, so that you would not have to bother with them! You might, in fact, just have to make a short closing statement.

I do hope you are willing to make the Congress into a real congress by reading a paper.

I do not wish to use many more words to plead with you, dear Professor, to do so. I would just like to remind you that presumably this time quite a number of young people will come to the Congress. The Congress would lose its most attracting force if you were there as a silent listener.

I hope you and yours feel really comfortable there; now the weather is probably more favourable than it was at first. We are splendidly looked after here; we shall spend the next weeks partly resting by the sea and partly visiting the old towns.

With cordial greetings to you and yours, also from my wife,

yours devotedly,

Abraham

1. Typewritten postcard.

2. “[T]he freedom of discussion that Jung has set up doesn't suit me”, Freud wrote to Ferenczi (3 August 1913, Freud & Ferenczi, 1992: p. 502). At previous Congresses no allowance had been made for discussion of the lectures.

Addendum

[Jung to Abraham]

Küsnacht¹
28 July 1913

Dear Colleague,

I have taken note of the announcement of your paper on “Neurotic Limitations etc.”² I want to limit the time for the talk to a maximum of 25 min. If at all possible, the individual papers should also be discussed, not only the main papers. Mere listening to papers is too barren. It will be up to the president and the good will of the assembly not to stretch the discussions too much, so that the whole matter can be dealt with.

With collegial greetings,

your devoted

Dr Jung

1. Typewritten postcard.

2. Abraham, 1913[41].

165F

Marienbad
31 July 1913

Dear Friend,

This morning a reminder arrived from Jung¹ to announce a paper, together with various complaints about misunderstandings and some supercilious lecturing that is incomprehensible to me. In view of these never-ending misunderstandings, I can only regret that the Zurichers have lost the ability to make themselves intelligible.

This afternoon your letter, from which I see how much you want me not to make a demonstration by abstinence. This repetition of the request transmitted by Eitingon was decisive for me, in spite of the unfavourable arrangements for speaking at the Congress. So I shall present a short communication on the problem of the choice of neurosis. You will see that though I wish to avoid the discussion, I am not afraid of it.

For us it is a pleasant thought that you are now enjoying our beautiful Noordwijk too. Above all the sunsets were magnificent. Wind and dunes I did not like. The small towns are delightful. Delft is a little gem. You have to go a long way to find an Egyptian collection like the one in the museum in Leiden. The Attic burial steles are also outstandingly beautiful.

I hope your wife and children will have a good rest there.

Do not forget that you have promised to be in S. Martino di Castrozza on 1 August. Let me know when I can book a room for you in the Hotel des Alpes.

Cordial greetings,

Yours,

Freud

1. Letter of 29 July 1913 (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: p. 548).

166A

Noordwijk aan Zee
6 August 1913

Dear Professor,

No better news could have reached me here than that contained in your letter. Since you tell me that my repeated requests were the decisive factor, I want to thank you sincerely for your decision. Incidentally, you will surely not be subject to the time-limit. We also had a time-limit of half an hour at previous congresses; yet I still remember with great pleasure the two hours you filled with your paper in Salzburg. Surely no one will notice when the first 25 minutes are up! I would like to ask you not to restrict yourself to a short communication, especially since Eitingon has made me very eager to hear about your new ideas on the question of choice of neurosis; but I shall gladly be content with what I have achieved by my previous letter.

We like Noordwijk very much indeed. Just today we visited the Museum of Antiquities in Leiden; I have seldom taken such pleasure in walking through a collection; there is too much in it for one visit.

I shall not forget to come to San Martino. As I am not yet absolutely certain of the day I arrive, may I ask you not to book a room for me in advance. After all, around 1 September accommodation is available without advance booking.

I wish you and your family a good move to the Tyrol, and add my kind regards to you all, also on behalf of my wife.

Your devoted

Abraham¹

1. The Munich Congress took place on 7 and 8 September, with 87 participants present. The atmosphere was especially tense because of the burgeoning conflict with Jung; on his re-election as president, two fifths of the members abstained from voting. After the Congress Freud, along with Minna Bernays, who met him in Bologna, went to Rome for 17 days.

167F

Rome¹
13 September 1913

The Jew survives it!

Cordial greetings and Coraggio Kasimiro!²

Yours,

Freud

1. Picture postcard of the Arch of Titus, Rome. Titus Flavius Vespasianus [39–81] was supreme commander in the first Jewish–Roman War [66–70], which led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Roman emperor from 79 until 81.

2. This refers to the following event: Two guides with whom Abraham had climbed a mountain had taken some raw meat with them to eat. By the time they reached the hut and set about cooking it, it had gone off, and one of them encouraged the other to eat it with the words: “Coraggio, Casimiro.” Freud and Abraham subsequently often quoted this remark.

168A

Berlin
17 September 1913

Dear Professor,

From your encouraging postcard, for which I thank you very much, I take it that you are very happy in Rome and that you have thrown off the unpleasant memories of Munich. I may say for myself that in some ways I now feel better than before the Congress—the heart-to-heart talk came as a relief.

The old work has started again, the day is already almost fully occupied. Beside that I am toiling at my Habilitation thesis, and for respite I turn to the work of which I read a part at the Congress. I have obtained such rich new material that I shall extend the subject. In order to be able to publish it in the Zeitschrift (the Jahrbuch does not appeal to me any more),¹ I shall have to split it into several small sections, which can then appear as a series, like your technical recommendations, for instance.

Deuticke informed me that Dreams and Myths is now being translated into Dutch by Stärcke.²

I often think back to the pleasant days I spent in your family circle in San M.[artino].

The enclosed card of the Pyramids near Euseigne in the Valais is sure to be of interest to you.

While wishing you further pleasant days, I beg you to give Fräulein Bernays best wishes from my wife and myself, and with the same for yourself, I am,

your cordially devoted

Abraham

1. Shortly afterwards, Jung resigned from his editorship of the Jahrbuch, which then continued publication for one more year under a slightly altered title, edited by Abraham and Hitschmann; it contained Abraham's Congress paper.

2. August Stärcke [1880–1954], Dutch psychoanalyst. In fact, the translation of Abraham's Dreams and Myths (1909[14]) was done by S. C. von Doesburgh (Abraham, 1909[14]; Leiden, 1914).

169F

Rome, Eden Hotel
21 September 1913

Dear Friend,

Many thanks for your friendly words and good news, in particular for the promise to serve our Zeitschrift, which we must now keep going entirely on our own resources.

In the incomparably beautiful Rome I quickly recovered my spirits and energy for work, and in the free time between museums, churches, and trips to the Campagna finished a foreword to the book on totem and taboo,¹ an expansion of the Congress paper,² and the sketch of an article on narcissism,³ as well as a proof of my propaganda article for Scientia.⁴ My sister-in-law, who warmly returns your and your wife's greetings, sees to it that the real Rome work is kept within moderate bounds. She has put up unexpectedly well with all the inevitable exertions, and it is a pleasure to see her succumbing increasingly every day to enthusiasm for Rome and to feeling at ease.

Yesterday there arrived, post festum, a letter—assuring me of admiration from Maeder, with the addendum: Here I stand, I can do no other⁵ (which is well suited to someone taking a risk, but hardly to someone withdrawing from one). He will get a cool, not very detailed reply.⁶

The whole Roman décor will, alas! be laid aside in a week and be replaced by a more sober and familiar one.

I send you my cordial greetings and hope to hear continuing good news from you and yours.

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. Freud, 1912–13a: pp. xiii–xiv.

2. Freud, 1913i.

3. Freud, 1914c.

4. Freud, 1913j.

5. Hier stehe ich. Ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen! [Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God! Amen!], Martin Luther is said to have said at the end of his great speech in his defence at the Reichstag at Worms [18 April 1521]. The words are engraved on the Luther monument at Worms (1868).

6. Maeder, 1988 [1912–13]; Freud, 1956j [1913].

170A

Berlin
27 September 1913

Dear Professor,

I must particularly thank you for writing to me at such length from Rome. At the same time, I want to tell you how glad I am that Rome has done so much for you, and—according to your report—also for psychoanalysis. When you get this letter, you will surely have just returned to your lares and penates.1

My work is already back to its usual ten-hour schedule. I hope soon to be able to refer some patients to the new colleagues. Yesterday we had our first meeting. I gave a report on Munich, and the schism was then discussed. It is a good thing for our small group that Juliusburger is turning back to us. I do not think he will give Stekel any more contributions. It looks as if life within our group will pick up this winter. The “Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft” provides us with an increasing number of contacts from a wider medical circle. Koerber and Juliusburger are in its committee; we take a lively part in its discussions and lectures. I should like to take this opportunity to point out to you that Moll is trying to found a rival Society² and wants Löwenfeld³ to lend his name to it. You will probably also be approached now. I mention this because earlier on you once warned me against Moll.

If you want to pass a happy hour, dear Professor, you absolutely must read the last issue of the Zentralblatt (especially Birstein⁴)!

In conclusion, I only wish you a winter made easier by shorter working hours! I add cordial greetings to you and all of yours, also on behalf of my wife!

Your devoted

Abraham

1. Roman household and tutelary gods.

2. Only a few months after the founding of the Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft und Eugenik, Albert Moll did in fact establish a rival society, the Internationale Gesellschaft für Sexualforschung [International Society for Sexual Research].

3. Leopold Löwenfeld [1874–1924], psychiatrist in Munich. In 1895 Freud had been involved in a scientific controversy with him, which ended “in our becoming friends and we have remained so to this day” (Freud, 1916–17a: p. 245). Löwenfeld was editor, with Hans Kurella, of the series Grenzfragen des Nerven-und Seelenlebens; Einzeldarstellungen für Gebildete aller Stände [Questions at the Frontier of Nervous and Mental Life: Individual Presentations for Educated Persons of All Classes] (Wiesbaden: Bergmann), in which Freud had published a paper (1901a). (Cf. Freud, 1904f, 1906a, written at the instigation of Löwenfeld, to be included in his book Sexualleben und Nervenleiden.)

4. Not identified. J. Birstein contributed eight short articles and one book review to the 1913 Zentralblatt.

171F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
8 October 1913

Dear Friend,

Thanks for your lines on my arrival in Vienna, which, because of immediate inundation, I am answering only today and for a current reason.

I received the enclosed letter from the Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft, and I am asking you whether I should join it. Löwenfeld has spoken to me about Moll's foundation, and, discreetly, informed me of his disinclination to have any part in it. I dealt with the letter that came from Moll's faction by not reacting.

From Rome I brought with me the deepest well-being and the draft of the narcissism. Here I acquired a head-cold, like all Viennese, and have not yet been able to take the n[arcissism] out again. All well and satisfactory at home, my son Ernst is getting ready to move to Munich.¹

The group in London is said to have been founded,² we have had no more news from Switzerland. Today we had our own first meeting, at which I gave a very honest account of Munich.³

It is a quarter to one in the morning. Reason to wish you and your dear wife the finest days ahead.

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. Freud's youngest son, Ernst [1892–1970], went to Munich to study architecture. See letter 372A, 4 April 1920, n. 5.

2. On 4 and 14 October, Jones informed Freud of plans to establish a branch society; on 3 November he reported its foundation, on 30 October, with himself as president, Douglas Bryan as vice-president, and David Eder as secretary.

3. Meeting of 8 October; the minutes are missing in Nunberg & Federn, 1975: p. 205.

172A

Berlin
10 October 1913

Dear Professor,

I think I should advise you to join the Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft. It is the first medical corporation to accord our discipline equal rights with all the others, and at the same time, as I have already written in my last letter, it is a good opportunity to propagate our views. Two members of our group are on the committee. Our colleague Liebermann,¹ who recently opened a practice here, is speaking in November at Eulenburg's² instigation on “Freud's Doctrine of the Erogenous Zones”. I may add that with my psychoanalytic contributions to the last discussions I found more interest than any other speaker. I could think of no serious objection why you should not join. Your membership would, I believe, create further sympathy for us; your not being a member, on the other hand, would certainly be interpreted wrongly in one way or another.

With regard to Adler's3 proposal that you should give a talk in Berlin, I should like to ask you, dear Professor, to tell me at your convenience whether you are at all willing to do something of the sort. I have purposely never made such a suggestion to you, but I have already often considered whether a talk arranged by our local group might not be received with very great interest by the Berlin doctors. Perhaps on the occasion of your going to Hamburg? You could count on a very large audience.

I am eagerly looking forward to the narcissism. I found the last two issues of the Zeitschrift, which I have read now, very satisfying, though naturally not all the contributions equally so. Today I sent Ferenczi a short paper on the auditory passage as an erotogenic zone.⁴ Apart from my Habilitation thesis and the paper on scoptophilia,⁵ I am working on a few more small things like the latter. A brief essay will deal with neurotic exogamy,⁶ along the lines of your Imago paper.⁷

Our group here has already had its first meeting. We are at the moment very worried about our member Koerber. He became ill a short while after the session and was taken to hospital the same night, where, after he had been under observation for eight days, his left kidney was removed. Multiple papillomas were found in the renal pelvis. If he survives the next few days, there is hope; but it looks very serious.

I am glad to have good news of you and yours. You write about your son Ernst; did he get a job in Munich? What is it? My congratulations are no less heartfelt, despite my complete ignorance.

Many thanks for the Scientia article, and many good wishes, also from my wife!

Your devoted

Abraham

1. Dr Hans Liebermann [1883–1931], former analysand of Abraham's. He became addicted to cocaine after using it as a pain-killer during the First World War. (See Eitingon's obituary in the Zeitschrift, 1931.)

2. Dr Albert Eulenburg [1840–1917], nerve specialist in Berlin, prolific author, “Nestor” of German sexology.

3. Otto Adler, secretary of the Ärztliche Gesellschaft für Sexualwissenschaft.

4. Abraham, 1914[46].

5. Abraham, 1914[43].

6. Abraham, 1914[45].

7. See letter 157F, 13 May 1913, n. 1.

173F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
12 October 1913

Dear Friend,

I have to thank you for your well-motivated advice and will declare my membership to Adler as soon as I have changed the necessary 5 Mk note.

Naturally, I would not like to give a talk before the doctors in Berlin; much rather in your group, should the opportunity arise. I want to go to Hamburg around Christmas, but as time is so limited, I really cannot break my journey more than for being with you for a few hours, on the way there or back.

You will receive a third volume of the Kleine Schriften zur Neurosenlehre in the next few days; it contains the three big analyses and a few smaller essays.¹

My son Ernst is going to Munich because the technical faculty in Vienna offers too little for his study of architecture. He is still very far from getting a job, he has only two years of study behind him. I feel very sorry for Koerber, his comments at the Congress have brought him closer to me again. Should you manage to see him, please express to him my firm intention that he should recover.

The matter of your lectureship certainly touches me very closely, but may perhaps plunge me into a conflict. In the last post from Kraus and Brugsch, the editors of the new Pathology and Therapy, I find, surprisingly, behind my space, the following:

Hysteria and Obsessional States—Freud

item Dr Kutzinski² (Berlin).

“Before dinner it read differently”.³ On the 5th of this month, therefore, I asked Brugsch, very politely and without giving away any of my purpose, what this dual treatment meant, whether the space allotted to me may suffer from it, whether we should show consideration for each other, etc. Up to now no reply! That doesn't look kosher! I have not yet written again. My own inclination is naturally to withdraw from such utterly uncommon treatment; the reservation to that is that your relationship with Kraus would probably be endangered by such a step. I should like to know your opinion here too; will certainly put your interests first.

I greet you with wife and children cordially.

Yours,

Freud

1. Sammlung kleiner Schriften zur Neurosenlehre [Collected Smaller Papers on the Theory of the Neuroses], third volume, Leipzig and Vienna, 1913; containing, among others, the three major analyses of Little Hans (Freud, 1909b), the Rat Man (1909d), and Schreber (1911c [1910]).

2. Arnold Kutzinski [1872–19?], assistant to Bonhoeffer, psychiatrist at the Charité, known to be antagonistic to psychoanalysis. His contributions, unlike Freud's, did find their way into the Kraus encyclopaedia. (Cf. Kutzinski, 1910.)

3. Vor Tische las man's anders (Friedrich von Schiller, Die Piccolomini [1800], IV, 7).

174A

Berlin
14 October 1913

Dear Professor,

It does not seem to me to be such a difficult business. Kutzinski, who has been attached to you, is Bonhoeffer's assistant. So I imagine that Kraus gave in to the influence of his colleague B., who is not really favourably disposed towards ψα.

Kraus promised me his support, giving as reason that scientifically and personally he had heard only good of me. In this light, his intercession for me would be an act of personal friendliness rather than a support of ψα. If Bonhoeffer has now influenced him also against me personally, then there will not be much that can be done about it. If such influence has not taken place, I believe that Kr. would not change his behaviour towards me, even if you clearly told him the truth about your business. For, as I have said, the event does not seem to originate with Kraus; that seems to me to be the main thing.

I hope you, dear Professor, will not come into a position where you would give precedence to my interests. Perhaps the situation will become clearer after the reply from Brugsch. I should naturally like to see this. Perhaps you could simply put it into an envelope and send it to me, so that you will not have the trouble of writing another letter! I thank you very much for the information and for your intention of showing consideration for me. I really should prefer to ask you to leave my interests completely out of account, if my Habilitation were simply my personal affair. But I do hope for something from it for ψα.

Thanks in advance for the 3rd volume of the [Kleine Schriften zur] Neurosenlehre!

I have taken over the review of Jung's American lectures.¹ It is only after very detailed study that one can see exactly what it is all about.

Koerber seems to be a bit better.

I am looking forward to your visit at Christmas, however short.

With cordial greetings from house to house.

Yours,

Karl Abraham

1. Abraham's trenchant review (Abraham, 1914[47]) of Jung's Fordham lectures (Jung, 1913; cf. Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: p. 513), in which Jung set forth in detail his chief departures from Freudian principles.

175F

Vienna¹
19 October 1913

Dear Friend,

Your arguments are very clear to me. Incidentally—so far no reply from B.[rug]sch. After your letter I wrote (on the 17th) a second time, by registered post. I shall send you the reply, which I expect to be fishy. Cordial greetings,

Yours,

Freud

1. Postcard.

176F

Vienna¹
23 October 1913

Dear Friend,

No reply from Brugsch for a week (to the second registered letter). He may easily be away. Today I have sent the question directly to Kraus, and if I get a reply I shall let you have it.

Yours cordially,

Your

Freud

1. Postcard.

177F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
26 October 1913

Dear Friend,

The letter to Kraus has resulted in my receiving a reply from Brugsch, which I enclose. A fishy reply, which nevertheless makes possible the continuation of negotiations. I was already thinking I had hit on a special university technique for “disgusting people out of it”¹ and would be granted no answer at all. The best thing in the whole business seems to be Kraus himself.

I shall not make up my mind about the next step until I have heard from you and have your approval. You are so very much affected that you are allowed to have the first say.

These are gloomy times in other ways too, or perhaps only a time when gloomy moods predominate. I shall have to say to myself: Coraggio Casimiro!

Rank and Sachs are very good and great supports for the cause. Yesterday Ferenczi sent in an exceptionally trenchant and pertinent criticism of Bleuler's negative article in the Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie.2 Your criticism of Jung's theory in the Jahrbuch should follow it, we declined to have it reviewed by Eder.³ The question now is the extent to which Jones will be able to steer the new London group into our channel; all further “political” steps depend on that.

At the first lecture yesterday⁴ I realized the complete analogy between the first running away from the discovery of sexuality behind the neuroses by Breuer⁵ and the latest one by Jung. That makes it the more certain that this is the core of ψα.

I send my cordial greetings to you and your dear family and await your communication.

Yours,

Freud

1. Hinausekeln.

2. Ferenczi's review (1914[150], of Bleuler 1913a.

3. David Montague Eder [1866–1936], founding member and secretary of the London Society. In early 1913, he had come to Vienna. Disappointed in his hopes of an analysis with Freud, he had gone for a brief period to Viktor Tausk. He became increasingly sympathetic to Jung's views, although eventually he remained in Freud's camp and was analysed by Ferenczi. (Cf. Freud, 1945a [1939]; Hobman, 1945; Roazen, 2000.)

4. Freud's Saturday lecture at the university.

5. Josef Breuer [1842–1925], fatherly friend and mentor to young Freud, co-author of Breuer & Freud (1895d). According to Freud, it was Breuer who “brought psychoanalysis into being” (Freud, 1910a [1909]: p. 9; for a critical evaluation of the legendary accounts on his “running away from the discovery of sexuality”, see Hirschmüller, 1978).

178F

Vienna¹
28 October 1913

Dear Friend,

Urania, of Vienna, is a distinguished lecturing institute, whose invitations are accepted by the best people.

I am curious to know your communication with regard to B.[rugsch]–Kr[aus].

Yours cordially,

Freud

1. Postcard. A communication of Abraham's is evidently missing.

179A

Berlin
29 October 1913

Dear Professor,

Once again I have little to say. Brugsch's letter confirms that Bonhoeffer is behind the whole thing. My chances depend mainly on Bonh.; it seems to me that whatever stand you take with Kraus and Brugsch will have little effect on my prospects. I am therefore glad that I can ask you not to make any special allowances for me.

Br.'s diplomatic letter does at least have the advantage of leaving the matter open for further negotiations. If only one knew whether he means everything he says. Could you not take him at his word and offer to deal with the other theories of hysteria as well? That would dispense with Kutzinski. I thought one of the Viennese colleagues could perhaps undertake this piece of work as a critical and historical prelude to your exposition. (I do not know whether this suggestion is useful; it just occurred to me as I was reading Br.'s reply.)

On a recent journey to Bremen on a Sunday, I carefully studied Jung's work once again. I shall soon start to work out the critique.

Our group is becoming more lively. We are probably going to have our meetings every fortnight. The younger elements are very keen. Stockmayer, who is very friendly with Jung and greatly influenced by his views, will not, I believe, make any great difficulties.—Koerber is out of danger, but he is still very weak and confined to bed for weeks.

I am returning Brugsch's letter, with many thanks for sending it to me.

With kind regards from house to house,

your devoted

Abraham

180F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
2 November 1913

Dear Friend,

Two questions:

[1.]Jung, while putting on a display of injured innocence, has resigned the editorship of the Jahrbuch,¹ evidently with a view to securing sole control after getting rid of the editorial directors.² Our friends here are unanimously of the opinion that we should not abandon this position, and I am prepared to keep the Jahrbuch if you are willing to undertake the editorship. You can have Hitschmann as a helper specifically for all negotiations and work in Vienna. The Jahrbuch would be reduced in size to between fifteen and eighteen signatures, it would appear only once yearly, its title would be simplified, all boring laboratory papers would be declined, and it would become a real yearbook of ψα, that is, it would contain, apart from some selected original papers, critical accounts of the literature, a survey of progress in the various fields, and reports of events in the ψα movement. Thus it would become an essential tool to everyone interested in ψα. Please let me know whether you will accept.

2. We think the time has come to think of a severance of all ties with Zurich and thus to the dissolution of the International ψα Association. As the best way of bringing this about we have in mind forwarding to the central office a resolution proposing dissolution, signed by the three groups in Vienna, Berlin, and Budapest.3 If Jung does not accept this, these groups can then resign and promptly form a new organization. Primarily, we do not want to strive for resignation, because that would again mean abandoning a position to them, and Jung would remain president. Similarly, in the event of our resignation, the new organization would be constrained to elect me as president to put an end to the hoax of the Zurichers.

 

We therefore ask you for your comments on how you stand in this matter, on the question of the resolution to be submitted to the central office, and on the foundation of a new organization, and hope you are in full command of your group.

The matter is urgent. We are already in communication with Jones to explore the prospects in America. Please keep the matter secret for the time being.

With cordial greetings and in haste,

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. On 27 October Jung had written to Freud that he had learned from Maeder that Freud doubted his “bona fides”, and that he was therefore “lay[ing] down the editorship of the jahrbuch” (Freud & Jung, 1974 [1906–13]: p. 550). Subsequently, Bleuler resigned as co-director. Under the general direction of Freud alone, Abraham and Hitschmann took over as editors, and the Jahrbuch continued publication for one more year in this form. (Cf. the note to this effect in the Jahrbuch, 1913, 5: 2.)

2. Bleuler and Freud.

3. “Jung had not yet recognized the British Society, so it could not act” (Jones, 1955: p. 150).

181A

Berlin
4 November 1913

Dear Professor,

I am answering you by return and therefore in haste, without giving your second question sufficient and calm consideration.

Your first question is quickly answered. If you are willing to entrust me with the editing, I would (with Hitschmann's collaboration) undertake it naturally and gladly. Jung's resignation from the editorship is a good thing for us, and one must definitely not leave the Jahrbuch in his hands by your giving up the directorship. I fully approve of the programme as you are planning it. I believe that if all three journals are edited in the same spirit, this can only benefit psychoanalysis. Unfortunately, we know nothing of Jung's real motives. He will certainly not give up his position unless he has some other plan.

The question of the dissolution of the Association is a most delicate one. Our rules do not contain a paragraph dealing with this contingency. On going through them, I even notice that the president is elected for a term of two years. We could not, therefore, elect a different president in the autumn of 1914! This is an uncomfortable state of affairs, but I do not see how it should have changed since Munich. Unfortunately I hear very little here about it all. If nothing has happened since, I wonder whether it is wise to choose precisely this moment to adopt a new policy. The proposal made by three groups can too easily come to nothing. We would then be forced to resign, and I would consider this a great mistake. The existing association, known as such, must remain a truly psychoanalytic one, and you in particular must not leave it. What is of more practical importance is that I cannot be certain of Berlin. Of 18 members, only 9 are in Berlin. How are we to come to a decision? It could not be done in one meeting, as we would then be making our decision over the heads of those who live elsewhere. It would be a precarious move to inform these members by letter. They are either shifty fellows or would offer well-meant peace proposals. The group would suffer a schism. This is due to the special circumstances in the group. I must add the following points in the interest of our group. Two colleagues have recently settled here, one of whom—Stockmayer¹—is very much under Jung's influence, or at least is still close to him. I had great hopes for our group from these two members, both of whom are keen and whom I will surely win over in the course of time. Berlin may become very important in the future, and it would be a pity if political differences were to occur in our circle just now when it is beginning to develop!

At any rate, the result of a vote in our group would be doubtful. That is why I cannot unreservedly urge you to this action. It is true, however, that I do not at present have any better suggestion. What a pity that we cannot meet to talk things over. I shall give this matter further thought and shall let you know should something occur to me.

If I have come to a wrong judgement due to insufficient information, you could ask Rank to let me have further details! The above are only some doubts from a particularistic viewpoint!

As soon as I am certain of the rightness and inevitability of your suggestion, I shall of course do everything to ensure its success.

With cordial greetings,

Yours,

Karl Abraham

 

P.S.: Thank you very much again for the information re. “Urania”!

1. The other colleague referred to is evidently Liebermann.

182F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
6 November 1913

Dear Friend,

My heartfelt thanks for your willingness. Jung obviously gave up the Jahrbuch only in order to gain sole control of it after my withdrawal. Deuticke¹ is inclined towards him, and it is probable that he will succeed; at the present moment D. finds himself between two offers, the Jungian and ours, and he will shortly have to decide between them. If D. declines, we shall remember that Heller is very anxious indeed to have the modified Jahrbuch, and we shall probably do it with him.

An imprudence on my part which D. rapidly exploited encouraged his coming to an understanding with Jung. Relations between D. and J. have developed with uncanny speed.

On the second question, I know that all your misgivings are justified. On the other hand, however, there is something oppressive about the situation, and both affectively and practically it calls for a solution. Under the terms of the contract we can, for instance, do nothing if Zurich requires us to publish all its rubbish in the Korrespondenzblatt,² or to publish special papers. Formally the difficulties are slight. The passage in the rules which says that the purpose of the Society is the cultivation of Freudian ψα gives us a smooth handle to call for its dissolution, as a statement by me that the Zurichers do not do this cannot reasonably be set aside. Of course J. would make difficulties nevertheless. In the event of the secession of our three groups we should be obliged to found a counter-organization, and our groups would lose about a third of their membership. Perhaps even that risk would have to be accepted. We cannot have regard for our external members here either.

If the dissolution came about from Jung, all difficulties would be removed. But it would have other disadvantages.

I shall let circulate your letter among the friends. Then you and all the others should consider the most advisable course. I feel very uncertain in the matter and must no longer give in to my inclinations, which, however, would certainly be an unambiguous guide.

After the return of Brugsch's letter on your part, I wrote to him politely, but not without reproaches. I made him two proposals, either to let me withdraw or to allow me to make another contribution, which would be called, quite generally, “The ψα Theory of the Neuroses”, and at the side of which the individual descriptions of the neuroses in the old style, as wished by the befriended neurologists, may remain standing. We shall soon see whether the whole thing was a manoeuvre to “disgust me out of it”. Up to now, no reply.

Unfortunately all these affairs disturb one's energy for work, in addition to wasting the time for it.

With heartfelt thanks and in expectation of hearing from you further.

Yours,

Freud

1. The publisher of the Jahrbuch, who would nevertheless bring out the sixth and final volume.

2. The bulletin containing news of the activities of the branches of the IPA incorporated in the Zeitschrift.

183A

Berlin
7 November 1913

Dear Professor,

Your letter, which reached me a few hours ago, has quickly converted me to a radical point of view. I consider it unethical for the president of the Association to negotiate with a publisher behind our backs, as Stekel once did, in order to lay his hands on the Jahrbuch. I can spare myself giving reasons for this view. In my opinion the Association cannot tolerate such underhand activity. Since, however, we cannot shake Jung off in any other way, I am in favour of taking extreme measures, but I could not decide on this until I knew of the most recent developments.

The main thing now is to bring about the action of secession without friction and with the least possible loss of membership among the seceding groups. The following method seems to me the most practicable. There should be a uniform action of the three groups. A memorandum would serve this purpose best, to be signed by the presidents of the three groups and sent to all their members. It should give objective grounds for the procedure. Subsequently, each president would have to call a business meeting to arrive at a decision—these meetings should, if possible, occur simultaneously at the three places, and the result should be immediately forwarded to Zurich.

The memorandum would have to state our point of view incisively and take a stand against the false rumours. Sachs seems to me the right man to draft it.

I think I could bring about an almost unanimous vote at our meeting. The objections raised in my last letter referred to members outside Berlin, particularly those from abroad. We are likely to lose some of them. On the other hand, Berlin as well as Vienna might expect some additional members through resignations from the Zurich group (Binswanger, Oberholzer, Gincburg,1 Pfister(?)).

Are you, dear Professor, already sure whether you will go to Hamburg at Christmas? In this case, any editorial matters concerning the Jahrbuch could be discussed then. I am completely at your disposal. If, for instance, you do not have enough time for Berlin, I could accompany you part of the way on the train. Should you not be going, I could come to Vienna if necessary.

For the rest, we will do as Casimiro! With cordial greetings from house to house, and also to your loyal collaborators there,

Yours,

Karl Abraham

1. Dr Emil Oberholzer [1883–1958]. After the break between Freud and Jung he became the co-founder, in 1919, of the Swiss Society for Psychoanalysis, serving as its first president until 1927. In that year he founded his own purely medical psychoanalytic group, which dissolved after his emigration, in 1938, with his wife, the child analyst Mira Gincburg [1887–1949], to New York.

184F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
9 November 1913

Dear Friend,

Events have followed each other so rapidly that a great deal of what you suggest no longer applies. Under the impact of your letter and a very similar one from Jones, Rank and Sachs have agreed to a postponement of the operation against the Association, and Ferenczi, who has been the hothead in the whole business, will no doubt agree to it too. You know that in these matters I gladly let myself be advised by friends, because since being taken in by Jung my confidence in my political judgement has greatly declined. I enclose Jones's letter.1

So the Jahrbuch has remained ours. Deuticke was simply over-hasty, he seems to have made no secret agreements, and had at first misunderstood me. I shall soon be sending you the detailed plan for the volume I should like to bring out on about 1 July, and shall myself take a substantial part in the work. I shall tell Hitschmann on Wednesday and ask him to get in touch with you. We shall all put our best efforts into making the new Jahrbuch a testimonial to what we are capable of, and you will automatically find yourself in an extremely influential position. True, the material benefit will be very slight.

I see already that the whole situation boils down to squeezing out of us everything that we have. There is the cause, and we shall sacrifice ourselves for it without complaint. C.C.!

At the same time the business with Brugsch has been cleared up in a not unpleasing way. He has released me from hy[steria] and agrees that I should contribute to the compilation a section on “The ψα Theory of the Neuroses”, of the same length or a little more. That, however, throws good light on Kraus's reliability.

On the way back from Hamburg I propose to spend the afternoon (Sunday, 28 December, from midday to the night train) in Berlin, where we shall then discuss everything.

I send my heartfelt greetings to your whole family, and am delighted to be able to regard you officially as what you have always been, one of my best helpers.

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. Letter of 4 November (Freud & Jones, 1993: pp. 234–236).

185A

Berlin
13 November 1913

Dear Professor,

I am glad that we are not going to make politics for the time being. I find Jones's exposition most congenial. I hope we shall make good use of all our energies for creative purposes in the near future. Despite heavy pressure, I am looking forward to my work for the Jahrbuch and sincerely thank you for your kind remarks on this occasion. I always have the feeling that I cannot really do enough for our cause, since my debt to you is too great in various respects. I feel this with every new stimulus I receive either from you or from ψα, and the increasing success of my work evoke this thought no less again and again.

The agreement with Brugsch is very gratifying. Kraus really is worth our trust. For example, he has now succeeded in getting a Jewish woman doctor, an assistant in the clinic, the title of professor, the first in Germany. That means an important influence in our Faculty! Perhaps he will use it for me too.

It is not quite certain whether I shall be in Berlin on 28 December, as there are several other things happening around that date. Should I not be here, we would have to find another way. As soon as I know more definitely, I shall come back to it.

As with each of your communications, I welcomed Totem and Taboo1 with great pleasure. It looks very good in this edition and will certainly arouse wide interest. Many thanks!

I am returning Jones's letter and send cordial greetings from my wife and myself to you and your house,

Yours,

Abraham

1. The book edition (Vienna: Heller, 1913).

186A

Berlin
8 December 1913

Dear Professor,

What a great and unexpected pleasure you gave me today with your picture! The reproduction is excellent. It is only the lateness of the hour that limits me to a few short words of thanks!

I am glad to be able to reciprocate with the enclosed return gift,¹ which has just been finished. This copy is meant for you, Rank, and Sachs. Ferenczi and Jones will receive one each. In this way we can agree quickly on alterations. If you only have small changes to make, would you please correct the text directly and send it to the printer. Ferenczi's copy is carefully corrected for spelling mistakes; the enclosed copy (not intended to be printed) is only made roughly readable. I have put a great deal of work into this unpleasant review but I do not regret it, because only by doing it have I come to recognize the complete sterility of the Jungian “school”.—What I have always guardedly called an “incorrect exposition” would actually have deserved a different name.

Now I must apologize to you, dear Professor, that in a paper that I recently sent to Ferenczi (agoraphobia), I committed an unconscious plagiarism. I refer to the remarks on railway phobia, which I found, to my amazement, already in your works (when reading the Three Essays for the purpose of the Jung review). I shall make the necessary amendment in the proofs.2

It is possible that I shall not be in Berlin on the 28th. Would it perhaps suit you, dear Professor, to stop in Berlin on the way there? (Naturally I should like that only if it does not interfere with your plans in any way!) If necessary I could make yet another suggestion.

Many thanks for the reprints which I have not yet read, and with cordial greetings from house to house!

Your devoted

Abraham

1. The draft of Abraham, 1914[47].

2. Cf. Freud, 1905d: p. 202; Abraham, 1914[44]: pp. 242–243.

187F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
10 December 1913

Dear Friend,

As today is Wednesday, I shall not be free to study your paper in the evening, but I have skimmed through it and seen that it would deserve a civic crown if such distinctions existed in science! It is, in short, excellent, cold steel, clean, clear, and sharp. Moreover, God knows that it is all true. I shall pass it on to Rank and Sachs and, if a comment could be fitted in somewhere, I shall give you suggestions for it. You cannot imagine what pleasure the co-operation of five such people¹ gives me.

It makes no difference to me whether I stop in Berlin on the way there or the way back, it can also be left undecided until a few days beforehand. Provisionally this is the plan: I shall arrive at 8:08 in the morning of Thursday 25th, go into the hotel only to make myself human, will already be with you for breakfast, and stay until the afternoon train at 3 o'clock (7 o'clock in Hamburg). I shall bring the plan of the first volume of the Jahrbuch with me.

My cordial greetings to your wife and children, whom I shall thus soon be seeing.

Your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. The Secret Committee.

188A

Berlin
14 December 1913

Dear Professor,

Your opinion of my review gives me great satisfaction. Jones has meanwhile already returned his copy, with comments. I hope that, after using all the suggestion that I will still get from Vienna and Budapest, something will emerge that will not fail to make an impression.

Your suggestion about Thursday, 25 December, suits me extremely well. I have unlimited leisure then, so that the best use can be made of these few hours. I do not know how much else you have to do in Berlin. If time runs too short, I could accompany you part of the way to Hamburg. Just for reasons of “insurance”1 I would add that you will, of course, be our guest for lunch.

My wife and I are delighted to be seeing you here again after a break of years. I assume from your letter that you are coming alone, but should your wife be coming with you, of course every word applies to her also.

With cordial greetings,

Yours,

Karl Abraham

1. Sicherung. An allusion to Adler's concept that neurotics defend their outward “façade” by various “insurances” against being looked through.

189F

Vienna IX, Berggasse 19
21 December 1913

Dear Friend,

I am leaving, then, on Christmas Eve, shall arrive in Berlin at 8:08, Anhalter Station, go to the Excelsior Hotel, which is opposite, to make myself presentable, and ask you to breakfast without me. I then have two visits to make in Berlin, to Eitingon and to my sister,¹ which I can do alone or already in your company, and I hope that until 3 o'clock we shall find time for all we have to talk about. I shall be very glad to be your guest for lunch, and I am looking forward to seeing your wife again and making the acquaintance of your children. The little girl has surely grown big since I saw her last; I assume—no déjà vu?—that I saw her once for a moment. On Sunday at 5 o'clock I am travelling straight back from Hamburg.

I am bringing your Jung criticism with me, together with a multilayer encrustation of marginal notes, with which you shall please do whatever you like. I am also bringing Hitschmann's outline of the material for the Jahrbuch.

It only remains for me to wish you the best of health for these few days,

your faithfully devoted

Freud

1. See letter 49F, n2.