286

BOOK REVIEWS

example, on antiseptic techniques, public health measures for the prevention of infectious disease, pharmacological developments, and vaccination. The bedside discussions
interspersed with a condensed expression of Docks views bring immediacy and vigor
to this highly engaging book.
NOTES
Martin Kaufman, S. Galishoff, and L. T. Savitt, Eds. Dictionary ofArnericanMedical Biography, Vol.
1 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1984), 206.This source was consulted for biographical data not provided
by Dr. Davenport.
1.

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

Volume 28, July 1992

Judith Dupont, Ed. The Clinical Diary of Srindor Ferenczi. Translated by Michael Balint
and Nicola Zarday Jackson. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988, 256 pp.
$34.95 (cloth) (Reviewed by 2 0 1 t h Tarr)
In his History of Psychoanalytic Movement (1914), Sigmund Freud wrote that
Hungary, so near geographically to Austria, and so far from it scientifically, has produced only one collaborator, S h d o r Ferenczi, but one that outweighs a whole society.
About ten years later in his Autobiographical Study, Freud already spoke of the
Budapest branch of the psychoanalytic movement, describing Ferenczis efforts. Rumors
aside, there is no reliable account of the relationship between Freud and Ferenczi.
Hungarians point to Freuds deep affection for Ferenczi, his expectations that he would
assume the presidency of the International Psychoanalytic Society and marry his daughter
Mathilde.
Ferenczis Diary, written between 7 January 1932 and 2 October. 1932, that is, shortly
before his death at the age of 59, is a remarkable document of the last stage of his
tragically short life and scientific journey, including his personal grapplings. It tells of
certain aspects of his psychoanalytic work, his relation to his patients and to Freud.
The Diary answers several questions regarding Ferenczis personality and his psychoanalytic-scientific work. The rumor of Ferenczis deteriorating mental health at the end of
his life (spread by Ernest Jones) is refuted by Ferenczis entry on October 1932: . . . must
I (if I can) create a new basis for my personality, if I have to abandon as false and
untrustworthy the one I have had had[?] up to now? Is the choice here one between
dying and rearranging myself -and this at the age of fifty nine? (212) He restates the
problem at the very end of the Diary: A certain strength in my psychological makeup
seems to persist, so that instead of falling ill psychically, I can only destroy-or be
destroyed-in my organic depths (21 3).
In the Diary Ferenczi records his observations with regard to his patients. He
discusses a wide range of themes: paranoia, schizophrenia, homosexuality, the Oedipus
complex, training analysis, masochism, therapeutic effects of abreaction, and repression, just to name a few. Let me discuss briefly the following three themes. First, at
the theoretical level, he develops his theory of trauma, its effects and its treatment. He

BOOK REVIEWS

287

writes: Trauma is concussion, reaction to an unbearable external or internal stimulus

in an autoplastic manner (modifying the self) . . . A neoformation of the self is impossible without the previous destruction, either partial or total, or dissolution of the
former self. . . . The relative strength of the unbearableexcitation determines the degree
and depth of the egos disintegration:
a.)
b.)
c.)
d.)

change in consciousness (trance, dream state)

loss of consciousness
syncope
death. . . .

The return of consciousness reveals gaps in remembering or in the certainty-of-remembering in relation to the events, while in shock. Without any change in the external situation or in the egos capacity for endurance, the return of a psychic traumatic situation
can only result in disintegration and reconstruction (181-182).
This theory of trauma was at the center of Ferenczis analytical-therapeuticalwork,
and stands in sharp contrast to that of Freud. In his letter of 25 December 1932, quoted
by Judith Dupont, Ferenczi writes to Freud that psychoanalysisdeals far too one-sidedly
with obsessive neurosis and character analysis -that is, ego psychology -while neglecting the organic-hysterical basis of the analysis. This results from overestimating the role
of fantasy, and underestimating that of traumatic reality, in pathogenesis . . . (xii).
This takes us to the second major theme of the Diary: praxis and technique. According to Ferenczi, The newly acquired experiences . . . naturally also affect some particular features of technique. Certain measures are far too severe and must be tempered
without completely losing sight of the secondary, educational aspect (xii). This theme
is discussed under the heading mutual analysis. In his entry dated 5 May 1932, Ferenczi
tells how the idea of mutual analysis emerged at the suggestion of one of his patients.
He was well aware of its problematic nature as his entries of January 3 1 and February
16 prove under the heading Limitations of mutual analysis. a.) One cannot allow oneself
to be analyzed by every patient. b.) Discretion is necessary. If the analysis is correctly
conducted, the secrets of other patients must be divulged by the analyst to the analysing
analysand, or, c.) What would an analysis be like that would begin with my saying
to a patient, male or female: Basically I find you perfectly repulsive (34-35). Thus,
the innovative technique of mutual analysis had its built-in problems which remained
unresolved.
The third theme is Ferenczis relation to and criticism of Freud, already touched
upon in themes one and two, regarding both theory and practice. In a letter of 17 January
1930 Ferenczi writes: I do not share . . . . your view that the therapeutic process is
negligible or unimportant, and that simply because it appears less interesting to us we
should ignore it (xiii). But his major criticism of Freud is directed at his nihilistic attitude
towards patients. He quotes Freud disapprovingly on three occasions: Patients are a
rabble. (Die Patienten sind ein Gesindel (93). Under the heading Freud.Doctor hating
patients, Ferenczi writes: Freud: rabble, only any good for making money out of,
and for studying (1 18). In a lengthy entry of 4 August 1932, Ferenczi tells of his early
relation to Freud and of their later divergence; we are told that Freud adopted Dr.
F[erenczi] almost like his son and regarded him as the most perfect heir of his ideas.
Thereby he became the proclaimed crown prince . . . (184). But the reasons for the
cooling of the relationship are also told: The dishonesty of reserving the technique for
ones own person; the advice not to let patients learn anything about the technique,

288

BOOK REVIEWS

and finally the pessimistic view, shared only with a trusted few, that neurotics are a
rabble, good only to support us financially and to allow us to learn from their cases. . . .
This was the point where I refused to follow him . . . (185-186).
The fate of psychoanalysis in America and in Ferenczis native Budapest, Hungary,
is a special story, still to be written. Ferenczi quotes Freud: How could I take so much
pleasure in the honors the Americans have bestowed on me, when I feel such contempt
for the Americans? (184). As for Hungary, it was the country where the first university
chair for psychoanalysis was established by the then Commissar of Culture, Georg
LukBcs, during the 1919 Commune. With the coming of Horthys Conservative-nationalist regime the chair was abolished and most analysts (many of Jewish background)
fled the country. In due course, they made their great contribution to the world of international scholarship. Ferenczi and a few stayed behind. The second blow came with
the Nazi occupation in March 1944. After World War 11, the few survivors tried to revive
psychoanalysis, but the third blow, the Stalinist takeover in 1949, pushed them
underground. Today in postcommunist Hungary psychoanalysis is thriving and a Ferenczi
Society is taking good care of the legacy of the grand old man of psychoanalysis in
Hungary.
The publication of the Diary is the result of the cooperation of a number of individuals, most notably Michael B a h t and Nicola Zarday Jackson, who translated it
(one-fifth of it had to be deciphered from Ferenczis handwriting). B a h t believed that
the Diary and the Freud-Ferenczi correspondence should be published simultaneously.
Since the publication of the correspondence has been delayed indefinitely, the editor
of this volume, Dr. Judith Dupont, presents it with a twenty-six page long scholarly
introductory essay, which is an excellent introduction not only to the Diary, but also
to many problems of the Freud-Ferenczi relationship.

Professor Dupont Responds:

1. Freuds expectations were that Ferenczi should be president of the I.P.A. and
marry his daughter Mathild[e?]. Both are true, but the marriage with Mathild[e?] was
his desire before 1909, and the presidency of the I.P.A. in 1932. It seems difficult to
consider both on the same level.
2. The quotation of Freud, How could I take so much pleasure. . . . is a little
difficult to understand correctly without the context.
3. The Diary was first translated by Michael B a h t alone. Nicola Zarday Jackson
went through the translations many years later, after Michael Bahts death, to make
it proper for publication. It was Michael B a h t alone who deciphered the one-fifth of
it that was handwritten.
Except for these small clarifications, I perfectly agree with Mr. Tarrs review.