Bonomi C
Int J Psychoanal. 1999 Jun;80 ( Pt 3):507-42. doi: 10.1516/0020757991598882.
In 'The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud', Volume III, Ernest Jones explained Ferenczi's final contributions as the product of a mental deterioration based on a progressive psychosis. Erich Fromm collected various testimonies by witnesses of Ferenczi's last years, all contrasting with Jones's assertions, and challenged Jones's manner of writing history. However, since Fromm was himself a dissident, and his witnesses were pupils, relatives or friends of Ferenczi's, they were discarded as 'partisans'. The present study aims at reconsidering the question of Ferenczi's insanity on the basis of many unpublished documents. The consulted documents do not support Jones's allegation of Ferenczi's insanity. At the same time, they show that Jones's allegation was not a one-man fabrication, but reflected a shared belief, eliciting many questions about the nature of this belief, the lack of scrutiny that characterised its spreading, and its possible function within the psychoanalytic community. It is suggested that Ferenczi's personality and teaching, especially his emphasis on the need to accept the patient's criticism, contrasted with the dominant conception of psychoanalysis, based on the analyst's infallibility.
在《西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的生平与著作》第三卷中，欧内斯特·琼斯将费伦齐的最终贡献解释为一种基于进行性精神病的精神衰退的产物。埃里希·弗洛姆收集了费伦齐晚年见证人的各种证词，所有这些证词都与琼斯的论断相悖，并且质疑了琼斯撰写历史的方式。然而，由于弗洛姆本人就是持不同意见者，而且他的证人是费伦齐的学生、亲属或朋友，他们被当作“党派分子”而遭到摒弃。本研究旨在基于许多未公开的文件重新审视费伦齐精神错乱的问题。查阅的文件并不支持琼斯关于费伦齐精神错乱的指控。与此同时，这些文件表明琼斯的指控并非一人捏造，而是反映了一种共同的信念，引发了许多关于这种信念的本质、其传播过程中缺乏审查以及它在精神分析界可能发挥的作用的问题。有人认为，费伦齐的个性和学说，尤其是他强调需要接受患者的批评，与基于分析师绝对正确的精神分析主流观念形成了鲜明对比。
