cation for Reich’s view that Freud still thought well of him while others were pressuring
Freud to take a more negative stance. For example, in 1928, Reich’s old enemy Paul Federn
wanted to have Reich removed as director of the technical seminar, ostensibly on the
grounds that Reich was so busy. On November 22, 1928, Freud wrote Federn:
When you spoke to me the day before yesterday about relieving Dr. Reich of the
leadership of the seminar, I thought k would probably be desirable to him, too,
since he is so busy with other activities. I hoped in this way to meet both your wish-
es. It seems, however, I erred [about Reich’s feelings]; and so you will have to relin-
quish your wish because I do not want to give the impression of a punitive dis-
missal of Reich without his consent and through an order I do not desire to issue
and for which there is no reason. The criticisms which you and other colleagues
raised about him are balanced by his great merits to the intellectual life of the
Association. He is really quite good. I have to ask you to maintain a collegial rela-
tionship with him. If he wants to keep the seminar leadership, we have to grant him
this^19.It also appears that when Reich decided to leave for Berlin, he was not certain how
permanent the move would be; yet Federn used the opportunity to remove Reich from lead-
ership of the technical seminar and from membership in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society.
In some distress, Reich wrote to Freud about this. Freud in turn wrote to Federn on October
10, 1930. He reported that he had answered Reich’s complaint by saying, “... we promised
him that he could keep his positions [should he decide to return] and that we wished to hold
to that agreement, but we did not have any understanding about the way a temporary leave
would be handled.” After making the point, Freud added a qualification: “Of course, you
could have done it differently. First, Dr. Reich could have been elected, and then he could
have asked for a temporary leave.” Freud then went on to repeat that they intended to rein-
state Reich should he return to Vienna, followed by another qualification—“if he has not
become impossible.” By “impossible,” Freud was undoubtedly referring to the degree of
aggressiveness Reich might bring to his presentation of the proper clinical and social goals
ofpsychoanalysis.
One final point about the connection between Reich’s relationship with Freud and
the move to Berlin should be made. At their last meeting in the country, Reich had suggest-
ed that as a check on any irrational element in his social position he might consult with some
analyst in Berlin. Freud had replied that it would be hard for so eminent an analyst as Reich
to find a suitable therapist. Nonetheless, Freud suggested Sandor Rado or Siegfried
Bernfeld^20.
It would not have been easy for Reich to consider having more analysis, given his
feelings of rejection about Freud’s earlier refusal to accept him as a patient. However, it
would have been far more difficult for him to see a Viennese analyst than someone in Berlin.
In Vienna the relationships had become so entwined over the years, the various competi-
12 : Personal Life and Relations with Colleagues: 1927-1930 151