ABSTRACT
The choice of dialogue shows Sigmund Freud’s prudence and skill in taking the more radical position of favouring the practice of analysis by non-physicians, without complementary medical training. The contributions to the debate of 1927 on lay analysis show the extent of the misunderstanding between Freud and most analysts, as well as the extent to which his “fantastical” idea for training fell on deaf ears. In 1952, when the Societe Psychanalytique de Paris (SPP) planned to reopen an institute charged with the task of organizing theoretical and practical teaching, M. Balint and H. Sachs had already stigmatized the impasses of the International Psychoanalytic (al) Association training; Balint’s text had been circulated in the SPP on Lacan’s initiative. S. Nacht’s administrative blunder revealed his confiscation, for his own autocracy, of the Commission’s authority and his wish to efface the training powers of the SPP.
