I read with interest the very personal accounts of historians who went in for psychoanalytic training in the September issue. Although it was uniformly regarded as a richly rewarding supplement to their work as historians, two weaknesses in psychoanalytic training were noted. Experiential learning by working with patients and in their own personal analysis proved to be more valuable than seminars emphasizing theory (Elovitz, Kohut, and Wolfenstein). Elovitz was the only one who noted the second weakness, namely, his disappointment in the dream course, which he found too intellectualized.
Montague Ullman (Wed,) studied this question.