We analysts aim for a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the patient; we do not want to relieve them by involving them in the Catholic, Protestant, or socialist community, but to enrich them with what they possess, restoring to the Ego the amounts of energy that have been repressed and confined in the Unconscious and those that the Ego is forced to dissipate fruitlessly, in order to maintain these repressions...

Have we thus set ourselves an excessively high goal? Does the majority of our patients merit the effort that this work requires from us? Would it be more economical to externally support the flawed element rather than attempting an internal reconstruction? I cannot say, but there is something else I know.

From the beginning, there was a connection in analysis between treatment and research. Knowledge brought success; treatment was impossible without renewing our knowledge, and this renewal was in turn unattainable if we did not have the opportunity to experience its beneficial effect.

Our analytical method is the only one that maintains this valuable coexistence. Only when we take care of the soul through analysis do we delve into the knowledge of the human psyche, which is just starting to emerge. This prospect of scientific gain was the noblest, the most joyous aspect of psychoanalytic work. Do we have the right to sacrifice it because of certain practical reservations?

[Excerpt from the text on the back cover of the edition]