The Freud Files

by Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel; Shamdasani, Sonu;

  3. Cited by Porter (1986), 291.

  4. Cohen (1976); Porter (1986).

  5. Brentano (1874), 2.

  6. Flournoy (1896), 1.

  7. Stengers (1992).

  8. Freud (1933), 159.

  9. McIntyre (1958), 2.

  10. James (1999), 53.

  11. James (1892), 468.

  12. Stern (1900), 415.

  13. Flournoy (1903b). Flournoy republished this in his 1911 book, Esprits et médiums, a copy of which is to be found, not insignificantly, in Freud’s library. This passage is found on page 266.

  14. Hall (1909), cited in Shakow and Rappaport (1968), 67.

  15. Gesell (1912), 20.

  16. Hall (1923), 360. In 1923, Hall wrote to Freud, ‘in fact history will show that you have done for us a service which you are not at all extravagant in comparing with that of Darwin for biology’. In John Burnham (1960), 313.

  17. Jung (1907), 3–4.

  18. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; cited in Alexander and Selesnick (1965), 5.

  19. Eder (1913), 1.

  20. Jones (1913), xii; (1957), 345.

  21. Jones (1918), 256.

  22. Sulloway (1992a), 484. See Jones to Freud, 15 January 1931, in which he revealed that Huxley was ‘the chief hero of my youth. As you doubtless know, he was nicknamed “Darwin’s bulldog,” and you would perhaps agree that my identification with him has not been entirely fruitless’ (Freud and Jones 1993, 682).

  23. McDougall (1936), 149.

  24. Hoche (1910), 1009.

  25. Weygandt (1907), 302.

  26. Freud (1914a), 43. Columbus was added by Freud in 1924 in the second edition of this text. For Ferenczi’s likening of Freud to Columbus, see below, p. 80.

  27. Wohlgemuth (1923), 227–8.

  28. Freud (1916–17), 20.

  29. Freud (1926a), 190–1.

  30. Assoun (1981), 191ff.

  31. Haeckel (1876), vol. 1, 38–9. As pointed out by Assoun (1981), 198 and 205, Haeckel did not differentiate between Lamarck and Darwin.

  32. Haeckel (1876), vol. 2, 264.

  33. Haeckel (1920), 19.

  34. Huxley (1926), cited in Ellenberger (1970a), 252, n. 139.

  35. Du Bois-Raymond (1883), 500.

  36. Haeckel (1920), 66.

  37. Haeckel (1902), 288–9.

  38. Freud and Abraham (2002), 344–5.

  39. Freud and Abraham (2002), 346.

  40. The Lancet, 231 (1938), 1341.

  41. Gould (1989), 44.

  42. Ellenberger (1973), 54.

  43. Freud (1914a), 22.

  44. Sulloway (1992a), 489–95.

  45. Strachey (1976), 23–4.

  46. Strachey, in Freud (1953–74), vol. 1, 257.

  47. Jones (1956), 122–3.

  48. Schwartz (1999), 40. It seems that, for Schwartz, the history of humanity before Freud was one long aphasia.

  49. Grubrich-Simitis (1997), 25.

  50. Lacan (2005), 334.

  51. Ibid., 429–30.

  52. Ricoeur (1974), 172.

  53. Kuhn (1970), 4.

  54. On the notion of the ‘black box’, see the introductory chapter of Latour (1987).

  55. Blum and Pacella (1995), 105.

  56. Bloor (1976).

  57. For a useful overview, see Golinski (1998).

  58. See for example the corrections of Jung (1925), 16, and Janet (1919), vol. 2, 215ff.

  59. Janet (1919).

  60. In the following, we propose to reopen the controversies which surrounded psychoanalysis from the beginning. We do not necessarily subscribe to the positions advanced by Freud on the one hand nor his critics on the other, which are at times as problematic as his. To find cogency in the criticisms of psychoanalysis by figures such as Gustav Aschaffenburg, Eugen Bleuler, Alfred Hoche, August Forel, Pierre Janet, C. G. Jung, Emil Kraepelin or William McDougall does not imply that one accepts their diverse positions on psychiatry, psychology and psychotherapy. Similarly, in the contemporary context, criticising psychoanalysis does not mean that one is in favour of psychotropic medication or against psychotherapy.

  61. Ellenberger (1973), 54. The notebooks of this research are at the Centre Henri Ellenberger, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Paris; see also Ellenberger (1970a), xiv.

  62. Ellenberger (1970b), 27–8.

  63. Ellenberger (1961).

  64. ‘Individual legends – elements’, typed notes, Centre Henri Ellenberger, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Paris.

  65. Zilboorg (1941); Wyss (1961); Veith (1965).

  66. Ellenberger (1970a), 548.

  67. ‘The uncertainties of psychoanalysis’, typed notes, Centre Henri Ellenberger, Hôpital Sainte-Anne, Paris. See also ‘Chapitre VII Freud Conclusion’, manuscript notes, ibid.: ‘That which Freud introduced . . . return to the system of the antique “sect” . . . the most intimate initiation, considerable sacrifices of money, communal doctrine, cult of the Founder.’

  68. Sulloway (1992a).

  69. Interview with Frank J. Sulloway, Cambridge, MA, 19 November 1994.

  70. Ibid.

  71. Campbell (1968).

  72. Freud (1939), 139.

  73. Ellenberger (1973), 56.

  74. Interview with Frank J. Sulloway, Cambridge, MA, 19 November 1994.

  75. This term seems to have been used for the first time in Freud studies by Sulloway (1992a), xvii. It is important not to confound it with ‘revisionism’ in the Marxist sense, or even less with the ‘revisionism’ of Holocaust deniers.

  76. Cioffi (1974); (1984). John Forrester (1980) also showed the gap of more than a decade between Freud’s comments on the significance of the Oedipus tragedy and its elevation into the core complex of the neuroses, the Oedipus Complex (in the meantime borrowing the term ‘complex’ from Jung).

  77. Lothane (1989), 215; Spector (1972), 58.

  78. Mahony (1986), 69, 81, 215; (1996), 8–9, 55–6, 139–40; Anthony Stadlen cited by Macmillan (1997), 640.

  79. Israëls and Schatzman (1992) and Mahoney (1992b).

  80. Bernfeld (1946); Swales (1982b); Skues (2001).

  81. Ellenberger (1972); Hirschmüller (1989); Borch-Jacobsen (1996).

  82. Ellenberger (1977).

  83. Swales (1986).

  84. Swales (1995); see also the ‘Memorandum for the Sigmund Freud Archives’ drawn by this patient’s daughter, Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  85. Obholzer (1982).

  86. Masson (1992), 241–58.

  87. Vogel (1986).

  88. Falzeder (1994a).

  89. Mahony (1992a).

  90. Lynn (1993).

  91. Edmunds (1988).

  92. On ‘Katharina’, see Swales (1988); on ‘Dora’, Stadlen (1989).

  93. Time, 29 November 1993.

  94. Webster (1995).

  95. Israëls (1999).

  96. Forrester (1997a).

  97. Meyer (2005).

  98. The most striking example is the exchange which followed the publication of a series of articles by Frederick Crews on Freud in the New York Review of Books, collected in Crews (1995).

  99. Smith (1995).

  100. Malcolm (1984), 7.

  101. Eissler (1971), 91–2; allusion to Freud’s diagnosis of Daniel Paul Schreber as paranoid, on the basis of his Memoirs of my Nervous Illness (Schreber 1955 [1903]).

  102. Major (1999), 76.

  103. Yerushalmi (1996), 144.

  104. Available online at http://users.rcn.com/brill/swales.html.

  105. Available online at www.zetetique.fr/index.php/dossiers/94-critique-psychanalyse.

  106. France has since witnessed no less than two other ‘guerres des psys’ on the occasion of the publication of The Black Book of Psychoanalysis (Meyer 2005), and of Michel Onfray’s The Twilight of an Idol. The Freudian Fabrication (Onfray 2010).

  107. For more on this comic episode, see Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen and Sonu Shamdasa
ni, ‘Une visite aux Archives Freud,’ in Borch-Jacobsen (2002), 271–6.

  1 PRIVATISING SCIENCE

  1. Marie Bonaparte Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

  2. On the differences between the old sociology of science of Robert K. Merton and the new science studies, see Callon and Latour (1990), 13–14; Latour (1987), 387–92; Golinski (1998), 48–55.

  3. See the preface of Jonas Salk (the developer of the polio vaccine) to Latour’s inquiry in his laboratory (Salk 1979, 11–14). For an example of a scientist integrating science studies in his work, see Rose (1993).

  4. Interview with Isabelle Stengers and Didier Gille, Linkebeek, 25 August 1993.

  5. Mijolla (1993).

  6. Gay (1988), xv: ‘In later years, Freud repeated this destructive gesture more than once, and in the spring of 1938, preparing to leave Austria for England, he threw away materials that an alert Anna Freud, abetted by Princess Marie Bonaparte, rescued from the wastebasket.’

  7. Wilkinson (1985), 27: ‘Freud had wished his papers to be destroyed, but his widow, Martha, could not comply with his request. Before her own death she left the task to Anna [Freud], and the daughter was similarly unable to effect the loss of such valuable materials.’

  8. Cited by Jeffrey Masson in Freud (1985), 9.

  9. Ibid.

  10. Freud (1960), 140–1.

  11. Freud (1900), 214, n. 1.

  12. Freud (1960), 346.

  13. Freud (1923), 235.

  14. Freud (1925a), 7.

  15. Wundt (1921); Hall (1923); Forel (1935); Moll (1936); Ellis (1939); Jung and Jaffé (1962); on the unreliability of Jung’s ‘memories’ recorded and edited by Aniela Jaffé, see Elms (1994), ch. 3; Shamdasani (1995) and (2005a).

  16. Murchison (1930–).

  17. See the dismantling of Piaget’s autobiographical essay by Vidal (1994a).

  18. Murchison (1930–), vol. 3, 277–8.

  19. On this question see Shamdasani (2003a), section 1.

  20. Freud (1914a), 7.

  21. Ibid., 60.

  22. Luhmann (1979); Giddens (1990), particularly 26–36.

  23. Shapin (1994), 412. Shapin himself complicates this in showing how the verification procedures of the English experimentalists of the seventeenth century were rooted in the gentlemanly culture of time and also how, in the present day, personal status continues to play a role within the specialised networks and core-sets of scientists working within a given domain.

  24. Manuscript note of Marie Bonaparte, c. 1927–8 (on this document, see Borch-Jacobsen 1996, 100).

  25. Freud (1914a), 21.

  26. Ibid., 19.

  27. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 261–2; Ferenczi’s emphasis.

  28. Wells (1960), 189.

  29. Freud (1954), 33–4.

  30. Jones (1953), 351–2.

  31. Eissler (1971), 306–7.

  32. Hobbes (1968 [1651]), 82.

  33. Kant (1985 [1786]), 8.

  34. Comte (1830–42), vol. 1, 34–5.

  35. James (1890), vol. 2, 64.

  36. Brentano (1874), 29.

  37. Maury (1861); Delbœuf (1993b [1885]).

  38. On this question, see Danziger (1991). Self-experimentation was still widely used in medicine. For example, in 1872, George Beard and Alphonso Rockwell wrote concerning electrotherapeutics: ‘To all who for the first time enter upon the study of this branch of science, we cannot too strongly recommend the practice of self-experimentation. Better than any experiments on animals, better even, in many features, than extended investigations in the treatment of disease, is the precise and peculiar knowledge of the modus operandi of the applications, and the sensations which they produce, which is obtained through personal experience’ (1880 [1872], x–xi). Another example would be Freud’s experiments with cocaine, cf. Freud (1885a).

  39. Freud (1985), 261.

  40. See the letter to Fliess of 14 November 1897: ‘Before the vacation trip I told you that the most important patient for me was myself; and then, after I came back from vacation [Freud returned to Vienna on 27 September], my self-analysis, of which there was at the time no sign, suddenly started’ (Freud 1985, 279). See also Sulloway’s judicious comments (1992a, 208–9), noting that Freud’s self-analysis could not have been the reason for his abandonment of the seduction theory, as the legend has it.

  41. Freud (1985), 281.

  42. Ibid., 299.

  43. Jones mentions that Freud had noted his dreams since his youth – none of the notebooks containing these survived Freud’s periodic destruction of his papers (Jones 1953, 351–3).

  44. Freud (1901), 49.

  45. Delbœuf (1993b), 109–18.

  46. See the judicious remarks of Duykaerts (1993), 241.

  47. Mayer (2001).

  48. The self-observations of Bleuler and Forel were reproduced in Forel (1889), under the title ‘Two hypnotisers hypnotised’. In subsequent editions, Forel omitted the section concerning himself (in which he had recounted auditory hallucinations and sensory confusion under hypnosis). Freud wrote a laudatory review of Forel’s work when it appeared (Freud, 1889).

  49. Another slightly later example can be found in Marcinowski (1900).

  50. Forel (1910b), 308.

  51. Freud (1900), 101–2.

  52. Gay (1988), 97.

  53. Freud (1900), 105.

  54. Ibid., 477.

  55. Ibid., xxvi. Jakob Freud died on 23 October 1896, one year before the beginning of the self-analysis proper.

  56. Freud (1910a), 32.

  57. Clearly taken aback by this passage, the psychoanalysts Jean Laplanche and Jean-Bertrand Pontalis affirm in their The Language of Psycho-Analysis that ‘It is not possible, however, to be sure from the term Freud used on this occasion – “Selbstanalyse” – whether he meant a true self-analysis or an analysis conducted by another person’ (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1973, 454).

  58. Freud (1910b), 145.

  59. Freud and Jones (1993), 112.

  60. Adler (1972), 56.

  61. An allusion to Wilhelm Fliess.

  62. Stekel (1925), 563.

  63. Baron von Münchhausen pulled himself by his hair to get out of a swamp into which he and his horse had fallen.

  64. Jung (1912b), CW 4 § 449. Jones immediately interpreted this as an attack on Freud (see Freud and Jones 1993, 212). Andrew Paskauskas notes: ‘The comment may also have been taken personally by Jones. It certainly hit a nerve, for Jones had spent a great deal of energy in undertaking his own self-analysis between 1909 and 1913 and would have resented the implication that he was practicing pseudopsychology’ (ibid., 213–14).

  65. Freud (1912), 116–17. Freud’s article appeared at the beginning of June 1912, before Jung recommended training analysis in his September lectures at Fordham University in New York (Jung 1912b). It is nevertheless clear that it was adopted under the influence of Jung and the Zurich school.

  66. Putnam (1911).

  67. See amongst others Roustang (1986); Falzeder (1994b; 1998); Shamdasani (2002).

  68. Freud (1915a), 166: ‘How are we to arrive at a knowledge of the unconscious? It is of course only as something conscious that we know it, after it has undergone transformation or translation into something conscious. Psycho-analytic work shows us every day that translation of this kind is possible.’

  69. Sigmund Freud Copyrights, Wivenhoe.

  70. Freud and Jung (1974), 526.

  71. Freud and Jones (1993), 180.

  72. Freud and Jung (1974), 533.

  73. Ibid., 534; Freud’s emphasis.

  74. Ibid., 535.

  75. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 446. On Maria Moltzer and her relations with Jung, see Shamdasani (1998).

  76. Freud and Jones (1993), 186.

  77. Towards the end of his life, Ferenczi changed his view on this. See Ferenczi (1988).