61. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
62. Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
63. Ibid.
64. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 221.
65. See above, chapter 1, ‘The politics of self-analysis’.
66. Kris (1947), 4.
67. Freud (1954), 30.
68. Ibid., 33
69. Ibid., 34.
70. See the letters of 12 December 1897 and 27 April 1898.
71. This is why Kris and others in the Freudian circle were very irritated by an otherwise orthodox article of Buxbaum (1951), who had suggested that Fliess had played the role of an analyst to Freud. Suzanne Bernfeld immediately published a critique (Cassirer Bernfeld 1952). As for Jones, he confided to Anna Freud that his ‘first thought on reading the Buxbaum article was one of gratitude that the Puner woman [Helen Puner, the author of an unauthorised biography of Freud] had written her book before the Anfänge appeared’ (Ernest Jones to Anna Freud, 15 December 1951, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC).
72. This is the title of the fourth and last part of Kris’ introduction: ‘Psychoanalysis as an independent science. (End of the relationship with Fliess).’
73. On this question, see Borch-Jacobsen and Shamdasani (2008).
74. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
75. Freud (1954), 32.
76. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
77. Marie Bonaparte, cited by Ernst Kris in his letter to her of 6 November 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
78. Anna Freud to Ernst Kris, 12 October 1947, cited by Kris in his response of 22 October 1947; Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
79. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC (cf. Freud 1954, 43).
80. Thornton (1983).
81. See for example the letter of 30 May 1893 (Freud 1985, 49). The cardiac symptoms appeared for the first time in the autumn of the same year and became alarming in the spring of 1894.
82. Thornton has compared Freud’s symptoms to those described by others who took cocaine nasally at the same time in a convincing manner (Thornton 1983, chs. 10 and 11, 192–5). Freud did not experience the same symptoms between 1884 and 1887, when he first started using cocaine, as he took it orally, which had less powerful pharmacological effects.
83. One notes that Kris silently passed over Fliess’ ‘nasal diagnosis’ which is referred to in Freud’s letter of 12 June 1895: ‘I am feeling I to IIa [an allusion to Fliessian “periods”]. I need a lot of cocaine. Also, I have started smoking again, moderately, in the last two weeks, since the nasal conviction has become evident to me’ (Freud 1985, 132). In the expurgated edition, this passage simply became: ‘I have started smoking again, because I still missed it’ (Freud 1954, 121).
84. Cited in Kris’ letter to Marie Bonaparte of 6 November 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. There is an undated text in English in the Kris Collection which seems to be a part of the section of his introduction dealing with the self-analysis in which Kris conscientiously cited all the passages in which Freud referred to his own ‘neurosis’ and ‘hysteria’. ‘In 1894, when his relation to Breuer went through a crisis, he described cardiac symptoms, which he himself evaluated as psychogenic. While we do not know how far this diagnosis was justified, the “Interpretation of Dreams” and the letters familiarize us with other symptoms, with a fear of premature death and with a railway phobia, symptoms that disappeared after his self-analysis.’
85. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
86. The reference is the letter of 19 April 1894, in Freud (1985), 67–9.
87. Ernst Kris to Marie Bonaparte, 6 November 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Max Schur later changed his mind, returning to his diagnosis of coronary thrombosis (Schur 1972, ch. 2), whilst remaining silent on the pharmacological effects of cocaine.
88. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
89. Schur (1966) and (1972). Immediately after the publication of his article, Schur tried to convince the Freud family to publish an unexpurgated edition of the letters and he seems to have had a favourable response from Anna Freud (Max Schur to James Strachey, 10 April 1967, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society; Max Schur to Ernst Freud, 5 June 1968, Sigmund Freud Copyrights, Wivenhoe). However, the idea got nowhere.
90. Freud (1985) for the English edition; Freud (1986) for the German edition.
91. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
92. Ibid.
93. See above, pp. 33f.
94. Despite everything, this appeared in 1971 (Stone 1971).
95. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
96. Ludwig (1946). Emil Ludwig, who was known for his novelistic biographies and whose works were burned by the Nazis along with those of Freud, had been critiqued by the later in his New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, because he had the misfortune of interpreting the personality of Emperor William II with Adler’s theories (Freud 1933, 66). Ludwig conceived of his book on Freud as a response to Freud’s critique.
97. Puner (1947).
98. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 2 June 1954, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
99. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 23 March 1953, ibid. Oliver Freud, Anna Freud’s brother, thought that Puner’s book wasn’t that bad and that the errors which it contained were attributable to the fact that she cited accounts by Jung, Stekel and Wittels (Oliver Freud to Ernest Jones, 4 December 1952, ibid.).
100. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 25 November 1952, ibid. See Erikson (1954).
101. Adams (1954).
102. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 15 January 1954, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
103. See Eissler’s response to Anna Freud’s question as to how to respond to Wortis’ publication (1954): ‘I think Wortis perpetrated almost a crime, and since at least one letter by Prof. Freud was published in facsimile, The Sigmund Freud Copyrights, Ltd. may have a legal angle . . . it is my feeling that the President of the New York Society, or of the American [Psychoanalytic Association], or of the International [Psychoanalytic Association] should do something . . . I think it is the duty of the psychoanalytic organizations to take a very strong stand . . . P.S. Of course, people who understand such matters should decide here, in the United States, whether such a stand against the book may not give it additional publicity, and thus increase the harm’ (Kurt Eissler to Anna Freud, 7 February 1955, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC).
104. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; cited in Young-Bruehl (1989), 296.
105. Jones (1953), xi.
106. Ernest Jones to Anna Freud, 10 October 1946, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
107. See Young-Bruehl (1989), 169ff. Jones had accused Anna Freud of having been badly analysed, which led to a rebuff from her analyst, Freud. On 23 September 1927, Freud wrote to Eitingon: ‘I got personal and told him that Anna certainly was analyzed for a longer time and more profoundly than he’ (cited in Young-Bruehl 1989, 171).
108. On the small group in the 1920s formed by Anna Freud, Siegfried Bernfeld, Willi Hoffer and August Aichhorn, see Young-Bruehl (1989), 99–102.
109. These researches initially appeared in journals in English, and have been collected together in German by Ilse Grubrich-Simitis in Bernfeld and Cassirer Bernfeld (1981).
/> 110. Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
111. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
112. The Bernfeld Collection in the Library of Congress contains the sketch of a preface, as well as a plan of fourteen chapters which cover the same period as the first volume of Jones’ biography: ‘Introduction; 1. Freiberg; 2. Before the Gymnasium; 3. Gymnasium; 4. Three chaotic years; 5. Brücke’s Institute; 6. The turn; 7. The General Hospital; 8. Cocaine I; 9. Paris; 10. The first year of practice; 11. Cocaine II; 12. Hypnotism; 13. Free association; 14. (Back to Freiberg)’.
113. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
114. Ibid.
115. Anna Freud to Ernst Kris, 16 May 1947, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
116. Ernst Kris to Anna Freud, 22 May 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
117. Anna Freud to Leon Shimkin, 23 June 1947, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
118. Ernest Jones to Anna Freud, 3 September 1947, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
119. Ernest Jones to Siegfried Bernfeld, 23 March 1950, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
120. Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
121. Jones (1953), xiv.
122. Interviews with Peter Swales, London, 20 August 1993, to New York, 27 January 1995. This point is also made by Ilse Grubrich-Simitis, who notes that the first volume of Jones’ biography is largely a rewriting of Bernfeld’s articles. She noted passages which Jones copied without attribution, and Bernfeld’s two letters of 1952 expresssing his irritation in this regard (see Bernfeld and Cassirer Bernfeld 1981, 43–6). See Trosman and Wolf (1973).
123. Bernfeld had established the autobiographical nature of this article in Bernfeld (1946).
124. Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
125. Ernest Jones to Siegfried Bernfeld, 15 April 1952, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
126. Anna Freud to Ernst Kris, 3 January 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
127. Anna Freud to Ernst Kris, 12 October 1949, ibid.
128. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
129. Anna Freud to Kurt Eissler, 27 January 1951, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
130. Kurt Eissler to Anna Freud, 28 March 1951, ibid.
131. Freud (1885b), 51.
132. Erlenmayer (1886), 483.
133. Freud (1900), 111 and 115: ‘The misuse abuse of that drug [cocaine] had hastened the death of a dear friend of mine . . . These injections reminded me once more of my unfortunate friend who had poisoned himself with cocaine. I had advised him to use the drug internally [i.e., orally] only, while morphia was being withdrawn; but he had at once given himself cocaine injections.’
134. Freud (1925a), 62–3. After Jones had qualified this account as ‘somewhat disingenuous’ in the first volume of his Freud biography (Jones 1953, 79), Albert Hirst, a nephew of Emma Eckstein, wrote to Anna Freud to report that during his analysis with Freud between 1909 and 1910, the latter had affirmed that he had clearly anticipated Koller’s discovery and pointed to a passage at the end of his 1884 article where he ‘announced’ it (Albert Hirst to Anna Freud, 19 October 1953, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society).
135. In two letters to Jones of 14 May and 18 October 1952, Bernfeld traced the relation between Fleischl’s cocaine addiction and his death in 1891 (Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society).
136. Ernest Jones to Siegfried Bernfeld, 28 April 1952, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
137. Ibid.
138. Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
139. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
140. For further details on the content of these letters, see Israëls (1999) and Borch-Jacobsen (2000).
141. Sigmund Freud to Martha Bernays, 23 May 1884; cited in Israëls (1999), 97–8.
142. Sigmund Freud to Martha Bernays, 12 July 1884; cited in Israëls (1999), 100.
143. Bernfeld (1975 [1953]).
144. Ibid., 342.
145. Ibid., 348; our emphasis.
146. Ibid., 352. Bernfeld did not ignore Freud’s enthusiasm for Fliess’ nasal therapy. See Bernfeld to Jones, 14 May 1952, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
147. James Strachey to Ernest Jones, 23 September 1952, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
148. Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
149. Ibid.
150. Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
151. Ibid.
152. Jones (1953), 90.
153. Ibid., 91.
154. Ibid., 93.
155. Ibid., 96.
156. Ibid., 95.
157. Siegfried Bernfeld Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
158. Ibid.
159. In a letter to Kurt Eissler of 11 May 1953, Anna Freud was concerned about the control of Bernfeld’s papers, which were now in his wife’s keeping: ‘I don’t know how far her judgment can be trusted and how we can prevent her from putting the material to a wrong use, if she should want to do so . . . Does Suse Bernfeld really have the right, for example, to publish my father’s correspondence with Wagner-Jauregg?’ On 18 May Eissler replied: ‘I obtained the impression that Mrs. Bernfeld is in a particularly labile condition and any counter-measure against her publication of that paper [on Freud and Wagner-Jauregg] may precipitate a serious reaction . . . I have the feeling that Otto Maenchen would be a very good person to discuss the matter with her and possibly could do it without mentioning at all that this was requested from him by London’ (Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC). Anna Freud’s fears were baseless, as Suzanne Bernfeld continued to respond to Jones’ requests for information.
160. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 18 March 1954, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
161. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 5 and 25 November 1952, ibid.; Ernest Jones to Anna Freud, 10 and 18 November 1952, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
162. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 4 April 1954, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society.
163. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 16 June 1954, ibid.
164. Anna Freud to Ernest Jones, 16 June 1954, ibid. Anna Freud continued: ‘Personally, I wish that the letters concerning him had been destroyed.’
165. Ernest Jones to Anna Freud, 28 November 1951, Anna Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
166. Ernst Kris to Anna Freud, 29 April 1947, Ernst Kris Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
167. Jones (1953), 304.
168. Ibid., 287, n. 1.
169. Ibid., 306.
170. Ibid., 305. Contrary to what Jones implies, Reisefieber in German signifies nothing other than a banal travel nerves.
171. Jones (1955), 19.
172. Jones (1953), 311.
173. Ibid., 304–5.
174. Ibid., 309.
175. Ibid., 291.
176. Ibid., 316.
177. Ibid., 300.
178. Ibid., 303.
179. Ibid., 324.
180. Ibid., 307.
181. In private, however, Jones didn’t fail to criticize the ‘Kris atrocities’ (Ernest Jone
s to James Strachey, 6 November 1951, Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society). On 24 October 1951, Strachey had sent him a detailed critique of Kris’ argument, according to which the discovery of infantile sexuality was to have coincided with the self-analysis and the abandonment of the seduction theory: ‘My point is that the recognition of infantile sexuality as a normal activity – as distinct from the mere occurrence of abnormal sexual experiences – was only accepted by Freud gradually – over the years between 1897 and 1899’ (Jones Papers, Archives of the British Psycho-Analytical Society). Response to Jones, 27 October 1951: ‘I have been too complacent about Kris’s pre-vision of the future, although it is a fascinating topic. Many of them [sic] are very nachträglich’ (ibid.).
The Freud Files Page 42
