Freud, Murder, and Fame: Lessons in Psychology’s Fascinating History

by Todd C. Riniolo

  A legitimate question to ask at this point is why would G. Stanley Hall invite Freud as a speaker? Certainly compared to the other invited speakers, Freud was not as well known at the time, and did not have as distinguished an academic record and reputation as the others. The answer as to why Freud was invited seems to be that Freud’s emphasis on sexuality was of particular interest to Hall. Prior to Freud’s visit in 1909, Hall had collected a large number of books on sexuality for his personal library. Hall had even offered a controversial course at Clark University called “The Psychology of Sex” (Rosenzweig, 1992), which was unheard of at the time. Since he was not only a psychologist, but the President of the university, he had leeway to teach the controversial course without fear of interference from the administration.

  Hall’s most important work was a two-volume book published in 1904/1905, Adolescence: Its Psychology and Its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion, and Education. It certainly is evident that Hall was very familiar with Freud’s work, as he is referenced several times throughout the book. For example, Hall (1904, p. 285) references a paper Freud published in 1892 when he notes that “Freud was the first to insist that all forms of morbid anxiety were closely associated with the vita sexualis, and always arose in cases of retention of the libido.” While Adolescence covered a variety of topics (e.g., language development, growth norms, crime, friendship, diseases) and was responsible for popularizing the term “adolescence,” the book became controversial because of a focus on sexuality, especially in the “Adolescent Love” chapter in Volume II. As Hall (1905, p. 109) would write, “Sex is the most potent and magic open sesame to the deepest mysteries of life, death, religion, and love. It is, therefore, one of the cardinal sins against youth to repress healthy thoughts of sex at the proper age, because thus the mind itself is darkened and its wings clipped for many of the higher intuitions, which the supreme muse of common sense at this its psychologic moment ought to give. … Neither the psychology nor the pedagogy of adolescence can be treated without careful consideration of the whole problem of sex.”

  Hall (1905) references (see p. 121) Breuer and Freud’s Studies on Hysteria and from another 1896 paper by Freud emphasizing the importance of sexuality as it relates to hysteria in Adolescence. Thus, “Hall found in Freud someone with a similar emphasis on the importance of sexuality in early childhood. By 1907, Hall clearly believed that Freud’s work was fundamental to psychology” (Evans & Koelsch, 1985, p. 943). Fortunately for Freud and psychoanalysis, Hall would do his best to promote Freud’s work to a much larger audience than Freud himself could have imagined.

  Freud’s American Invitation

  On December 15, 1908, Hall had written to Freud to ask if he would be willing to give a series of lectures during the first week of July as part of the 20th Anniversary celebration of the founding of Clark University. Hall wrote, “Although I have not the honor of your personal acquaintance, I have for many years been profoundly interested in your work which I have studied with diligence…” (cited in Benjamin, 2006, p. 141). Hall was able to offer Freud a 400 dollar honorarium. Freud initially declined the invitation, because it would have required him to miss too much work and the financial loss of income would be substantial. He was a practicing physician, and it was customary at the time to take time off from July 15 through the end of September. Freud would write to Jung to tell him about the invitation, and would say this about the Americans, “I also think that once they discover the sexual core of our psychological theories they will drop us. Their prudery and their material dependence on the public are too great” (cited in Benjamin, 2006, p. 143). Freud could not have been more wrong, as Freudian theory would be more readily accepted in America in the first half of the 20th century than any other country on earth.

  Hall would subsequently write to Freud again, explaining that the celebration events had been changed to September. Also, he would be able to increase the honorarium to 750 dollars, and he would give Freud an honorary degree. Freud accepted this second offer, and when a German psychologist had declined Hall’s offer to lecture at the celebration, Hall subsequently invited Freud’s close friend, at the time, Carl Jung.

  One interpretation about the changing of the dates from July to September that has been sometimes repeated and is worth evaluating is that Hall did this to specifically accommodate Freud. This interpretation appears unlikely, as the simpler explanation is that at the same time Clark University had initially planned its 20th Anniversary celebration, the University of Leipzig (Germany) would be celebrating its 500th Anniversary and the University of Geneva (Switzerland) its 350th Anniversary. Many individuals that Hall wanted to attend Clark’s celebration would be attending those much older and more prominent anniversary celebrations in July. In addition, European universities typically did not finish their semester until the end of July. This would make travel to America difficult for the European professors that Hall had sent out invitations to attend. The September date was likely chosen because of the many scheduling conflicts, not solely because of Freud’s conflict (Evans & Koelsch, 1985).

  Freud’s American Trip

  Freud would subsequently invite his friend Ferenczi to accompany him on the trip. Thus, Freud, Jung, and Ferenczi would sail to America on August 21, 1909, on the ship the George Washington. After the men arrived in New York City (NYC), the following day A.A. Brill, who had first met Freud at the First Congress of Freudian Psychology the previous year, took the men on a tour of NYC, and they saw such sights as Central Park, the Chinese quarter, the Jewish section of the Lower East Side, and Coney Island. The following day they visited the Metropolitan Museum, where Freud wanted to view the ancient Grecian remains as well as Columbia University. Ernest Jones (Freud’s biographer) would join the group and notes that they went to a cinema to see a film “with plenty of wild chasing. Ferenczi in his boyish way was very excited at it, but Freud was only quietly amused; it was the first film they had seen” (Jones, 1955, p. 56). Unfortunately, all three men were having dietary issues from the foreign food (diarrhea and stomachaches).

  When Freud, Jung, and Ferenczi arrived by train in Worchester, they initially checked into a hotel and rested for several hours before having dinner with G. Stanley Hall at his home that evening (Rosenzweig, 1992). After spending the night at the hotel, the three men would stay with Hall for the remainder of the conference. Carl Jung, in a letter to his wife (September 6, 1909) would write, “He [Hall] is a refined, distinguished old gentleman close on seventy who received us with the kindest hospitality. He has a plump, jolly, good-natured, and extremely ugly wife who, however, serves wonderful food. She promptly took over Freud and me as her “boys” and plied us with delicious nourishment and noble wine, so that we began visibly to recover” (cited in Benjamin, 2006, pp. 146-7).

  This was Hall’s second wife whom he met through his work on child development as she was a kindergarten teacher. His first wife and young daughter tragically died from asphyxiation in 1890 (Hall was not in the home at the time, recovering from an illness). Unfortunately, “Shortly after the Clark Conference of 1909, Hall and his wife separated. An escalating series of bizarre public incidents by his wife had produced many embarrassing moments for Hall. Eventually she was institutionalized with severe dementia” (Benjamin, 2006, p. 147). Hall ultimately lost both wives, and a daughter, in terrible circumstances.

  Freud would give his 5 lectures at the conference on consecutive days starting Tuesday, September 7, and concluding on Saturday, September 11. Each lecture was at 11:00 am in the morning, which was considered “prime time.” Initially Freud was only scheduled to give 4 lectures, but Freud had arrived earlier than Hall had anticipated, and the conference was quickly rearranged so that Freud could start a day earlier. As pointed out by Evans and Koelsch (1985, p. 944), “Were this not the case, Freud’s well-known book would have been titled Four Lectures on Psychoanalysis rather than the title we know. Freud’s talks were not titled in the advance prog
ram. In fact, Freud had not prepared formal talks at all and improvised his talks during morning walks with Ferenczi.” Whether or not the last statement is historically accurate (although it is widely repeated) is open to debate, as the information comes from what Freud stated in his obituary of his longtime and loyal friend Ferenczi. Rosenzweig (1992, p. 128) wonders whether “Freud may have somewhat exaggerated out of gratitude to a friend and disciple who had met an untimely death.” Freud was extremely loyal to those who were loyal to him. Moreover, this issue provides an excellent example of historical information that at this point in time cannot be classified as either historical fact or historical fiction because no definitive answer exists (see Chapter 2).

  Freud, who was at that time an accomplished speaker, delivered the lectures in German with no notes. The subsequent written publication of “The Origin and Development of Psychoanalysis” published in The American Journal of Psychology in 1910 was reconstructed from memory. As Evans and Koelsch (1985, p. 945) have commented, Freud’s lectures “still represent perhaps the most accessible and lively discourse on psychoanalysis every written.” I agree with their interpretation. This article was the initial exposure for most American psychologists to Freud’s work, and also gave his work much greater exposure in Europe because a large number of European psychologists also read The American Journal of Psychology.

  Freud would subsequently write to Hall to ask his permission to make some changes in the published version, which Hall granted as customary (Rosenzweig, 1992). Some of the topics covered in the final published form were as follows: First lecture: Anna O.; Second lecture: the development of psychoanalysis, a discussion of such concepts as repression (using Hall as an example) and sublimation; Third lecture: free association, slips of the tongue; Forth lecture: infant sexuality and the Oedipus complex; Fifth lecture: social aspects of sexuality, transference, wish-fulfillment. Rosenzweig’s (1992) research from the local newspaper coverage indicates that Freud did make some changes. Specifically, “Freud shifted essential aspects of the third and fourth lectures from delivery to publication: he moved the topics of dream interpretation and free association from the fourth to the third lecture, and that of sexual development, including infantile sexuality, from the fifth to the fourth. Some topics covered in the fifth delivered lecture were not included in the published version and others were added” (p. 129).

  Overall, the impression that Freud made on those who attended the conference can best be described as mixed. For example, Edward Titchener was not impressed with Freud’s theories, but appears to have developed a personal respect for him (Evans & Koelsch, 1985). In contrast, William James appears to have developed a positive view towards Freud’s ideas, but had reservations about him personally. As James would write, “I hope that Freud and his pupils will push their ideas to their utmost limits, so that we may learn what they are. They can’t fail to throw light on human nature” (cited in Evans & Koelsch, 1985, p. 947). On a personal note, James wrote the following about Freud, “I confess that he made on me personally the impression of a man obsessed with fixed ideas” and “I strongly suspect Freud, with his dream theory, of being a regular halluciné” (cited in Evans & Koelsch, 1985, p. 947).

  As the conference was winding down, both Freud and Jung received honorary degrees of Doctor of Laws during a formal ceremony on Friday evening, September 10, 1909. This would be Freud’s only academic accolade during his lifetime. Freud would say in his small speech during the ceremony, “This is the first official recognition of our endeavors” (Jones, 1955, p. 57). Carl Jung, in a letter written to his wife the day after the two men had received their honorary degrees, would write that “Freud is in seventh heaven, and I am glad with all my heart to see him so…” (cited in Benjamin, 2006, p. 148).

  Rosenzweig (1992) points out a remarkable coincidence that occurred during Freud’s only American visit. Specifically, “Bertha Pappenheim was in North America in 1909 just as Freud was. She had come to attend the International Women’s Conference in Canada in August and stopped, by invitation, to lecture in Chicago and New York” (p. 109). Thus, at just about the same time Bertha was in America, Freud was about to deliver his lecture about the case of Anna O. One can only speculate what Bertha, who did not have positive views towards psychoanalysis after she finally recovered, would have thought of Freud’s lecture.

  After the conference ended, Freud, Jung, Ferenczi, and Brill made their way by train to Buffalo, New York. Freud had wanted to visit Niagara Falls while in America, and was not disappointed as it was a greater sight than he expected. Jones recalls that the fifty-three year old Freud, who was sensitive about his age, had his feelings hurt in the Cave of the Winds. A worker moved other tourists aside and called out, “Let the old fellow go first” (Jones, 1955, p. 58). While on the American side of the falls, Freud sent his daughter Sophie a post card, and the four men sent Brill’s wife a card from the Canadian side of the Falls (Rosenzweig, 1992).

  After Niagara Falls (Brill left the group at this point), the 3 remaining friends traveled to the Adirondack Mountains, near Lake Placid, where they had been invited by the Harvard Professor of Neurology, James Putnam, to stay a few days at his vacation home. This brief trip was important for the spreading of psychoanalysis. Putnam would ultimately become one of the most ardent and influential American supporters of psychoanalysis, and he helped to spread the word about psychoanalysis to the academic and medical communities. For example, Putnam made a contribution at the APA’s 18th annual meeting in 1909 in a session devoted to abnormal psychology where he discussed Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and emphasized the importance of the sexual drive. Also, in 1911, Putnam would become the first president of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Putnam’s support, as a respected Harvard professor of neurology, gave psychoanalysis a credibility that may have not otherwise occurred initially without such a well-respected advocate.[3]

  After their stay in the mountains, the three friends would make their way back to New York City and would sail for home on the Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse on September 21. On the trip home, the men discussed the possibility of founding an international psychoanalytic association, which was ultimately established the following year with Jung as its first president. Thus, the trip “was the impetus given to the psychoanalytic movement as an organized professional endeavor” (Rosenzweig, 1992, p. 207). Without the American trip, there is no guarantee that this type of organizational structure, which is vital when attempting to popularize a movement, would have ever occurred.

  Some Additional Important Benefits of Freud’s Trip

  In addition to the American Psychoanalytic Association mentioned above, other Psychoanalytic institutes were formed after Freud’s lectures in America. For example, Brill established the New York Psychoanalytic Society, Putnam founded the Boston Psychoanalytic Society in 1914, and William A. White in Washington, D.C., “led an eager group of young analysts at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital” (Gifford, 1991, p. 130) and White “applied psychoanalysis enthusiastically to every kind of mental illness, including chronic schizophrenia” (Gifford, 1991, pp. 131-2). White ultimately became the most well-known psychoanalyst in the country and he would testify for the defense in the Leopold and Loeb trial (see Chapter 10).

  Also, after Freud’s trip there was a sharp increase in articles pertaining to psychoanalysis (most were favorable) in the medical literature (Hale, 1971). If Freud had refused the second invitation by Hall, it is difficult to contemplate how he would have obtained an equivalent amount of professional notoriety. Perhaps Evans and Koelsch (1985, pp. 947-948) have best summarized Freud’s American trip in the following way, “The seed of Freudian psychoanalysis, if it had not already been sown in America, was certainly sown now and nurtured through this meeting. American psychology would not be quite the same again.”

  Freud’s View of America

  Psychoanalysis would ultimately become more widely accepted in America compared with any other country in the first half of the
20th century. Freud and Jung were wrong in their prediction that Americans would quickly abandon psychoanalysis once they learned more about Freud’s focus on sex. Yet, Freud would ultimately have a negative impression of Americans (in fairness, he had negative things to say about his hometown of Vienna as well). For the reader who is unfamiliar with Freud’s view and some potential explanations, I would refer you to Volume 2 of Jones’ (1955) biography. Jones believed Freud’s impression of America was unwarranted and without question unfair. For example, Freud credited his enduring dislike of America to his constant intestinal issues, which he believed was triggered by American cooking. Yet, as Jones recalled, this explanation does not take into account the fact that Freud had dietary issues long before he visited America. Freud even attributed his deteriorating handwriting over the years to his American visit. On a personal level, Jones believes that Freud’s negative feelings were caused by several factors starting with problems with fully comprehending a foreign language. As Jones (1955, p. 60) wrote:

  I recollect an occasion when one American asked another to repeat a remark he had not quite caught. Freud turned to Jung with the acid comment: “These people cannot even understand each other.” He also found it hard to adapt himself to the free and easy manners of the New World… He was a good European with a sense of dignity and a respect for learning which at that time was less prominent in America. He said to me afterwards in his terse way: “America is a mistake; a gigantic mistake, it is true, but none the less a mistake.”