The Freud Files
Page 37
78. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 470–1; Ferenczi’s emphasis.
79. Lacan (1981), 232; Lacan’s emphasis.
80. Freud (1914a), 20.
81. Abraham (1954 [1919]), 308.
82. Freud to Paul Schilder, 26 November 1935, Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; cited in Gay (1988), 97. Ernst Falzeder notes that Freud, irritated by Rank’s The Trauma of Birth, insinuated that he wouldn’t have written it if he had been analysed. Rank replied: ‘I have felt curiously touched by the fact that you, of all persons, suggest that I would not have adopted this concept had I been analyzed. This might well be so. But the question is whether this is a cause for regret. I, for one, can only consider myself lucky, after all the results I have seen with analyzed analysts’ (Rank to the former secret committee members, 20 December 1924, cited by Falzeder 1998, 147).
83. Anzieu (1986), 564–5. Anzieu also presented a contemporary psychoanalytic interpretation of Freud’s self-analysis: ‘Throughout the systematic self-analysis . . . Freud used theory as a defense against depression. Freudian psychoanalytic theory was the product of a working over of the depressive position, whereas Kleinian psychoanalytic theory was the product of a working over of the schizo-paranoid position’ (577).
84. Schur (1972).
85. Noted by Falzeder (2000), 44.
86. Freud (1914a), 23–4.
87. Wittels (1924), 118.
88. The mythologisation of the relation between Freud and Jung has quite eclipsed that between Bleuler and Freud on the one hand and Bleuler and Jung on the other, with deleterious effects. In many crucial respects, the relationship and subsequent separation between Bleuler and Freud was more consequential for the subsequent history of psychoanalysis, and its separations from psychiatry, than that between Freud and Jung; second, the relationship and subsequent separation between Bleuler and Jung was more important for Jung than his relation with Freud; third, no account of the relation between Freud and Jung is complete without grasping the complex triangulations between them and Bleuler.
89. Löwenfeld (1904).
90. Bleuler (1904), 718.
91. Freud (1985), 461.
92. Bernheim (1892); Bleuler (1892), 431.
93. Bleuler (1896).
94. Forel was French Swiss, and wrote in French and German. His research was many-faceted, and he was well known for playing a key role in the formulation of the concept of the neurone, for his research on ants and on the sexual question, and for his militant anti-alcoholism. On Forel, see Shamdasani (2006). On his relations with Freud, see Tanner (2003), 83–95.
95. Freud (1889).
96. As Tanner notes, the editorial committee was a veritable Who’s Who of figures associated with the Nancy school: aside from Freud, one finds Hippolyte Bernheim, Ambroise Liébeault, Joseph Delbœuf, Max Dessoir, Albert Moll, Paul Möbius, Albert Freiherr von Schrenck-Notzing and Otto Wetterstrand (2003, 80). It was in the Zeitschrift für Hypnotismus that Freud published his first case history, ‘A case of successful treatment by hypnotism’ (Freud 1892–3).
97. Forel (1891), 26–7.
98. Forel (1899), 412–13.
99. There is nothing surprising in this – as Tanner noted, it was not till the following year that Freud (1904) made public his abandonment of the hypnotic method (2003, n. 124).
100. Forel (1907), 221–2.
101. ‘[Manfred] Bleuler when I interviewed him told me that he hesitates to give copies to the Archives since he fears for Freud’s reputation in view of what Freud wrote to his father about Jung’ (Kurt Eissler, manuscript notes in the margin of the translation of a letter from Freud to Bleuler of 17 November 1912, Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC).
102. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
103. Cited in Bleuler (1979), 21.
104. Ernst Falzeder, English manuscript of Falzeder (2004).
105. Jung (1906–9).
106. In 1905 Freud had written: ‘I cannot admit that in my paper on “The aetiology of hysteria” (1896) I exaggerated the frequency or importance of that influence’ (Freud 1905a, 190). It was only in the following year that he admitted that he had made an error ten years earlier: ‘I thus over-estimated the frequency of such events (though in other respects they were not open to doubt)’ (Freud 1906, 274; our emphasis). To Jung, he seems to have continued privately to affirm that these seductions had been real: ‘[Jung:] For example, I read his article on the thirteen cases of so-called traumatic hysteria and I asked him, tell me, Professor, are you sure that these people really told you the truth? How do you know that these traumas took place? He said to me [laughs]: But these were good people! And I: Excuse me, but they are hysterics! . . . I was a psychiatrist . . . and I know what hysterics were capable of in this regard! But he denied this . . . He admitted nothing, nothing! Corrected nothing.’ Interview typescript of 29 August 1953 with Kurt Eissler, Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 17.
107. Jung (1905), CW 2, § 717.
108. Interview with Kurt Eissler (see note 214 above), 33.
109. Aschaffenburg (1906), 1797; Aschaffenburg’s emphasis.
110. Ibid., 1798.
111. On 5 October 1906 Jung wrote to Freud about Aschaffenburg and noted: ‘it seems to me that though the genesis of hysteria is predominately sexual, it is not exclusively’ (Freud and Jung 1974, 4–5). In his reply, Freud by no means assented to this, replying that he was aware that Jung did not share all his views, but hoped that in the course of years he would come closer to them.
112. Jung (1906), § 16.
113. Vogt (1898; 1899). On Vogt’s use of hypnosis and causal psychotherapy or causal analysis, see Satzinger (1998), 100–32. Against Breuer and Freud, Vogt argued that it was the task of the patients themselves to discover the causal connections, rather than having them interpreted for them by the physician (ibid., 118–19).
114. In 1900 Warda published an account of a case of hypnoid hysteria treated by Breuer and Freud’s cathartic method (Warda 1900).
115. Contrary to general opinion, the word psycho-analytical had been employed prior to Freud. In 1979, Kathleen Coburn noted that the term had been used by Coleridge in his notebooks (cited in Eng 1984, 463). Coleridge had written about the need for a psycho-analytical understanding. As Erling Eng noted, Coleridge understood this as what was ‘needed to recover the presence of Greek myth hidden with Renaissance epic verse, this for the sake of realizing a purified Christian Faith’ (ibid., 465). Whilst Coleridge’s diaries were not published till the twentieth century, the OED also notes a published use of the word in 1857 in Russell’s Magazine: ‘[Poe] chose . . . the psycho-analytical. His heroes are monstrous reflections of his own heart in its despair, not in its peace.’ Whether the word may have been in wider circulation has not yet been established.
116. Freud (1896a), 151. The German Psychoanalyse is used for the first time in Freud (1896c), 162.
117. Janet (1919), 601–2.
118. This was signalled by Horst Gundlach (2002), who noted the embarrassed reception of the malformed term psychoanalysis by Freud’s colleagues and followers. See also Shamdasani (2005b).
119. Bezzola archives.
120. Forel (1919), 218.
121. Frank (1910), 19.
122. Bezzola archives.
123. Frank (1908), 127–8; this article appeared in a volume in honour of Forel.
124. Hoche (1908), 184–5.
125. Bezzola (1908), 219.
126. Freud and Jung (1974), 29.
127. The italicised phrase was deleted from the published version of the correspondence. The originals are on access at the Library of Congress.
128. Freud and Jung (1974), 26 May 1907, 53.
129. Forel and Bezzola (1989), 74.
130. Ibid., 64. Frank’s response is reproduced in Forel (1968), 393–5.
&nbs
p; 131. Forel and Bezzola (1989), 66.
132. Ibid., 69.
133. Ibid., 71.
134. Ibid., 73. Bezzola never wrote this book, to Forel’s great chagrin.
135. Ibid., 67.
136. Cited in Cranefield (1958), 320.
137. Cited in ibid., 320. It seems that Breuer continued to correspond with Forel up to 1908, but this correspondence has been lost (see Tanner 2003, n. 125). It is worth quoting here Ludwig Binswanger’s recollection of his visit to Breuer, to whom he conveyed the salutations of his father (Robert Binswanger, to whom Breuer had sent Bertha Pappenheim after her treatment): ‘I do not recall Breuer’s exact words, but I do remember the vivid gestures and facial expressions with which he responded to my naive question of what his position was regarding Freud since the Studies. His look of downright pity and superiority, as well as the wave of his hand, a dismissal in the full sense of the word, left not the slightest doubt that in his opinion Freud had gone scientifically astray to such an extent that he could no longer be taken seriously, and hence it was better not to talk about him’ (Binswanger 1957, 4).
138. Forel and Bezzola (1989), 67.
139. Ibid., 70.
140. Forel (1908), 268.
141. Freud and Jung (1974), 33.
142. Vol. 21, 1907, 563.
143. Ibid., 566.
144. Jung (1908a), § 28.
145. Jung deleted this when he republished the paper.
146. Jung (1908b), 277. In the version published in the same year, under the title ‘The Freudian theory of hysteria’, Jung deleted the passage on Bezzola.
147. Jones (1955), 126.
148. Janet (1908), 301–2. Janet expressed the same position in 1913 in London at the 17th International Medical Congress: ‘I have to admit to my great shame that I did not fully comprehend the importance of the [Freudian] upheaval and I naively considered the first studies of Breuer and Freud as a very interesting confirmation of my studies: “We are happy,” I wrote at that time, “that Breuer and Freud have recently verified our already old interpretation of fixed ideas in hysterics”. . . At most these authors changed a few words in their psychological description: they called psycho-analysis what I had called psychological analysis . . . Again today if one leaves the adventurous discussions to one side and only examines the observations published by Freud students on traumatic memories, one finds again descriptions very close to those I had previously published. In considering these first theories and these observations, one has difficulty in understanding how psycho-analysis differs from psychological analysis and where one is supposed to find the new viewpoint which it brings to psychiatry’ (Janet 1913, 8).
149. Since the publication of the French edition of this book (2006), George Makari’s Revolution in Mind. The Creation of Psychoanalysis (2008) has appeared. This work is the most significant history of psychoanalysis to date and his analysis converges at a number of points with that developed here, particularly in this section and chapters 6 and 7 of his book. Our main point of difference is with Makari’s argument that, after the first schisms, Freud did a volte-face from his prior authoritarian position, and thereafter maintained a relatively loose hold on the psychoanalytic movement. We would rather emphasis the fact that greater latitude developed regarding the range of permissable divergence on aspects of theory (in part necessitated by the damage limitation exercise vis-à-vis the work of figures such as Adler and Jung) only as long as the Freud legend and Freud’s fundamental authority remained unchallenged.
150. Freud and Jung (1974), 157.
151. Jung (1973), 7.
152. Introduction to Freud and Abraham (2002), xxvii; Falzeder’s emphasis.
153. Forel (1908).
154. Ibid., 266.
155. Forel (1910a), 42 and 44.
156. Forel (1910b), 315–16.
157. Forel and Bezzola (1989), 70.
158. Among those present were: Bernheim, Janet, Forel, Vogt, Jones, Leonhard Seif (then a Freudian), Loÿ, de Montet, Muthmann, van Renterghem and Warda. Bezzola and Frank weren’t able to attend.
159. Forel (1910b), 313.
160. Forel (1910a), 44.
161. The society was officially founded at Salzburg on 19–25 September 1909. The president was Fulgence Raymond, Charcot’s successor at the Salpêtrière, with Frank, Forel and Vogt as secretaries. The society comprised not fewer than fifty-six members.
162. One can follow this discussion in Freud and Jung (1974), 247, 249, 253, 257, 259.
163. Freud and Jung (1974), 268.
164. Forel (1910c); noted by Tanner (2003), n. 128.
165. Freud and Jung (1974), 288 and 295.
166. Ibid., 294–5.
167. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 119. See also Freud and Jung (1974), 282.
168. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 120.
169. Neurologisches Centralblatt, 1910, 660.
170. Ferenczi (1911), 299. In Jung’s terms, ‘the great Freud battle’ (Freud and Jung 1974, 50).
171. Ferenczi (1911), 301.
172. Freud (1910c), 226–7.
173. Freud (1914a), 43–4.
174. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington. DC; cited in Alexander and Selesnick (1965), 4.
175. Frank (1910).
176. Freud and Jung (1974), 310.
177. Ibid., 300.
178. Freud and Jones (1993), 65.
179. Freud and Jung (1974), 300.
180. Isserlin (1907).
181. Freud and Jung (1974), 299–300; Jung’s emphasis.
182. Ibid., 300.
183. Ibid., 308.
184. Hoche (1910), 1009.
185. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
186. Freud and Jung (1974), 371.
187. Ibid., 373.
188. Ibid., 376. Freud attributed his public priority dispute with Fliess (see Fliess 1906a) to the latter’s paranoia brought about by repressed homosexuality: ‘The paranoid form is probably conditioned by restrictions to the homosexual components . . . My one-time friend Fliess developed a dreadful case of paranoia after throwing off his affection for me, which was undoubtedly considerable. I owe this idea to him, i.e., to his behaviour’ (Freud and Jung 1974 121). See also Freud’s letter to Ferenczi of 10 January 1910, in which Freud attributed his final rupture with Fliess to an interpretation which Freud had made to him: ‘This piece of analysis, very unwelcome to him, was the real reason for the break between us which he engineered in such a pathological (paranoic) fashion’ (Freud and Ferenczi 1993, 122).
189. Freud and Jung (1974), 376.
190. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 243.
191. Freud and Jones (1993), 93; see also 101: ‘He is a paranoiac I am sorry to say.’
192. Freud and Ferenczi (1993), 262.
193. Freud and Jung (1974), 376.
194. Stekel (1950), 141.
195. Nunberg and Federn (1974), 145, 146 and 148.
196. Stekel (1950), 142.
197. Freud and Jung (1974), 399.
198. ‘An der Leser’ [To the reader], in Furtmüller (1912), iii; cited in Stepansky (1993), 203.
199. Somewhat overstatedly, though with some justice, Alexander and Selesnick (1965) argued that, without the dissension which led Bleuler to resign, the subsequent isolation of psychoanalysis from the universities and medical schools would not have taken place (1–2).
200. Alphonse Maeder papers.
201. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.
202. Freud and Jung (1974), 468.
203. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; cited in part in Alexander and Selesnick (1965), 5.
204. Sigmund Freud Collection, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Bleuler’s emphasis; cited in part in Alexander and Selesnick (1965), 7.
205. Forel (1919), 221. Ambroise-Auguste Liébeault was the doctor near
Nancy who initiated Bernheim into hypnosis.
206. Forel’s The Sexual Question (1905) appeared the same year as Freud’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, and received far more attention and was widely translated. Forel also published a book on Ethical and Legal Conflicts of the Sexual Life Inside and Outside of Marriage (1909). Jung reviewed it favourably, noting: ‘The author introduces his book with the following words: “The following pages are for the most part an attack, based on documentary material, on the hypocrisy, the dishonesty and cruelty of our present-day morality and our almost non-existent rights in matters of sexual life.” From which it is apparent that this work is another contribution to the great social task to which Forel has already rendered such signal service’ (Jung 1909, CW 18, § 921).