|
although many, I am told, wish to go; the same custom is still strong in Catholic Poland, however.
88. Zezula (personal communication, 1980); Rutar (personal communication, 1982). 89. This is also the conclusion of Grigg (1973). 90. References to Easter in Origins: Draft C, Letters 44, 54, 56, 84, 88 (twice), 101, 104 (three times), 106 (twice), 116, 130 (twice), 131 (three times), 132, 133, 141, 142. Additional references to Easter in S. Freud (1985) from 1897 to 1902: 1897, March 7 (twice); 1898, February 9, February 23, March 10, March 15, March 24, April 3, April 27; 1899, March 19, March 27 (twice), April 13. References to Pentecost in Origins: Letters 62, 63, 64, 89, 136, and 137. Additional references to Pentecost in S. Freud (1985) from 1897 to 1902: 1898, April 27; 1901, May 1 (twice), May 24, May 25 (twice), and June 9 (twice). 91. Origins (p. 292). 92. Origins (p. 211). Freud also expressed an interesting attitude toward the father here, to say the least. 93. See Freud’s letters referring to his visiting Rome published in Origins or Letters, all of which mention August or September visits. 94. Origins (pp. 335-336). 95. Jones (1955, p. 18). 96. Origins (p. 251). 97. In Origins (p. 252), it is called “High Mass”; Letters (p. 236) notes it as “Easter Mass.” This was Freud’s closest experience to Easter in Rome. 98. Origins (p. 252). 99. Why Freud was finally able to overcome his neurotic restraints and visit Rome is not clear. It is generally suggested that publishing The Interpretation of Dreams freed him somehow. This seems too general an explanation, and is not persuasive. After all, that book was published almost two years before his first visit. A dramatic yet scholarly interpretation of how Freud broke the sexual and religious inhibitions that kept him from visiting Rome has been published by Swales (1983b). Swales’s interpretation, convincing in most respects, is too long and detailed to summarize here. Swales’s case, however, hinges on the symbolic equivalence of Freud’s sister-in-law Minna and his old “Nana.” One crucial link in Swales’s paper is his argument that Freud’s analysis of the famous aliquis memory lapse was actually an analysis of Freud himself, and not of some stranger riding with him in a train in Italy. This particular claim receives a good deal of support in the present book; throughout, we see that Freud was closely connected to distinctively Catholic experiences and associations involving his nanny, churches, children, and often blood, as discussed in Chapter One. Freud’s dreams, as discussed in this chapter, also showed much Catholic preoccupation. In short, the remarkably Catholic associations attributed by Freud to his hypothetical Jewish traveling companion in the aliquis case look very much like another example of Freud projecting his own psychology onto another. Swales goes into these associations in great and convincing detail. 100. Jones (1955, p. 16). 101. Letters (p. 105). 102. Letters (p. 231). |