|
that Freud always maintained a modest but significant belief in real sexual trauma as a cause of neurosis.
5. Masson (1984, e.g., Ch. 4). 6. See, for example, McGrath (1985). 7. Sulloway (1979, pp. 198, 206-208, 313-314, 512-518). 8. Swales (1983c); Thornton (1983). 9. Swales (1983c, e.g., pp. 10-11). 10. Swales (1982b, 1982c). 11. Swales (1982b, p. 6). 12. Origins (pp. 187-188); Letters (p. 269). 13. See Swales (1982b) for the extensive evidence. 14. For good recent treatments of the great importance of childhood abuse for the development of later psychopathology, see, as examples, Finkelhor (1979); Herman (1981); Miller (1983, 1984). 15. Masson (1984, Ch. 2). 16. Quoted in Blumenthal (1981, p. C5); see also S. Freud (1985, pp. 230-231). 17. S. Freud (1985, p. 264). 18. S. Freud (1985, p. 266). 19. Krüll (1978, 1979); Balmary (1979/1982). 20. Jones (1953, pp. 8-9). With reference to John, Freud wrote: “An intimate friend and a hated enemy have always been indispensable to my emotional life; I have always been able to create them anew, and not infrequently my childish ideal has been so closely approached that friend and enemy have coincided in the same person; but not simultaneously, of course, as was the case in my early childhood.” (Swales (1982d) gives a striking and detailed analysis of this mixture of hostility and “homosexuality” in Freud’s relationship to Fliess. The Schreber “case” (see S. Freud, 1911a), based on the published comments of Dr. Paul Schreber, fits Freud’s “homosexual” pattern well. That is, the homosexual relationship was between two “brother”-figures, Schreber and a Dr. Flechsig; the only “father”-figure in the case was God, who was viewed as castrating, not as a homosexual seducer. One curious autobiographical note in this case is that Schreber suffered from two distinct periods of mental crisis and deterioration: The first lasted from the autumn of 1884 to the end of 1885; the second started in October 1893 and lasted till 1895-1900 (S. Freud, 1911a, C.P., 3, pp. 390-393). These two periods rather closely correspond to Freud’s own periods of maximum psychological disturbance. One can assume in this case that Freud identified with Schreber in his Flechsig relationship, on a pattern set up in Freud’s early relationship to John and later shown in Freud’s relationships with Fleischl, with Fliess (i.e., Flechsig), and also probably with Jung (i.e., John). 21. Krüll (1978; 1979, pp. 144 ff.). 22. Origins (p. 220). 23. Grigg (1973, p. 111) has suggested that it was a fantasy. 24. Krüll (1979, p. 146). 25. Ariès (1962, p. 100). 26. Ariès (1962, p. 100). 27. Ariès (1962, p. 102). |