|
102. Letters (p. 393).
103. Important aspects of this work for Freud’s religious psychology were brought to my attention by Professor Slochower (see Slochower, 1970). 104. S. Freud (1936, C.P., 5, p. 304). 105. S. Freud (1936, C.P., 5, p. 305). 106. S. Freud (1936, C.P., 5, p. 308). 107. For this connection, see also E. Freud et al. (1978, p. 171); Pfrimmer (1982, Plate XV, pp. 180-191). 108. S. Freud (1936, C.P., 5, p. 311). 109. S. Freud (1936, C.P., 5, p. 311). 110. Bettelheim (1982, pp. ix, x). 111. The Visitation of the Virgin Mary to her cousin Elizabeth, who was pregnant with John the Baptist, is well known as one of the five joyful mysteries meditated upon when a person is saying the Rosary. One wonders whether Freud’s nanny said the Rosary with him or with him listening. The word Heimsucht is also close to Heim (home), heimlich (secret), and unheimlich (uncanny), thus bringing Mary and the Visitation into Freud’s important associative complex centered around the uncanny. The interpretation that Freud sometimes identified with Jesus is further strengthened in this instance by the presence of an older “cousin” named John. 112. Jones (1957, pp. 208-209). 113. Schur (1972, p. 470). 114. Schebesta (1954, pp. 89-90); Gusinde (1954, pp. 868-870). 115. Schebesta (1954, pp. 89-90). 116. Gusinde (1954, pp. 868-870). 117. Gusinde (1954, p. 868). 118. See Henninger (1954/1956) for his complete bibliography. 119. Schebesta (1954, p. 90). 120. Schmidt (1933). See also Schmidt (1935a). 121. Schebesta (1954); Gusinde (1954). 122. Schebesta (1954, p. 90). 123. See Schmidt (1935a, pp. 109-115). 124. As far as I can judge, the reasons for the lack of awareness of Schmidt’s contribution even today among social scientists are that, first, Schmidt’s main writings have not been translated from the German; second, they are very scholarly, especially with respect to his great knowledge of primitive languages; and, finally, he was a Catholic priest who showed how much evidence supports the general picture of religion as portrayed in Genesis. That is, he was saying on the basis of systematic anthropological evidence something that not only Freud but very few social scientists wanted to hear then—or want to hear now. 125. Letters (p. 422). 126. Jones (1957, p. 192). 127. Jones (1957, p. 192). 128. Jones (1957, p. 192). 129. Jones (1957, p. 213). 130. Jones (1957, p. 180). 131. Jones (1957, p. 180). |