Jeffrey Masson and Freud's seduction theory: a new fable based on old myths
Allen Esterson
(Note: This is a
pre-publication version of the article published in History of the Human Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1-21. © 1998 SAGE Publications Ltd.)
Jeffrey Masson's version of the seduction theory episode in Freud's
early career, as presented in The Assault on
Truth (1984), is very plausible as a revised account of the traditional
story. However, close examination of the seduction theory papers and of other
contemporary documents reveals that Freud's later reports of the episode, the
foundation on which Masson builds his case, are false. Some purported
historical events that Masson uses to buttress his case are also shown to be
without foundation. The several accounts of the episode Freud gave in his
writings are dissected to demonstrate that they are tendentiously misleading
and serve to conceal what actually occurred with his patients during the period
in question. Some consequences of the widespread acceptance of the traditional
account are briefly discussed.
The re-evaluation of the seduction theory episode
According to the traditional story, Freud abandoned the seduction
theory when he realized that many of the 'seductions' reported by his female
patients were fantasies, and this discovery opened the way to his revolutionary
psychoanalytic theories of infantile sexuality. In the late 1970s, some
feminists concerned about the sexual abuse of female children re-examined the
received account and concluded that Freud was wrong to abandon the theory, and
that he did so in response to the concerted opposition of his medical
colleagues (Rush, 1977, 1980; Herman, 1981). Masson's best-selling The
Assault on Truth (1984) made this view known to a wider public, while at
the same time purportedly providing it with a more scholarly foundation.
Although most commentators expressed reservations about Masson's view that
Freud's reinterpreting his patients' reports of childhood sexual molestation as
fantasies indicated a failure of nerve on his part (Masson, 1984: xxviii, 190),
the book has become highly influential, especially among some sections of the
psychotherapeutic community. And, in terms of the information provided by
Masson and the authors referred to above, it is not difficult to explain the
success of the revised account of the seduction theory episode. Indeed, seen in
those terms, what needs to be explained is why it took so long to re-evaluate
Freud's claims. (Feminist writers have found no difficulty in supplying such an
explanation.)
The traditional version derives essentially from Freud's account
in New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933):
In the period in which the main interest was directed to discovering
infantile sexual traumas, almost all my women patients told me that they had
been seduced by their father. I was driven to recognize in the end that these
reports were untrue and so came to understand that hysterical
symptoms are derived from phantasies and not from
real occurrences. (Freud, Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological
Works of Sigmund Freud [hereafter cited as S.E.]: XXII, 120) [1]
Now although Freud implied he had learnt to distinguish between the
patients' phantasies and their authentic memories
(S.E.: VII: 274), he never explained how he had done this, and, remarkably,
until recently few people seem to have asked how he could have done so. Given this unexplained gap at the heart of Freud's account,
Masson's revisionist view of the episode looks like nothing more than common
sense, and the rejection of his thesis by most psychoanalytic commentators like
a case of special pleading. But appearances can be deceptive, and
nowhere more so than in the field of received psychoanalytic history.
The pressure technique
Salyard (1994: 659) writes
that Freud's reasons for abandoning the seduction theory have not been
satisfactorily explained because little attention has been given to the
circumstances under which he claimed its discovery.[2] She observes that this
reflects the fact that Freud's published writings were the source of the
traditional account and the reason for its announcement appears self-evident:
Freud arrived at the theory because most of his female patients reported sexual
abuse in early childhood, usually by their fathers. But, as Salyard
notes, a close scrutiny of Freud's seduction theory papers of 1896 reveals a
very different state of affairs.
To appreciate what actually happened with Freud's patients in the
mid-1890s it is essential to have knowledge of his clinical technique at that
time. Details of Freud's methodology in this
period are given in Studies on Hysteria (Freud and Breuer,
1895: S.E., II). Central to his procedure was the 'pressure technique',
developed from a therapeutic device he had seen used by Bernheim
(S.E.: II, 109-10, 268-7). Freud believed that somatic symptoms he regarded as
hysterical were caused by repressed memories of traumatic experiences, and that
the therapeutic task was to induce the patient to bring these memories to
conscious awareness. At times when relevant thoughts were not forthcoming he
placed his hand on the patient's forehead and encouraged him or her to report
any images or ideas that came to mind. In the event that nothing occurred to
the patient, Freud took this as a sign of resistance and repeated the pressure
on the forehead while insisting that a picture or an idea would emerge. In this
manner he endeavoured to set in motion a chain of associations which he
believed would lead eventually to the pathogenic idea (270-2). The ideas and
images obtained from the patient by this procedure generally emerged in a
piecemeal fashion, with the essential elements missing (281-2). The task of the
physician was 'to put these [fragments] together once more into the
organization which he presumes to have existed'; ie,
to piece together the fragments to produce a coherent event or narrative,
rather like the process of solving a picture puzzle (291).
Even when a patient had been convinced of the logical coherence of the
proposed solution, he or she often failed to recognize the ideas which formed
'the nucleus of the pathogenic organization' (300). Freud described as 'the
climax of [the procedure's] achievement in the way of reproductive thinking'
that 'it causes thoughts to emerge which the patient never recognizes as his
own, which he never remembers, although he admits the context calls for
them inexorably...' (272).
Arriving at the solution, however, was not an automatic process, and
required guidance from the physician. In order to facilitate the emergence of
appropriate associations, Freud wrote, it was 'of use if we can guess the way
things are connected up and tell the patient before we have uncovered it'
(295). And even more explicitly, in regard to 'the things that we have to
insist upon to the patient' he stated: 'The principal point is that I should
guess the secret and tell it to the patient straight out' (281). Just how
directive was Freud's procedure is indicated by his reporting that at times he
'laboriously forced some piece of knowledge on a patient' (299).
The therapeutic solution therefore consisted of both acknowledged and
unacknowledged material. The logical consistency, and the interconnection
between its various parts, served to justify Freud's confidence in the solution
at which he arrived (300-1). At each stage he looked to the occurrence of
'tension and signs of emotion' in the patient's face as indicators of the
authenticity of the emerging recollections (281). He also claimed that when the
patient gave utterance to the supposed pathogenic memory the symptom
diminished, or even temporarily vanished, and that the 'working-over' of the
pathogenic material resulted in its complete disappearance (296-7). (This
was not always borne out in the cases reported in Studies on Hysteria.)
What emerges from Studies on Hysteria is that the 'solution'
which Freud uncovered was frequently a reconstruction based on fragmentary
ideas and images, not (generally) a memory as such. This was the basis of the
procedure which Freud was soon to describe as 'psychoanalysis' (S.E.: III,
151), and which he was to use to reveal the infantile experiences of his
patients.
The infantile seduction theory
Nowhere in Studies on Hysteria, or in any prior publications,
did Freud report that any of his patients had been sexually molested in infancy. His announcement of his thesis that the symptoms of
hysteria and obsessional neurosis resulted
exclusively from repressed memories of sexual experiences in early childhood
was first made in two letters he wrote to his friend and confidant Wilhelm Fliess in October 1895. Specifically, he conjectured - on
theoretical grounds - that hysteria was the consequence of presexual
sexual shock, and obsessional neurosis the
consequence of presexual sexual pleasure (Masson,
1985: 141, 144). On 2 November he triumphantly reported to Fliess:
'Today I am able to add that one of the cases gave me what I expected (sexual
shock - that is infantile abuse in male hysteria!) and at the same time a
working through of the disputed material strengthened my confidence in the
validity of my psychological constructions' (ibid.: 149).
There were no more such reports to Fliess at
that time, but on 1 January 1896, only three months after conceiving the
theory, he sent him a draft of one of the forthcoming seduction theory papers
(ibid.: 162-9). Then in early February he dispatched 'Heredity and the
Aetiology of the Neuroses' (published in a French journal on 30 March 1896
[1896a]) and 'Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses
of Defence' (published on 15 May 1896 [1896b]), in each of which he claimed
that for all his thirteen cases diagnosed as hysteria (two men and eleven
women) he had uncovered repressed memories of sexual traumas in early
childhood. These mostly had occurred below the age of five, and in two cases
'at one and a half or two years' (S.E.: III, 152, 155, 163, 165). The
assailants were nursemaids, governesses, domestic servants, teachers, and, in
seven of the cases, a boy (generally a brother) only slightly older than the
victim (152, 164). In his six cases of obsessional
neurosis (three of whom were among the thirteen 'hysterics'), the patients had
engaged in an active pleasurable sexual experience around the age of
eight or ten, and all of them had also been subjected to sexual molestation in
infancy (155, 168-69).
The third seduction theory paper ('The Aetiology of Hysteria'),
delivered to the Vienna Society for Psychiatry and Neurology on 21 April 1896
(1896c), contained a more detailed presentation of Freud's thesis. The number
of cases of hysteria had increased to eighteen (six men and twelve women), and
the culprits now included adult strangers and close relatives in addition to the
categories listed in the previous papers (S.E.:III, 207-8).
Freud alluded to his 'pressure technique' in the 'Further Remarks'
paper (177-8), and elsewhere his words indicate that he was still using the
clinical procedure described in Studies on Hysteria. In the course of
responding to the rhetorical objection that he may been
deceived by hysterical confabulations, he emphasised that '[b]efore they come for analysis the patients know nothing
about these [sexual] scenes. They are indignant as a rule if we warn them that
such scenes are going to emerge. Only the strongest compulsion of the treatment
can induce them to embark on a reproduction of them.' Not only have they 'no
feeling of remembering the scenes' they are induced to reproduce, he continued,
they 'assure me...emphatically of their unbelief' (204). Similarly, in the
'Heredity' paper he reported:
[T]hese patients never repeat these stories
spontaneously, nor do they ever in the course of a
treatment suddenly present the physician with the complete recollection of a
scene of this kind. One only succeeds in awakening the psychical trace of a
precocious sexual event under the most energetic pressure of the analytic
procedure, and against an enormous resistance. Moreover, the memory must be
extracted from them piece by piece... (153).
Although Freud's words elsewhere imply that specific 'scenes' were
'reproduced' by his patients, or even 'recall[ed]...to consciousness' (204),
the passage quoted immediately above suggests that material obtained from the
patients was generally in the form of fragments of ideas or images from which
Freud reconstructed the supposed event. In the introductory section of 'The
Aetiology of Hysteria' Freud compared his procedure to that of a forensic
physician who 'can arrive at the cause of an injury, even if he has to do
without any information from the injured person' (191-2). He explained that
this procedure ('psychoanalysis' [151]) utilized Breuer's
discovery that 'the symptoms of hysteria...are determined by certain experiences
of the patient's which...are being reproduced in his psychical life in the form
of mnemic symbols' (192-3, Freud's emphasis).
The single example of a specific case of hysteria or obsessional neurosis described in the seduction theory
papers illustrates how Freud used this principle to reconstruct infantile
'scenes' (172-7 n). By analysing the elements of a male obsessional's
sleep-ceremonial Freud inferred that a servant-girl had sexually abused him in
infancy. For instance, the patient's compulsion 'to kick both legs out a
certain number of times' was, in Freud's words, 'explained' as representing his
'kick[ing] away the person who was lying on him'.
(Nowhere in this account of how Freud psychoanalytically 'traced back' the
symptoms to the inferred sexual scene is there any indication that the patient
reported any recollection of the event.)[3]
Some indication of Freud's approach is also given in a letter to Fliess, dated 3 January 1897, reporting on a Miss G. de B.
who had started treatment a month before. Freud wrote that his patient had a
vaginal discharge at age 8-10, and some other apparently related symptoms. He
also reported: 'A conspicuous tic; she forms [her lips into] a snout (from
sucking). She is suffering from eczema around her mouth and from lesions that
do not heal in the corners of her mouth. During the night her saliva
periodically accumulates, after which the lesions appear.' From this Freud
inferred she had in infancy been forced to suck on someone's penis. In addition
he writes that at age twelve her speech inhibition first appeared when, 'with a
full mouth, she was fleeing from a woman teacher' (Freud's emphasis).
From the fact that 'her father has a similarly explosive speech, as though his
mouth were full', Freud apparently divined that the abuser of the infant Miss
G. de B. was her father. Having arrived at his reconstruction of a sexual
scene, he 'thrust the explanation at her', and reported that 'she was at first
won over'. However, after confronting her father she changed her mind, and
Freud responded by threatening 'to send her away' in order to achieve her
compliance (Masson, 1985: 220).[4]
It is of interest to note that Freud's divinations from symptoms had put
him on the trail of another 'sexual scene' in this case, involving G. de B's mother:
'The pain in her leg appears to have come from her mother' (ibid.:
221). Elsewhere he reported to Fliess other examples
of how he inferred sexual scenes from somatic symptoms:
Hysterical cold shivers = being taken out of a warm bed.
Hysterical headache with sensations of
pressure on the top of the head, temples, and so forth, is characteristic of
scenes where the head is held still for the purpose of actions in the mouth
(ibid.: 230). ...[P]atients
who have had something sexual done to them in sleep have attacks of sleep. (ibid.: 212)
In letters to Fliess after the publication of
the seduction theory papers, Freud reported instances of patients apparently
furnishing images or re-enactments of specific 'sexual scenes' (ibid.: 213, 218, 288), but it is impossible to ascertain how
many patients were induced to provide 'reproductions' of this nature. Borch-Jacobsen (1996) views Freud's pressure technique as
essentially a form of hypnosis, and he cites evidence which indicates that, in
some cases at least, patients were induced to conjure up hypnagogic
images of requisite infantile 'scenes'. In the 'Aetiology' paper Freud wrote
that certain somatic symptoms 'correspond to the sensory content of the
infantile scenes, reproduced in a hallucinatory fashion' (ibid.: 214), but, as
we have seen, elsewhere there are passages which imply that the 'memories'
generally consisted of fragmentary ideas or images from which Freud reconstructed
the fully-fledged sexual scenes; as Toews puts it:
'The seduction scenes were laboriously constructed from indirect and
fragmentary evidence' (1991: 511 n 12). Similarly, Schimek
concludes that 'the knowledge of [the] original trauma, whether an unconscious
memory or fantasy, was based on Freud's interpretation and reconstruction; it
was not directly revealed by the patient' (1987: 960).[5]
(Cioffi [1972, 1974] had long before reached the same
conclusion.)
While the precise nature of Freud's clinical material remains a matter
of conjecture, it is evident that much of it was elicited by means of a highly
directive and coercive technique applied by a physician who had preconceived
ideas of what he would uncover. Given the elastic nature of his analytic
technique of interpretation and reconstruction, one can begin to understand how
it was that Freud was able to claim a remarkable one hundred percent success in
corroborating his theory.[6]
There is still one point remaining to be cleared up. In the traditional
story it had always been self-evident why Freud had posited the seduction
theory: many of his patients were coming to him with reports of childhood
molestations. Since the latter is untrue, an alternative explanation must be
sought. It can be found in the seduction theory papers themselves (S.E.: III,
153-4, 166-7 n), where Freud outlines his idea that when a sexual experience
occurs in early childhood, the precocious excitement produces little or no
effect at the time, but its psychical trace is preserved. When this unconscious
psychical trace is in some way awakened after
puberty, the traumatic memory, though still remaining unconscious, will display
a power commensurate with the patient's now fully developed sexual faculties
which manifests itself in the form of hysterical symptoms. This theory of
'deferred effect' was first mentioned in the final section of an unpublished
manuscript known as 'Project for a Scientific Psychology' which Freud sent to Fliess on 8 October 1895 along with the letter in which he
first announced the seduction theory (S.E.: I, 356). The 'deferred effect'
notion implies an early childhood sexual trauma
theory.
Freud's seduction theory 'confirmations'
During the seduction theory period Freud claimed three cases for which
there was independent confirmation that his patients had experienced sexual
abuse in early childhood. Smith (1991: 13-14) has examined these claims and has
shown they are not substantiated by the evidence adduced by Freud. In the
'Aetiology' paper Freud asserted he had been able to obtain 'an objective
confirmation', ie, 'confirmed by someone else', in
two of his cases. However, in one of these an older brother 'confirmed - not,
it is true his earliest sexual experiences with his sister - but at least scenes
of that kind from later childhood...' (S.E.: III, 206). So in fact the crucial infantile
'scene' was not confirmed in this instance. The other case involved
mutual confirmation from two of his female patients, who supposedly had had
sexual relations with the same man, 'in the course of which certain scenes took
place à trois'.
But two patients on whom Freud was using his questionable reconstructive
technique can scarcely be said to have provided mutual confirmation of supposed
infantile sexual experiences. (Freud points to a similar symptom 'as evidence
of what they had experienced in common'.)[7]
There is also a claimed external confirmation in the letter to Fliess of 3 January 1897. Freud writes of an ex-patient
that the latter received confirmation 'of the reality of the things he
remembered' from his 'seducer' (his nurse, now an old woman). Freud says he
learned of this 'from Mrs F. (who heard it from Professor Sulz
[Petz?])' (Masson, 1985: 219).
That the news reached Freud by this circuitous route raises questions about the
reliability of the information. Even if we give credence to this (fourthhand!) claim, we have no idea what the nurse
supposedly confirmed - it might have been no more than innocent caresses, or
that she had given the child an enema. Stronger evidence than this is required
before one can take Freud's 'confirmations' at their face value.
In a paper addressed to analysts in 1913 Freud referred to 'the
earliest days of analytic technique', and in an allusion to cases in which
knowledge of a forgotten childhood trauma was obtained 'from parents or nurses
or the seducer himself' he reported that his 'telling and describing [the
patient's] repressed trauma to him did not even result in any recollection of
it coming into his mind' (S.E.: XII, 141). However, the only instance he gives
relates to an event experienced by a girl when she was 'approaching puberty';
in other words, it was not an infantile trauma as required by the seduction
theory. As we have seen, the claims of external confirmations Freud made at the
time are doubtful; however, his words in the 1913 report provide further
evidence that it was he himself who told the patients they had
experienced infantile molestations and that the patients did not recall the
supposed traumas.
This 1913 report is instructive in another way. Freud writes that when
he 'repeated her mother's story [of a homosexual experience] to the girl she
reacted with an hysterical attack, and after this she
forgot the story once more. There is no doubt that the patient was expressing a
violent resistance against the knowledge that was being forced upon her.'
Freud's words suggest he is convinced that in such a situation the forgotten
scene is on the point of breaking through to consciousness, and that he takes the
girl's 'hysterical attack' as evidence of this. This may be an indication of
what Freud sometimes had in mind in the seduction theory papers when he
wrote of the patients' 'reproducing' sexual scenes or 'recalling [them] to
consciousness'. ('While they are recalling these infantile experiences to
consciousness, they suffer under the most violent sensations...' [S.E.: III,
204].)
Fathers as the culprits
Although it is evident from the above analysis that the traditional story
is erroneous, it is nevertheless necessary to look further into this issue
because there is one document which is invariably cited as evidence that Freud
frequently heard accounts of paternal sexual abuse from his female patients in
the 1890s.
Freud informed Fliess of his loss of faith in
the seduction theory in a letter dated 21 September 1897. There he wrote (among
several reasons why he could no longer maintain his theory): 'Then the surprise
that in all cases the father, not excluding my own, had to be accused of
being perverse' (Masson, 1985: 264; in the original German: 'Dann die Überraschung, dass in sämtlichen Fällen der Vater
als pervers beschuldigt werden musste, mein eigener
nicht ausgeschlossen'
[Masson, 1986: 283]). This has customarily been taken as Freud's reporting his
clinical findings, but there are several grounds for rejecting such an
interpretation of his words.
1. Freud did not write 'had been accused', but 'had to be accused'. It seems
that he was referring to a consequence of his recent speculative
notions, reported in letters to Fliess (Masson, 1985:
212, 228), which had led him now to conclude that generally fathers had to be
the abusers. That in letters of 11 January and 12 January 1897 he had
implicated an uncle (while explicitly excluding the father) and a nurse in the
case of two patients diagnosed as hysterics contradicts the construal of the
sentence in question as Freud's saying that 'in all cases' fathers had been
accused (ibid: 222, 223-4). In fact, in only three of the seven cases reported
to Fliess prior to September 1897 were fathers the
supposed culprits (ibid: 213 [correction, 224], 220, 238).
2. That he included his own father in the sentence at issue is a
further indication of its conjectural nature. This suggestion was first made in
a letter of 8 February 1897 on the basis of Freud's belief that several of his
siblings suffered from hysterical symptoms (ibid: 230-31). He exonerated his
father in a letter of 3/4 October 1897 (ibid: 268).[8]
3 He could not have only just
experienced 'surprise' in regard to clinical findings that mostly dated back
more than eighteen months (reported in the 'Aetiology' paper).
4 In May 1897 he reported to Fliess his
interpretation of one of his own dreams as the fulfilment of his 'wish
to catch a father as the originator of neurosis' (ibid.: 249), which is
inconsistent with the notion that he had frequently been doing so previously.
Frequently cited in the context of Freud's alleged concealing that the
putative abusers of his seduction theory patients were generally fathers are
two cases in Studies on Hysteria (1895) involving attempted sexual
assaults on girls (Katharina and Rosalia)
where Freud later (1924) added footnotes acknowledging that he had substituted
uncles for fathers for reasons of 'discretion' (S.E.: II, 134 n, 170 n).
However, it should be noted that these cases are not directly relevant to the
infantile seduction theory. Katharina was not a
patient of Freud's but someone with whom he chatted for a few hours one
afternoon while on holiday. The incidents she reported had not been repressed (ibid.: 129-30, 132), and Katharina
was fourteen or older when the attempted assaults took place. In the case of Rosalia, the incident described involved her 'uncle'
(father) attempting a sexual assault while she was massaging his back to
relieve his rheumatism, a situation which indicates that the girl was well
beyond infancy (ibid.: 172).
Freud's motive for the substitutions may, as he implies, have been less
reprehensible than present-day commentators are prepared to allow, namely to
alter what he regarded as inessential facts to render more difficult any
identification of the victims and culprits. Feminist critics such as Rush (1980:
85) and Herman (1981: 9-10) have cited these cases as evidence that Freud was
anxious to conceal patriarchal abuses, but it is not clear why obnoxious acts
perpetrated by uncles should be regarded as any less a reflection of the abuse
of male power in society than similar acts by fathers.
Myths and misconceptions
Masson's view that 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' was 'the greatest
[paper] Freud ever wrote' (1990[1988]: 87 n) is not shared by other
commentators who have looked at it rather more carefully and found it wanting
in almost every respect, save that of persuasive rhetoric (Thornton, 1983:
233-39; Smith, 1991: 7-15; Israëls and Schatzman, 1993: 23-39; Scharnberg,
1993: 137-219; Wilcocks, 1994: 113-57; Salyard, 1994: 659-66). Salyard, for instance, found 'it
contained errors and inconsistencies, and was sometimes ambiguous, confusing,
and lacking in clarity'.
A close reading of the paper without preconceptions is thus likely to
result in a very different appraisal from Masson's. In addition to the factors
alluded to above, Freud hardly helped his case by recounting clinical
illustrations - only to then confess that they were 'inventions'! (He was
obliged 'to make up fictitious examples', he said, because 'giving an account
of the resolution of a single symptom would...amount to the task of relating an
entire case history' [S.E. III, 196-7]). Several reviewers of Studies on
Hysteria (published the previous year) had already expressed the view that
there was a danger that the technique there described would evoke material of
doubtful authenticity (Kiell, 1988: 68, 74, 82), so
it is hardly surprising that the audience was unimpressed by Freud's lecture.
In a reference to 'the 1896 paper on hysteria' in Against Therapy
Masson writes that 'at this point Freud said the answer had to be seduction,
and by "seduction" he meant something very serious, what we would
today call sexual assault. It corresponded pretty much to incest' (1993[1990]:
107). This passage exemplifies Masson's misconceptions about the seduction
theory. Freud described the supposed premature incidents as 'sexual experiences
affecting the subject's own body', and though he wrote that some of these were
'brutal assaults', elsewhere he stated that 'At the basis of the aetiology of
hysteria we found an event of passive sexuality, an experience submitted to
with a small degree of annoyance or fright' (ibid: 203, 152, 155). His 'deferred
effect' theory merely required some degree of sexual excitation; incest was
only an extreme example of the kind of wide-ranging experience encompassed by
the seduction theory. Moreover, readers of Masson's accounts would not be aware
that Freud insisted the patients had experienced the 'sexual scenes' in the
face of their denials, that he stated that people who remembered
sexual molestation (however serious) in early childhood would not suffer from
hysteria on that account, and that he made the unlikely claim that he had
uncovered sexual molestation in infancy in the case of every single one
of his current patients (including six men) (ibid.: 204, 211, 207-8).
Masson supports his account of the seduction theory episode by recirculating the myth that Freud was ostracized by his
medical colleagues in the early days of psychoanalysis (1984[1985]: 12). This
story, propagated by Freud and his biographer Ernest Jones, has been shown to
be without foundation (Ellenberger, 1970: 448; Sulloway,
1979: 462-4). There is not the least evidence that the views of Freud's
colleagues played any role in his abandonment of the seduction theory, nor
indeed of the widespread outrage that Masson claims. In 1897 an assembly of
medical professors supported Freud's nomination for the position of Associate
Professor at the
That the 'Aetiology' lecture was received coolly is without doubt true,
but Masson's only other evidence for the supposed fierce antagonism of the
medical profession towards Freud over this issue is the absence of a customary
summary of the lecture and report of any discussion in the minutes of the
meeting at which it was presented, one fiercely critical review of the 'Further
Remarks' paper, and the fact that the seduction theory claims were challenged
in an article published by Löwenfeld in 1899 (Masson,
1984[1985]: 6, 135; [1992]: xxii). (For Löwenfeld's
perceptive criticisms, see Israëls and Schatzman [1993: 43-4]). The notion that Freud's
abandonment of the seduction theory was in deference to his colleagues (Masson
1984[1985]: xxviii) is contradicted by the fact that it was not until 1905 that
he so much as intimated publicly his change of mind, and even then he sought to
minimize it: 'I cannot admit that in my paper on "The Aetiology of
Hysteria" I exaggerated the frequency or importance of that influence
[early childhood seduction]...' (S.E.: VII: 190).[9]
While undoubtedly some physicians were inclined to dismiss female
patients' reports of sexual assaults as hysterical confabulations, there was
also public acknowledgement of the sexual abuse of children. Krafft-Ebing wrote, in his widely-read Psychopathia
Sexualis (1894 edition): 'Today rape on children
is remarkably frequent. Hofman (
In The Assault on Truth Masson portrays Freud in 1896 as a man
eager to expose the brutal treatment of female children in Viennese society,
and to this end he provides a tendentious account of the period leading up to
the public announcement of the seduction theory (ibid: 79-87). In this section,
a farrago of misconceptions, errors, and speculation masquerading as fact, he
purports to show that Freud started entertaining the seduction theory in 1893,
and thereafter embraced the notion of childhood sexual abuse as a major cause
of psychoneuroses. The truth is that prior to October 1895 it was Freud's view,
expressed both publicly and in letters to Fliess,
that psychoneuroses were caused by repressed memories of sexual experiences of any
kind, including incidents occurring in adulthood. That he only alighted on the
seduction theory in late 1895 is indicated by his words written on 8 October of
that year: 'Just think: among other things I am on the scent of the following
strict precondition for hysteria, namely, that a primary sexual experience
(before puberty), accompanied by revulsion and fright, must have taken place'
(Masson, 1985: 141). Masson highlights a reference to childhood sexual abuse in
a letter written in 1893, but this is merely one of three 'unproven surmises'
relating to cases of 'juvenile neurasthenia without masturbation' on
which Freud is seeking Fliess's opinion (ibid.: 50,
Freud's emphasis). In other words, it is nothing more than a passing conjecture
pertaining to a very specific situation, unrelated to the later seduction
theory. Masson's portrait of Freud as courageously defying his colleagues out
of concern for abused female children (1984[1985]: xxiv-xxv) is belied by a
passage at the end of the 'Aetiology' paper in which Freud wrote: 'What is more
important to me than the value you put on my results is the attention you give
to the procedure I have employed' (S.E.: III, 220). What really mattered
to Freud was his discovery (as he thought) of the analytic technique which
enabled him to divine the contents of his patients' unconscious minds and
reconstruct their infantile past.[10]
Freud's retrospective reports
To appreciate how most commentators, including Masson, have been misled
by Freud's later reports of the seduction theory episode, the several accounts
he published over the years must be examined. Originally, in the 'Further
Remarks' paper, Freud reported that 'foremost among those guilty' were
nursemaids, governesses, servants and teachers ('with regrettable frequency');
and in seven cases, slightly older boys, mostly brothers (S.E.: III, 164). In
the 'Aetiology' paper Freud added close relatives ('all too often') to the
first group, and also implicated 'adult strangers' (ibid.: 208). However, his
story later changed to accord with his current theory. The seduction theory did
not require specific culprits - hence the wide range of assailants in his
1895-6 reconstructions. By 1897 his cogitations had led to the conjecture that
the culprits in the case of 'hysterics' were generally fathers, and this is
reflected in an abstract of the 'Aetiology' paper: the several categories
specified in that paper were condensed to the claim that 'as a rule' the
abusers were 'to be looked for among the patient's nearest relatives' (ibid.:
254).
Following his abandonment of the seduction theory, in his accounts published
in 1906 and 1914 he paid scant attention to the identities of the supposed
culprits. His primary concern was to report that he had discovered that most of
the 'infantile sexual traumas' which 'analysis had led back to' had been
unconscious phantasies created during the years of
puberty to 'cover up' memories of infantile masturbation (S.E.: VII, 274: XIV,
17-18).[11] (In Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality [1905b] he had
written of infantile masturbation that it leaves behind the deepest unconscious
impressions in the memory, determining the development of a healthy
person's character and the symptomatology of those
who develop neuroses [S.E.: VII, 189]). It was not until 1925 that he first
stated publicly that in the case of the female patients 'the part of seducer
was almost always assigned to their father'. He had 'believed these stories'
but was 'at last obliged to recognize' that the scenes of seduction were
'wishful phantasies' which were, as he was later to
realize, a consequence of the Oedipus complex (S.E.: XX, 33-4).[12] (At the
time he had just begun applying his Oedipal theory to female development [S.E.:
XIX, 177-9]). In 1933 he reiterated that during the seduction theory period
'almost all my women patients told me that they had been seduced by their
father', and it is this final version of the story which acquired the status of
historical fact for most of this century (S.E.: XXII, 120). (A little earlier
he had reported for the first time that 'girls regularly [sic] accuse
their mother of seducing them', in accord with his belated
"discovery" that infant girls' first libidinal attachment is to their
mother [S.E.: XXI, 238]).
Freud's 1906 account marks the first stage in his self-serving
misrepresentation of the seduction theory episode. He wrote that he 'was at
that period [1895-96] unable to distinguish with certainty between
falsifications made by hysterics in their memories of childhood and traces of
real events' (ibid.: 274). His choice of words serves both to obscure the fact
that the putative memories were unconscious and had been reconstructed by means
of his psychoanalytic technique, and to extenuate his error by implying that
the patients were responsible for the supposed false 'memories'.[13]
Freud implicitly revealed that there was something amiss with the
received story when his 1925 account he wrote that the childhood seduction
scenes (which 'I had arrived at...by a technical method which I considered
correct') were reproduced 'under the influence of the technical procedure
which I used at that time' (emphasis added). This acknowledgement no doubt
reflects the fact that he had recently edited the seduction theory papers in
preparation for their reprinting in 1924. Equally noteworthy is that according
to both his 1925 and his 1933 accounts, he was the recipient of reports of
paternal seductions from almost all his female patients only during the period
when he maintained the seduction theory.
Perhaps because he had recently reread the seduction theory papers,
Freud's 1925 account is particularly revealing. He wrote that he was obliged to
recognize that the 'scenes of seduction' were 'only phantasies
which my patients had made up or which I had perhaps forced on them'
(S.E.: XX, 34, emphasis added). He went on to say: 'I do not believe even now
that I forced the seduction phantasies on my
patients, that I "suggested" them', but remarkably, given the
'overwhelming importance' he accords his discovery of the supposed infantile phantasies (ibid.: 34), he gives no reason why he rejects
this possibility. One is left wondering about the significance of 'even now' in
this sentence. Could this be an inadvertent intimation that even now that he
had been reminded of what he wrote at the time, which contains indications that
he had indeed forced the 'scenes' on his patients, he would not (one might say
could not) allow himself to entertain the possibility?[14]
It is evident from the above that the account taken as historical fact
by Masson was but the final stage of a story whose ever-changing nature served
to obscure the truth about what happened between Freud and his patients in
1895-7.
Conclusions
Jeffrey Masson has produced an erroneous account of the seduction
theory episode which, as Rycroft writes, demonstrates
his 'incapacity to distinguish between facts, inferences, and speculations'
(1991[1984]: 75). His errors result from his failure to grasp the nature of the
clinical procedure Freud was using, his uncritical presumption that the
latter's clinical claims were valid, and his acceptance of Freud's historical
accounts in spite of the scholarly research which has shown them to be
unreliable. This will, of course, bring little comfort to his psychoanalytic
critics, since it is evident that the theory of infantile seduction phantasies which superseded the seduction theory was based
on the same unsound clinical claims. Masson (along with feminists such as Rush
and Herman) are absolutely right to censure the psychoanalytic community for
encouraging analytically-oriented therapists to construe female patients'
reports of childhood sexual abuse as fantasies. This unfortunate tendency was
actually based on a misconception. In Freud's theory the fantasies (phantasies) in question are unconscious (S.E. VII,
274-75) and thus have to be analytically uncovered by the therapist; reports of
childhood sexual abuse that had always been remembered do not fall into this
category. Psychoanalysts, like almost everyone else, were deceived by Freud's
misleading retrospective accounts of the episode.
The dawning realization that he could not continue to maintain the
thesis of an exclusive sexual molestation aetiology should have caused Freud to
reflect on whether his newly developed psychoanalytic technique for accessing
unconscious memories was flawed. Instead he insisted his findings were
essentially correct but that what he had supposedly uncovered (the preconceived
infantile 'sexual scenes' he had foisted on his patients) were generally
unconscious phantasies of seduction. His later
accounts of the episode served to conceal that his clinical findings reported
in 1896 were an artefact of his coercive application of the analytic technique
of reconstruction. In the words of Cioffi: 'Freud
could not bring himself to recognize the reasoning by which he had persuaded
himself of the authenticity of the seductions, because it was the same sort of
reasoning which, for the rest of his career, he was to employ in his
reconstruction of infantile fantasy life and of the content of the unconscious
in general' (1974: 173-4).
One final point: it must be emphasized that it is not being argued that
none of Freud's patients in the relevant period had been sexually abused
in childhood. Apart from the two cases of attempted sexual assault reported in Studies
on Hysteria, there are unambiguous indications that a female patient who
began treatment in 1897 was the victim of repeated post-infantile sexual abuse
by her father - though it should be noted that she told Freud at the very start
of the treatment, and there was no suggestion that she had repressed the memory
of her experiences (Masson, 1985: 238). But the story that most of Freud's
female patients in the seduction theory period told him they had been sexually
abused in early childhood, the cornerstone of Masson's account of the episode,
is contradicted by the contemporary documentary evidence.[15]
NOTES
1 The word Phantasie was almost
invariably used by Freud to denote an inferred unconscious idea or image
which he had analytically reconstructed. Its frequent translation as 'fantasy'
(rather than 'phantasy' as in the Standard Edition)
has exacerbated the tendency to misconstrue the ideas or images in question as conscious
experiences of Freud's patients (Esterson, 1993:
166-8). The significance of this will become apparent in the course of this
article.
2 Salyard was apparently unaware that
this had already ceased to be true when she published her article. See Cioffi (1972, 1974), Macmillan (1977, 1991), Steele (1982),
Thornton (1983), Schimek (1987), Smith (1991), Esterson (1993), Israëls and Schatzman (1993), Scharnberg
(1993), and Powell and Boer (1994), all of whom have disputed Freud's
retrospective accounts of the episode.
3 Several examples of the analytic technique of reconstruction, ie, the inferring of supposedly repressed traumatic
'scenes' or unconscious phantasies from patients'
symptoms and associations, can be found in the 'Dora' case history, written in
1901 (S.E.: VII, 46-8, 79-80, 83). In his introductory remarks Freud explicitly
relates his methodology to that employed in 1895-6 (ibid.: 7).
4 Lest anyone should doubt that Freud's coercive treatment of
Miss G. de B. typified his approach at that time, here is what he wrote in a
paper published in 1898: 'Having diagnosed a case of neurasthenic neurosis with
certainty...we are in a position to translate the symptomatology
into aetiology; and we may then boldly demand confirmation of our suspicions
from the patient. We must not be led astray by initial denials. If we keep firmly
to what we have inferred we shall in the end conquer every resistance by
emphasising the unshakeable nature of our convictions' (S.E.: III, 269).
5 In the first edition of The Interpretation of Dreams,
completed in 1899, Freud wrote in relation to a dream from 1895: 'It was my
view at that time...that my task was fulfilled when I had informed a
patient of the hidden meaning of his symptoms' (S.E.: IV, 108, emphasis added).
Again, in 1908 Freud wrote in relation to 'the hysteric's unconscious phantasies': 'The technique of psychoanalysis enables us in
the first place to infer from the symptoms what those unconscious phantasies are and then to make them conscious to the
patient' (S.E., IX: 162).
6 Freud claimed that in the case of his six obsessional
patients he had uncovered an active (pleasurable) sexual experience at
age eight or ten, in line with the speculative differential aetiology theory he
had announced to Fliess in October 1895 (see above).
This necessitated the occurrence of a corresponding passive experience
in infancy (to account for the perverse activities of prepubertal
boys [S.E.: III, 155]) and, sure enough, he reported that 'analysis confirms
this suspicion' - these patients had all experienced the two types of sexual
experiences at the appropriate ages (ibid.: 155-6, 168-9)). However, following
his abandonment of the seduction theory he never again referred to these
claimed corroborations of his differential aetiology theory, and in 1906 he
reported that after relinquishing the seduction theory he had been 'obliged to
abandon this [differential aetiology] view entirely' (S.E.: VII, 275). It seems
that, with the aid of his analytic technique, Freud had little problem in
corroborating his current theory - and in jettisoning the corroborations when
the theory changed.
7 Scharnberg (1993: 156) has directed
attention to an odd inconsistency. Freud reported that 'out of eighteen cases,
I have been able to obtain an objective confirmation of this sort in two'.
Since in one of the two instances Freud claimed mutual confirmation by two of
his patients, he should have stated he had confirmed three out of
eighteen cases.
8 His assertion in the same letter that in his case 'the prime
originator' (ibid: 268) was his nursemaid was derived from dream analysis
(Masson, 1985: 269).
9 The explanation for Freud's abandonment of the seduction theory
is a matter of much debate (see Israëls and Schatzman, 1993: 47-58; Kupfersmid,
1993; Macmillan, 1997[1991]: 636-40). In the 21 September 1897 letter to Fliess, he gave several motives for his loss of faith;
however, in his published accounts (1906, 1914, 1925b) he provided rather
different reasons which are neither consistent nor convincing (S.E.: VII, 274,
276; XIV, 17; XX, 34; Cioffi, 1988: 62-4; Israëls and Schatzman, 1993:
39-47). For instance, in his 1914 account he claimed its 'contradiction in
definitely ascertainable circumstances'. As Cioffi
has pointed out (1984: 743), a plausible scenario for such a contradiction is
difficult to envisage: how could Freud have ascertained that a patient had not
been sexually molested in infancy? Moreover, had there been any substance to
this claim, Freud could scarcely have failed to mention it in his 1906 account
(and in his letters to Fliess at the time).
10 In 1901 Fliess disparaged Freud's
analytic technique as that of 'the reader of thoughts [who] merely reads his
own thoughts into other people' (Masson, 1985: 447).
11 To take this explanation seriously one would have to accept
that for a girl, the memory of having masturbated in infancy was more
distressing than the belief that she had been sexually abused. In 1905-6 Freud
was grappling with the problem of how he could explain away the discarded
claims which he had announced so confidently in 1896, and his story was at a
transitional stage. While claiming that in 1895-6 his material 'happened by
chance to include a disproportionately large number of cases in which sexual
seduction by an adult or by older children played the chief part in the history
of the patient's childhood', he also asserted unspecifically
that he had 'learnt to explain a number of phantasies
of seduction as attempts at fending off memories of the subject's own
sexual activity (infantile masturbation)'. By the time he gave his next account,
the 'large number of cases' had dwindled considerably, and what he had 'learnt
to explain' had become a 'discovery' (S.E.: XIV, 17-18), paving the way for his
final version.
12 The plausibility of the belated Oedipal phantasies
explanation of the seduction theory episode is undermined by the fact that
Freud never once mentioned corresponding reports of maternal seduction phantasies by male patients arising from their
infantile incestuous desires. Though his female patients were more numerous and
supposedly more forthcoming in providing evidence of Oedipal phantasies, Freud stated in 1935 that 'The information
about infantile sexuality was obtained from the study of men and the theory
deduced from it was concerned with male children' (S.E.: XX, 36 n). It is not
immediately apparent why the analytic technique for accessing the unconscious
should have been less successful in the case of women patients, but it seems
that once he put his mind to it (starting in 1925 [S.E.: XIX, 241-258]) he was
able to plumb the depths of the female unconscious, and by 1931 he had provided
a full description of their psychosexual development (S.E.: XXI, 221-43). (An
account of how 'analysis' enabled him to accomplish this can be found in [Esterson, 1993: 140-9].)
13 The 1906 account contains another example of how Freud's story
was in the process of transmuting. Whereas in Three Essays (1905b) he
had stated that he 'cannot admit' that he had exaggerated the frequency of
'seduction' in early childhood (S.E.: VII, 190), he now wrote that he had
'over-estimated the frequency of such events' (ibid.: 274). As a further
illustration of the unreliability of Freud's retrospective reports, in 1905 he
wrote in the context of his explaining his abandonment of the seduction theory
that he 'did not then [in 1896] know that persons who remain normal may have
had the same [seduction] experiences in their childhood' (S.E.: VII, 190).
Though he claimed that 'further information' which had 'now become available'
had led to this 'unexpected finding' (ibid.: 276), in the 'Aetiology' paper he
had explicitly acknowledged 'the observed fact that many people who remember
such [seduction] scenes...have not become hysterics' (S.E.: III, 209,
Freud's emphasis). In fact he is being doubly disingenuous here, because he
fails to allude to the important point that these memories of 'normal' people
were conscious, and that in 1896 he had discounted such cases because
their memories were not repressed (ibid.: 211).
14 In this same passage Freud disingenuously portrays his earlier
self as a naive physician who had been deceived by his patients' reports: 'If
the reader feels inclined to shake his head at my credulity, I cannot
altogether blame him.' One would not have guessed from this that in 1896 he had
defended his claims against the potential objection that he had been deceived
by hysterical confabulations as follows: 'I should accuse myself of blameworthy
credulity if I did not possess more conclusive evidence [than statements of
patients]' (S.E.: III, 153).
15 Space considerations have necessitated the omission of an
examination of Masson's misleading account of the prehistory of the seduction
theory, his claim that the Wolf Man was sexually abused in infancy by a member
of his family, and his uncritical presentations of the clinical claims of Sándor Ferenczi and Robert Fliess. Readers interested in a critique of these sections
of The Assault on Truth should visit the following website: http://human-nature.com/esterson/addendum.html
References
Borch-Jacobsen, M. (1996). 'Neurotica:
Freud and the Seduction Theory.' October 76 October Magazine Ltd. and
MIT, Spring 1996: 15-43.
Cioffi, F. (1972). 'Wollheim
on Freud.' Inquiry, 15: 171-86.
Cioffi, F. (1974). 'Was Freud a Liar?' The Listener,
91: 172-4; reprinted (1975) Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry, 5:
275-80.
Cioffi, F. (1984). 'The Cradle of
Neurosis' (Review of The Assault on Truth). Times Literary Supplement
(6 July): 743-4. (Masson's reply was published on 16 November and Cioffi's response on 14 December.)
Cioffi, F. (1988). '"Exegetical Myth-Making"
in Grünbaum's indictment of Popper and exoneration of
Freud.' in Mind Psychoanalysis and Science, ed. P. Clarke and C. Wright.
Ellenberger, H. F. (1970). The Discovery of
the Unconscious: The History and Evolution of Dynamic Psychology,
Esterson, A. (1993). Seductive Mirage: An
Exploration of the Work of Sigmund Freud,
Freud, S. (unpublished). 'Project for a Scientific Psychology.' In
Vol. I of (1953-74) The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works
of Sigmund Freud, ed. and trans. by J. Strachey
et al. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of
Psycho-Analysis.
Freud, S. (1896a). 'Heredity and the Aetiology of the Neuroses.' In Vol. III of The
Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1896b). 'Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of
Defence.' In Vol. III of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1896c). 'The Aetiology of Hysteria' In Vol. III of The Standard
Edition.
Freud, S. (1898). 'Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses.' In Vol. III of The
Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1900). The Interpretation of
Dreams, in Vols. IV and V of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1904). 'Freud's Psychoanalytic Procedure.' In Vol. VII of The
Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1905a). 'Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria.' In Vol. VII of
The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1905b). Three Essays on the
Theory of Sexuality. In Vol. VII of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1906). 'My Views on the Part Played by Sexuality in the Aetiology of the
Neuroses.' In Vol. VII of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1908). 'Hysterical Phantasies
and their Relation to Bisexuality.' In Vol. IX of The Standard
Edition.
Freud, S. (1913). 'On Beginning the Treatment (Further Recommendations on the Technique of
Psychoanalysis I).' In Vol. XXII of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1914). On the History of the
Psychoanalytic Movement. In Vol. XIV of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1924). 'The Dissolution of the Oedipus
Complex.' In Vol. XIX of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1925a). 'Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction Between
the Sexes.' In Vol. XIX of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1925b). An Autobiographical
Study, in Vol. XX of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1931). 'Female Sexuality.' In Vol. XXI of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. (1933). New Introductory
Lectures on Psychoanalysis in Vol. XXII of The Standard Edition.
Freud, S. and Breuer, J. (1895). Studies on Hysteria, Vol. II
in (1953-74) The Standard Edition of
the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud (1953-74) ed. and trans.
by J. Strachey et al.
Herman, J. L. (1981). Father-Daughter Incest.
Israëls, H. and Schatzman, M. (1993). 'The Seduction Theory.' History of Psychiatry, iv: 23-59
Kiell, N. (1988). Freud Without Hindsight:
Reviews of his Work.
Kupfersmid, J. (1993). 'Freud's Rationale for
Abandoning the Seduction theory', Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 10(2):
275-90.
Macmillan, M.B. (1977) 'Freud's Expectations
and the Childhood Seduction Theory.' Australian Journal of Psychology,
29(3): 223-36
Macmillan, M.B. (1991). Freud Evaluated:
The Completed Arc.
Masson, J.M. (1984). The Assault on Truth:
Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory.
Masson, J.M. (ed.) (1985). The Complete
Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess 1887-1904,
ed. and trans. J. M. Masson.
Masson, J.M. (ed.) (1986). Sigmund
Freud: Briefe an Wilhelm Fliess
1887-1904, Ungekürzte Ausgabe,
ed. J. M. Masson. Frankfurt am
Masson, J.M. (1990). Against Therapy.
Powell, R.A. and Boer, D.P. (1994). 'Did Freud Mislead Patients to Confabulate Memories of Abuse?', Psychological
Reports, 74: 1283-98.
Rush, F.
(1977). 'Freud and the Sexual Abuse of children', Chrysalis 1:
31-45.
Rush, F. (1980) The
Best Kept Secret: Sexual Abuse of Children.
Rycroft, C. (1991 [1984]). 'Masson's assault on Freud',
in Viewpoints.
Salyard, A. (1994). 'On Not Knowing What You
Know: Object-Coercive Doubting and Freud's Announcement of the Seduction
Theory', Psychoanalytic Review, 81(4): 659-76.
Scharnberg, M. (1993). The Non-Authentic Nature of
Freud's Observations. Vol.1: The Seduction Theory.
Schimek, J. G. (1987). 'Fact and Fantasy in the
Seduction Theory: a Historical Review', Journal of the American
Psychoanalytic Association, xxxv: 937-65.
Smith, D.L. (1991). Hidden Conversations:
An Introduction to Communicative Psychoanalysis.
Steele, R.S. (1982). Freud and Jung: Conflicts of
Interpretation.
Sulloway, F. J. (1979). Freud: Biologist of the
Mind.
Thornton, E.M. (1983). Freud and Cocaine: The
Freudian Fallacy,
Toews, J. E. (1991). 'Historicizing
Psychoanalysis: Freud in his Time and for our Time', Journal of Modern
History, 63: 504-45.
Wilcocks, R. (1994). Maelzel's Chess Player:
Sigmund Freud and the Rhetoric of Deceit. Lanham, MD: Rowman
and Littlefield.