532
PARTISAN REVIEW
editorial hanky-panky is altogether out of keeping with the spirit of
Freud himself and with the idea of psychoanalysis, not to speak of such
minor considerations as scientific and scholarly integrity.
It
was an
absurdity and a vanity on the part of Freud (great men are entitled
to
both)
to
object to the idea of a biography of himself. It was worse when
those in charge of his estate-once the Jones biography had been
decided upon-started putting out volumes of laundered letters. Inci–
dentally, one has to add, the analytic profession has not exactly covered
itself with glory by its muted response
to
these circumstances. Only
recently, with the publication of the Freud-Jung letters has a Freud
correspondence in its integrity appeared.
What has Roazen turned up, and what do his findings amount
to?
On balance, and a little
to
my surprise, Jones stands up remarkably
well. All transferences to the contrary notwithstanding, Roazen is able
to make very little headway against him. He makes a few minor
corrections here and there. (Jones's single major lapse, his unbalanced
and misleading account of Ferenczi's last years, had been brought to
public attention years ago.) And some omissions of varying degrees of
importance are made good on. Roazen is quite useful in reminding us
how unorthodox Freud's own practices could often be (sometimes
during the summer he would have a patient stay in the same house
with him), and how other analysts who knew of this could at the same
time claim that such procedures, when carried out by others, were
"unanalytic" in character. Moreover, what for Freud "might have been
temporary or ad hoc measures became, in the hands of some devoted
followers, unchangeable rituals." The orthodoxy seems to have been
strongest among Americans.
Every movement of any significance brings about rivalries among
its adherents. Psychoanalysis is no exception to this rule, and Roazen
gives something that resembles a blow by blow account of the infight–
ing and elbowing for place among Freud's followers. Some of these
differences have meaning for the history of the movement; others are
more in the way of idle gossip and chatter and do not deserve to be
dwelled upon. And about the same thing holds true of the irregularity
of the sexual lives and habits of the early generation of analysts. The
amusing story of how it was Jung and not Freud who was awarded an
honorary degree at Harvard's tercentenary celebrations deserves preser–
vation. As does the anecdote of how on this same occasion Jung was
introduced to a large audience in the amphitheatre of the Massachu–
setts General Hospital as "Dr. Freud." It is also of interest to learn
again and in some detail about Freud's undertaking to psychoanalyze
