You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Since the publication of his first book, Freud: political and social thought (1968), Paul Roazen has not only been a pioneer in the history of psychoanalysis but has also contributed very much to both familiarize the lay reader with it and to make of it an essential ingredient of our professional training. As both Brother animal: the story of Freud and Tausk (1969) and Freud and his followers (1975) show, such a unique achievement was made possible by the peculiar methodology he was able to develop, i.e. careful historical research guided by a profound and thoughtful personal involvement in the analytic community. The special place Roazen occupies in our field is not only related to the unique relationship he had the opportunity to develop with such towering figures as Helene Deutsch (1884-1982) and Erik Erikson (1902-1994), both of whom he celebrated in two fascinating intellectual biographies (1985 and 1976), but is mainly due to his effervescent personality and original intellectual orientation. His work actually belongs in the tradition of a political scientist like Harold Lasswell, whose 1930 seminal book Psychopathology and politics still poses “a challenge to conventional professional practices” (1:242). As a matter of fact, Roazen's stance as a participant observer of the analytic community can be connected to what Edward Sapir's biographer Regna Darnell called the “Sapir-Lasswell-Sullivan Research Institute” (2:412-4), which grew out of the two “Colloquia on personality investigation” organized in 1928 and 1929 by H.S. Sullivan and W.A. White (1870-1937) (cf. 3: chapter 30). It is no wonder that in a book like his 1993 Meeting Freud's family, “it is arguably the more personal, even autobiographical, observations”, as Todd Dufresene wrote in his review, “that are of the greatest interest for students of psychoanalysis” (4:257). It is also no wonder that, in the context of his lucid, tenacious and admirable effort to make of the history of psychoanalysis “a l