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.
Freud's studies on cocaine constituted his first scientific encounter with the neuroses; the cocaine episode therefore bears directly on the development of psycho-analysis. The first two sections of the paper deal with (1) 'Freud's Monograph on Coca, 1884'—this section gives a factual account of Freud's interest in and work on the drug with the subsequent publication of the monograph. (2) 'Koller's Discovery of Local Anaesthesia through Cocaine—1884'—Freud acknowledged Koller's priority in this discovery. Two factors may have predisposed Freud to overlook the local anaesthetic properties of cocaine: (a) the absence of an interest in surgery, and (b) his father's eye disease, glaucoma, which may have led to a repression of all ideas concerning operations to the eye. In the third section entitled 'Cocaine and Neurasthenia, 1885', Freud's interest in cocaine as a therapeutic agent in psychiatric disorders is described. The beneficial effect which the drug had upon himself led Freud to the belief that it might have equally beneficial effects upon others suffering from depression, weakness, etc. He did not continue with this interest after his return from Paris. The fourth section deals with the final outcome of the cocaine episode. The discovery that addiction to cocaine occurred resulted in Freud's views falling into disrepute. His plea, contained in an article 'Craving for and Fear of Cocaine, 1887', that it was not the drug which was at fault but the inner weakness of those who became addicts, fell on deaf ears.
In the last portion of the paper entitled 'A Parapraxis' a theory is proposed to explain why Freud consistently gave 1885 as the year in which he recommended cocaine, whereas in fact it was 1884. In his paper 'Craving for and Fear of Cocaine' he had stated that he had never advocated the subcutaneous injection of cocaine, which was then considered to be more harmful than oral administration. However in 1885, two years earlier, he had recommended th