Letter to the Editor

DEAR SIR,

An idea concerning the use of a bibliography as a genealogy was fortified by an essay by J. S. Plumb (The Death of the Past. London: Pelican Books, 1973), who makes a distinction between the past and history. Each has its personal as well as social uses. For the ruling classes the past, the lists of kings, the relations to the gods, and the historical heritage legitimize authority and status. 'Nor is it merely kings or high-priests who have required the authority of an ancestral table. All aristocracies have, very sensibly, made a cult of genealogy in order to underpin their special status' (p. 27).

This idea may well be applied to the compilations of bibliographies by some writers. It is true that realistic reasons exist for the extensive lists occurring in bibliographies, an assistance in the formulation of the problem under consideration, the correct assignment of priorities, the helpfulness to future scholars who will have at hand an encyclopedic reference list, and the desire not to offend a colleague by omission of mention of his publication. But occasionally in scientific writings the valid reasons for an extensive bibliography are flavoured by additions of reference to the previous literature, the use of which give the writing an aspect of authority and legitimacy.

Psychoanalysts as writers are, of course, not exempt from the personal use of bibliographies as genealogies. A cursory overview of psychoanalytic journals shows a surprising consistency in reference to Freud, only about one paper in ten not mentioning him. Of late the percentage of papers making no reference to Freud has risen slightly. Whether this is a portent or not I have no idea. If this is a trend it seems counterbalanced by the number of references to 'Freud himself …'.

There are variants of the use of the bibliography as a personal enhancement. Occasionally a paper is published which has no references at all. But this variant goes back to Volum