An Addendum to 'The Advantages of Freud's Technique as Shown in his Analysis of the Rat Man'

When Strachey published Freud's original notes on the analysis of the Rat Man, he excluded Freud's notes on the introductory session and the first seven analytic sessions because he thought that Freud's published account of the same material did not differ enough from the notes to make publication worthwhile (Freud, 1909a, p. 254). In 1971, Hawelka, in a meticulous, scholarly study, reproduced Freud's notes in their entirety, specifically including the material which Strachey had excluded, along with a translation into French, notes, and discussion (Freud, 1907–8). I did not learn of Hawelka's book in time to use it for my paper on the Rat Man (Lipton, 1977), and so I am adding an observation now which comes from comparing Freud's notes of the first eight sessions with his published version of the same sessions.

I am not repeating the argument of my paper, and I will confine myself to a brief allusion to it. I think that Freud defined technique more narrowly than is the case today and that he regularly established and maintained a personal relationship with the patient which he took for granted and excluded from technique. I think he confined himself to analysing the repercussions of this relationship as this became necessary. On comparing Freud's notes for the first eight sessions with the published text, one finds that Freud re-wrote the material, and there are a great many changes. I am citing two changes which I think support my thesis.

In each of these two instances Freud deleted material from his notes in his re-writing. I think that the fact that he deleted the material can be taken to indicate that he considered it unimportant. However, if this material is considered from the standpoint of modern technique, I think it would be considered important. Indeed I think that each of the interventions which Freud did not think important enough to publish would not only be considered important interventions but dubious ones at that. I conclude this note with