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.
The volume under review is the second in a series edited by Paul Stepansky. It is another example of a highly erudite interdisciplinary effort for which the editor and the contributors should be congratulated. They address a wide range of currently relevant issues: methodological, factual, and theoretical—all pertaining to the study of the intricate relationships between Freud's person and his work; they do so coming from different perspectives: historical (Peter Homans), literary-philosophical (Richard Geha) and methodological-philosophical (Patricia Herzog). The editor's introduction (pp. ix-xx) supplies the readers with a critical road map, inviting them to join in a delightful adventure: the 'continuation … of the self-analysis methodically begun by Freud' (p. xvii).
The motto of the series Contribution to Freud Studies(Stepansky, 1986, p. xi) is Freud's comment to Fritz Wittels (18 December 1923, in E. Freud, 1960, p. 346): the world 'will learn nothing from me so long as my case … cannot be made fully transparent'. This is why it seems so appropriate for analysts to engage in Freud studies: neutrality vis-à-vis psychoanalytic theory intertwines with neutrality vis-à-vis Freud as its originator. Hence, the two inter-related questions underlying the present volume: how is our view of Freud biased by our view of his theories? and, vice versa, how is our view of psychoanalytic theory biased by our view of Freud? Consequently, the volume is of particular importance not only for scholars but for clinicians too. For psychoanalytic work relies on the psychoanalyst's capacity to analyse the transference situation and help tease out reality from fantasy. It is the integrity of the psychoanalyst given within a theoretical-clinical context that sustains such a sensitive endeavour (Szasz, 1963). The volume before us comes to open avenues for the promotion of such integrity by critically examining its context.
Peter Homans, Professor of Social Science at the U