Wolf Man: Concluding Commentary

We are deeply indebted to Roy Schafer and Justine McCarthy Woods for their expert, comprehensive, contemporary interpretations of the original Rorschach test of the Wolf Man by Frederick Weil (1955). Both Schafer and Woods were hampered by not having direct personal contact with the Wolf Man. Woods was further restricted by being given the Wolf Man's material as a blind, anonymous Rorschach test. The interpretations by three different Rorschach experts allow for comparison of convergent and/or contrasting views, as well as the validating effect of consensus not possible with a single interpretation. Publication of the Rorschach protocol of the Wolf Man allows other experts to evaluate the test now and as may be desired in the future. Weil had the advantage of spending time with the Wolf Man, noting his depressive affect, that he always talked only about himself and his litany of complaints about his health, his declining vitality and sexual potency. He was also privy to the Wolf Man's overt reactions to the test's administration and to the administrator.

The findings of the Rorschach test, so relevant to Freud's most elaborate, longest case history, raise a number of significant questions. Are the findings consistent with Freud's case report and conclusions? Do the Rorschach results shed new light on the Wolf Man's diagnosis, psychopathology, psychoanalyses, clinical outcome, and his life history? What does the Rorschach test, carried out long after his psychoanalysis, reveal about the limits and benefits of his treatment? We can also speculate as to whether an initial Rorschach test, carried out before any analytic interviews or investigation, might have suggested a different analytic approach from traditional psychoanalysis?

Although the test was interpreted at different points in time, by the three experts with varying degrees of collateral information and from different perspectives, a clear overall convergence emerges along with some expectable diversity. Weil's