Comment

Dr Wilke starts from the premise that ‘analytical psychology with its terminology is well able to make essential, clarifying and differentiating contributions

to the problems of psychosomatic medicine’. In the first place that is but a hope. Dr Wilke attempts to demonstrate a specificity for heart neurosis along the lines of a psychosomatic theory. What he intends to make specific is the relation between complex and archetype to the ego and its connection with the typological structure.

Dr Wilke found an early disturbance in the mother-child relationship resulting in a negative mother-complex which dominated an immature ego. Out of this still very non-specific hypothesis there grew the image of a more specific ‘moon mother’ who appeared harsh and unloving towards the patients. This is indeed a very telling image. But I am afraid that it is still not sufficiently differentiated to serve as a valid characteristic for a specific illness.

Dr Wilke arrives at the opinion that an early disturbance in the motherchild relationship develops into a disturbance of the sensation-function. Yet the first case he described was precisely that of a person who was technically and manually very skilled. Further, according to Dr Wilke's own statement, in most cases there was ‘a lack of clarity in the typological constellation’. That does not sound very encouraging. But, as I see it, Dr Wilke did not mean to be encouraging, but intended to point out a problem, to stimulate and be stimulated by the discussion. I should like to take up his challenge by making the following points:

1. The central complex should be further differentiated and its specific connections with other complexes should be demonstrated. One cannot only talk about the mother. What was the relationship with the father and with the siblings? The paper gives no more than hints concerning these questions.

2. Diseases are reactions. In order to demonstrate the connection between a comprehensive diagnosis of a complex and a clearly