Editorial

The three principal articles in this issue provide glimpses of hitherto little known elements of Freud's work. Ernst Falzeder provides a comprehensive survey of the published and unpublished writings of Freud, in order to answer the question: ‘How much do we actually know by now about what Freud wrote and said?’ Not only does he discuss, with his customary well-informed and objective approach, the state of the editions of his published works, in a number of languages, but he gives a complete survey of the conditions of publication of unpublished papers and the enormous correspondence whose stuttering publication, at the behest of a variety of scholars, legatees and trustees, has been so important to our understanding of Freud in the last three decades. His judicious remarks on the extraordinary passions still aroused by Freud, his person and his work, should be read by everyone interested in psychoanalysis and its history.

New materials concerning Freud which surprise even experienced scholars such as Falzeder do continue to emerge: the essay by Anna Koellreuter about her grandmother's analysis with Freud in 1921 and the daily notes she made on that analysis records a genuinely new and surprising such discovery. There have been many accounts of having analysis with Freud, recorded by the patients themselves, most usually in the form of recollections, sometimes in the form of contemporaneous letters—James Strachey's description in a letter to his brother Lytton of what a session with Freud was like is a vivid and arresting instance (Nov 6, 1920 in Meisel & Kendrick 1986, pp. 29-30). But a day-by-day set of notes by a patient, preserved, as Anna Koellreuter observes, for mysterious reasons, is a rare find indeed. Koellreuter supplies us with the necessary background for understanding these notes, which she then comments on from the point of view of psychoanalytic technique and its development. Yet her paper makes it clear that, as with most aspects of clinical psychoan