Freud and History before 1905: From Defending to Questioning the Theory of a Glorious Past

Since Suzanne Cassirer Bernfeld's (1951) article, numerous authors have commented upon the way Freud compared his method of soul investigation to those of archaeologists at the beginnings of psychoanalysis. Meanwhile, he presented the organization of soul remembrances as a bundle of archives. These two metaphors, as well as others which punctuate Freud's texts - from the Studies on Hysteria to the ‘Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria (Dora)’ - revealed Freud's definite interest in historical sciences. Above all, the metaphors questioned the way fragments of memories and symptoms could be used to reconstitute a particular history. Epistemologists might then wonder whether Freud only occasionally used such metaphors, or built one or many theories of history as science. I could be even more provocative and ask the following question: although Freud was no historian, was there a Freudian historiography - a Freudian way to write history? How were Freud's potential conceptions of history linked to the theory of neuroses?

I will try to study these questions within a limited period of time - between 1894 and 19051 - and without referring to a particular a priori definition of history. By sticking closely to Freud's texts, I will offer readers the possibility to follow the chronology of Freud's use of the German term Geschichte - which means both history and story. By favouring this reading of the Freudian text, I will assume from now on that Freud could have made a personal and original use of the term Geschichte and that he endowed it with an unusual meaning, which was neither that of the word ‘history’ nor that of ‘story’. Indeed, this method favours a comparison