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.
One cannot help but agree with Strachey that Freud's Wolf Man case is the best of his case histories and probably the most important. It was written at the time of his break with Jung and is a sort of literary triumph over and refutation of Jung. The important issue was the historical reality of the forgotten events that analysis brings to light. Though the case has interest for the study of Freud and the development of his technique, the question of the veridical nature of psychoanalytic reconstructions still remains an urgent problem. When he wrote the case, Freud was intensely concerned with the relationship between reality and fantasy. There was a double constraint. The first was that which surrounds every effort at theoretical construction, where uncertainties and doubts vary with one's theoretical ambitions. But the second constraint was that of the Wolf Man himself, who showed obsessional doubt as one of his symptoms, and who tended, through what appeared as a request for aid and counsel, to entrap his interlocutor in this same obsessional doubt. But there is an enormous difference between Freud and the Wolf Man, an open system as against a closed system. Theory always rests on technique, and psychoanalysis works with doubt on doubt. That the uncertainties and doubts were included in the case report shows that it is the work of Freud and a genuine work of psychoanalysis, not a cleaned-up version with no uncertainties.