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.
The case of Little Hans (Freud 19091) is now in its second century of study. It has rightly been called a “founding text” (Young-Bruehl 2007, p. 29), the “prototype of child analysis” (Blum 2007, p. 59), and the first record of child analytic supervision (Bierman 2007, p. 92), since the treatment was conducted by Hans's father in consultation with Freud.
Freud's main goal in reporting the case was to test his ideas on infantile sexuality. Although he listed as a secondary goal to “consider whether [the case] can be made to shed any light upon the mental life of children” (p. 101), he did not seem to note the role of Hans's phase-specific mentation in shaping his phobia. In this brief communication, I will try to show how careful attention to Hans's language and syntax illustrates the nature of oedipal-phase thought and its contribution to pathogenesis.
Freud's report is unique for its time in many ways, even beyond the age of the patient and the fact that the father is the treating analyst. The abundance of verbatim vignettes in particular provides opportunities to draw inferences beyond those of the analyst or consultant. Finally, the report follows the “development and resolution of a phobia in a boy under five years of age”2 (p. 101, italics added), progressively, beginning