The contributors to this volume provide ample evidence of the highly developed state of Freud scholarship and its status as something approaching an independent academic discipline. At the same time, however, the book draws into relief a widening gap between historical and philosophical scholarship on one hand and the practice of Freud's psychoanalysis on the other. Paradoxically, this gap narrows in an instructive manner in the institutional arrangements developed around Freud's legacy. To the degree that analysis of defense mechanisms plays a crucial role in the practice of analysis, so too are historians faced with the defense mechanisms of the Freudian establishment in their efforts to uncover the truth about their subject. As Frank Sulloway remarks in his contribution to the volume under review, “A supreme irony lies in Freud's development of concepts like censorship and repression and his clinical attempts to overcome their supposedly pathogenic effects through psychotherapy. Freud's movement illustrates those