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.
I read with pleasure Dr. Friedman's interesting paper. I was especially impressed by his subtle discussion of the themes of the Gradiva and of the “Three Caskets” in Freud's work. I will give this part of his paper credit in my forthcoming book on The Problem of Death in Freud's Writing and Life (International Universities Press, to be published in 1966). Also, I dealt extensively with the theoretical aspect of Freud's death-instinct concept in a chapter of a monograph on The Concept Id and the Regulating Principles of Mental Functioning.
Unfortunately, Dr. Friedman's main point concerning the reasons in Freud's personal life which led him to the death-instinct theory in 1919 is based on incorrect information. That the death of Freud's daughter did not precede Freud's formulation of his death-instinct theory had already been stated by Jones (Vol. III, pp. 40-41). I will publish additional proof to that effect in my book.
Dr. Friedman's assumption that Freud's cancer had already started years before 1923 is also based on errors which can be traced to various publications (Hitschmann, Wittels, Eckstein). It was, for instance, assumed that a so-called “epulis” was the beginning of Freud's cancer. An “epulis” is an “inflammatory granuloma” which in old pathology textbooks was also called “giant-cell sarcoma.” It gets this name only because one finds in it certain giant cells, but it is never malignant. Freud's cancer was also linked to an injury of his jaw at the age of two. However, he had a scar over his left lower jawline—while his cancer was on the right side (see Jones, Vol. I, p. 7, footnote i). Freud did not have a “cancer of the jaw” but a malignant epithelioma, based on a leukoplakia.
In spite of these incorrect sources of information, Dr. Friedman will find some formulations about the adaptive value of Freud's death-instinct theory in my books which are not too dissimilar from the views expressed in the last paragraph of his paper, in which he calls—as I also do—